How much power do oppositions have? Comparing the opportunity structures of parliamentary oppositions in 21 democracies

A political system cannot be imagined without opposition. Despite this crucial position in politics, political science has largely neglected to study oppositions. Attempting to fill this gap, this article analyses the institutional opportunities of parliamentary oppositions. It offers a parsimonious framework by distinguishing two dimensions of opposition influence: some institutions enable oppositions to control governments, while others offer opportunities to present alternatives. A comparison of oppositions’ opportunities in 21 democracies shows that countries fall into four groups along these dimensions: in majoritarian democracies, weak control mechanisms are countered by excellent opportunities to publicise alternatives. Consociational democracies are characterised by strong control mechanisms, but provide only weak opportunities to present alternatives. Moreover, in Southern Europe, control mechanisms and opportunities to present alternatives are weak, while both are pronounced in Nordic Europe. The results are summarised in three indices that can easily be applied in future research examining oppositions and their power.     

Reconceptualising the Custody Threshold in England and Wales

The custody threshold provision in England and Wales was intended to operate as a limit on the use of custodial sentences, preserving what is the system’s most severe sanction for the most serious offences. However over the past few decades it has become apparent that the custody threshold is failing. Academics have discussed the reasons for this failure, which has seen the prison population double in space of a quarter of a century. This piece explores the custody threshold in the context of the use of custody in other Western European jurisdictions. It examines the courts’ response to the provision and various judicial attempts to amplify Parliament’s language. The authors then consider the academic critiques of the custody threshold provision, analysing the extent to which said criticism can be seen as a solution to the problem, before offering a new critique of their own. Finally, in a move towards more a more principled approach to the custody threshold, the piece offers a solution which would, it is argued, make the provision more effective and more theoretically sound.     

Bayesian analysis of fingerprint, face and signature evidences with automatic biometric systems

The Bayesian approach provides a unified and logical framework for the analysis of evidence and to provide results in the form of likelihood ratios (LR) from the forensic laboratory to court. In this contribution we want to clarify how the biometric scientist or laboratory can adapt their conventional biometric systems or technologies to work according to this Bayesian approach. Forensic systems providing their results in the form of LR will be assessed through Tippett plots, which give a clear representation of the LR-based performance both for targets (the suspect is the author/source of the test pattern) and non-targets. However, the computation procedures of the LR values, especially with biometric evidences, are still an open issue. Reliable estimation techniques showing good generalization properties for the estimation of the between- and within-source variabilities of the test pattern are required, as variance restriction techniques in the within-source density estimation to stand for the variability of the source with the course of time. Fingerprint, face and on-line signature recognition systems will be adapted to work according to this Bayesian approach showing both the likelihood ratios range in each application and the adequacy of these biometric techniques to the daily forensic work.     

Shakespeare,procreation, and progress

His books include The Economics of Population Growth; The Ultimate Resource; Theory of Population and Economic Growth: Effort, Opportunity and Wealth; The Economic Consequences of Immigration;and most recently Population Matters: People, Resources, Environment and Immigration,published by Transaction.     

The regulation of cognitive enhancement devices: refining Maslen et?al.'s model

Our (2014) model for the regulation of cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs) received a great deal of interest from those involved in European device regulation and from academic commentators. Further, since the publication of our recommendations, the number of manufacturers of brain stimulation devices for non-medical purposes has increased, underscoring the need for a regulatory response. In this paper, we clarify aspects of our original proposal and address additional regulatory issues beyond our original focus on the sale of devices. We begin with theoretical points pertaining to the definition of a CED and the distinction between treatment and enhancement. We then respond to practical challenges raised by the prospect of implementing our regulatory framework. Next, we address some wider societal considerations relating to users and other stakeholders. Finally, we revisit the broader regulatory context within which the various discussions are situated.