Morphine-3-D glucuronide stability in postmortem specimens exposed to bacterial enzymatic hydrolysis

Medical examiners frequently rely on the finding of free morphine present in postmortem specimens to assist in certifying deaths associated with narcotics. In vitro hydrolysis of morphine-3-D glucuronide (M3DG) to free morphine was studied using variable specimen pH, initial degree of specimen putrefaction, storage temperature and time, and the effectiveness of sodium fluoride (NaF) preservation. Reagent M3DG was added to opiate-free fresh blood and urine and to autopsy-derived blood specimens. Reagent bovine glucuronidase was also added to certain specimens. Freshly collected and refrigerated NaF-preserved blood produced minimal free morphine, whereas four of five autopsy blood specimens produced free morphine from M3DG. Increased storage time, temperature, and initial degree of putrefaction resulted in greater free morphine generation despite the absence of viable bacteria. Hydrolysis occurring during specimen storage can generate free morphine from M3DG and may result in erroneous conclusions in certifying narcotic deaths.     

Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research

The growth of mass media has complicated the relatioship between the courts and the media. Free press and fair trial rights are kept in balance by the use of judicial restraints and remedies such asvoir dire, change of venue, and gag orders. This balance has shifted back and forth during the past two decades. Current case law and legal codes are inconsistent and provide insufficient guidance to judges in their use of restraints and remedies. Nor is there a body of empirical research on the impact of news coverage and juror behavior capable of informing the courts at this time. In this paper, we review and critically assess the empirical social science literature as it pertains to the legal issues involving free press and fair trial. We argue that carefully conducted empirical research could provide important information to the courts. We suggest research directions and methodological caveats to increase legal relevance and scientific validity.     

Compliance with the law

The effectiveness of law as an instrument of social control depends on the assumptions lawmakers and implementers have about human behavior. The tax laws offer a good example of the difficulties in trying to anticipate what people will do in response to various legal requirements. This paper proposes a new approach to understanding tax compliance drawn from behavioral decision theory. The paper discusses the issue of rationality, explores the strategies people use to make taxpaying decisions, focuses on the distinction between norm-processing and outcome-processing strategies, and presents some implications of this approach for research and for legal policy making.     

Prediction,Proxies, and Power

Many enduring questions in international relations theory focus on power relations, so it is important that scholars have a good measure of relative power. The standard measure of relative military power, the capability ratio, is barely better than random guessing at predicting militarized dispute outcomes. We use machine learning to build a superior proxy, the Dispute Outcome Expectations (DOE) score, from the same underlying data. Our measure is an order of magnitude better than the capability ratio at predicting dispute outcomes. We replicate Reed et al. (2008) and find, contrary to the original conclusions, that the probability of conflict is always highest when the state with the least benefits has a preponderance of power. In replications of 18 other dyadic analyses that use power as a control, we find that replacing the standard measure with DOE scores usually improves both in‐sample and out‐of‐sample goodness of fit.     

Using Bayesian Aldrich‐McKelvey Scaling to Study Citizens' Ideological Preferences and Perceptions

Aldrich‐McKelvey scaling is a powerful method that corrects for differential‐item functioning (DIF) in estimating the positions of political stimuli (e.g., parties and candidates) and survey respondents along a latent policy dimension from issue scale data. DIF arises when respondents interpret issue scales (e.g., the standard liberal‐conservative scale) differently and distort their placements of the stimuli and themselves. We develop a Bayesian implementation of the classical maximum likelihood Aldrich‐McKelvey scaling method that overcomes some important shortcomings in the classical procedure. We then apply this method to study citizens' ideological preferences and perceptions using data from the 2004–2012 American National Election Studies and the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Our findings indicate that DIF biases self‐placements on the liberal‐conservative scale in a way that understates the extent of polarization in the contemporary American electorate and that citizens have remarkably accurate perceptions of the ideological positions of senators and Senate candidates.     

When complex facts threaten court reviews: Litigation over navigation projects

The capacity of the U.S. courts to provide effective review of cases involving complex scientific and economic analysis is declining. Rational action in such cases requires three things: a general rule by which to judge the appropriateness of actual or proposed actions; a set of facts sufficient for determining the consistency of the action with the general rule; and an independent review institution with power to enforce actions under the rule. Where the issues are complex, however, government agencies increasingly have tended to cloak their decisions in needlessly technical formulations and to buttress their presentations in masses of impenetrable data. Courts tend to avoid involvement in the complexities, resting instead on a presumption that government reports are accurate and government actions appropriate; this is a tendency we label “judicial math block.” Two cases taken from the complex area of public navigation investment illustrate the problem.     

The influence of length of marriage and fidelity status on perception of marital rape

To what extent does the length of the marriage or the wife's faithfulness to the husband influence the perception of responsibility or trauma in marital rape? In the current study, each participant was presented with one of four marital rape vignettes. The vignettes varied only in the length of the marriage (3 years or 15 years) and the fidelity status of the wife (continuously faithful or involved in an ongoing sexual affair with another man). Results indicate that both length of marriage and fidelity status significantly influence perceptions of marital rape. Specifically, participants assigned greater responsibility for the rape to unfaithful wives than to faithful wives. This finding is particularly salient for wives in long-term marriages as compared to wives in short-term marriages. Additionally, participants perceived rapes within long-term marriages as more traumatic than rapes within short-term marriages.