A partially randomized field experiment on the effect of an acoustic gunshot detection system on police incident reports

Journal of Experimental Criminology - To examine whether the introduction of an acoustic gunshot detection system (AGDS) allied to CCTV cameras increased the frequency of confirmed incidents of...     

The Identity of Person and World in <Emphasis Type="Italic">Caraka Saṃhitā</Emphasis> 4.5

This paper examines the puru?a concept in the Caraka Sa?hitā (CS), an early text of Ayurveda, and its relation to Indic thinking about phenomenal worldhood. It argues that, contrary to the usual interpretation, early Ayurveda does not consider the person to be a microcosmic replication of the macrocosmos. Instead, early Ayurveda asserts that personhood is worldhood, and thus the person is non-different from the phenomenal totality (spatial and temporal) of his existence. This is confirmed by the CS’s several definitions of puru?a, which are alternately posed in terms familiar to Vai?e?ika, early (pre-“classical”) Sā?khya, early Buddhism, and Upani?adic monism. It is likewise confirmed by the Ayurvedic logic of sāmānya (translated as “identity”), which governs the meaning of the list of person-to-world correspondences in CS 4.5 and its often misinterpreted claim, puru?o’yam lokasa?mita?. Finally it is confirmed in the program of Ayurvedic therapeutics, which aims at establishing various kinds of “appropriateness” for the sake of effecting samayoga—the “harmonious joining” of person and world.     

Friends You Can Trust: A Signaling Theory of Interest Group Litigation Before the U.S. Supreme Court

How do interest groups influence U.S. Supreme Court justices to vote in favor of their preferred outcomes? Following prior research on the influence of the Solicitor General, we develop and expand on the signaling theory of interest group influence via amicus curie briefs. We argue that an interest group's ideological reputation and the nature of the ideological signal it sends in its brief both function as powerful heuristics that convey information to the justices depending on the justices' own ideological preferences. When an organization files an amicus brief advocating for an outcome seemingly contrary to its traditional preferences (i.e., an unexpected signal), this signal should be more noticeable and credible than a signal in accordance with a group's conventional views (i.e., an expected signal). However, unexpected signals should have greater influence on justices who share the brief filer's preferences. We test our signaling theory on the terms from 1991 through 2002. We find that unexpected signals (but not expected signals) are associated with Supreme Court voting, and the influence of unexpected signals appears to be particularly strong among justices who share the ideological preferences of the brief filer.     

The Value of CCTV Surveillance Cameras as an Investigative Tool: An Empirical Analysis

There has been extensive research on the value of closed-circuit television (CCTV) for preventing crime, but little on its value as an investigative tool. This study sought to establish how often CCTV provides useful evidence and how this is affected by circumstances, analysing 251,195 crimes recorded by British Transport Police that occurred on the British railway network between 2011 and 2015. CCTV was available to investigators in 45% of cases and judged to be useful in 29% (65% of cases in which it was available). Useful CCTV was associated with significantly increased chances of crimes being solved for all crime types except drugs/weapons possession and fraud. Images were more likely to be available for more-serious crimes, and less likely to be available for cases occurring at unknown times or in certain types of locations. Although this research was limited to offences on railways, it appears that CCTV is a powerful investigative tool for many types of crime. The usefulness of CCTV is limited by several factors, most notably the number of public areas not covered. Several recommendations for increasing the usefulness of CCTV are discussed.     

Validating TrueAllele® DNA mixture interpretation

Abstract: DNA mixtures with two or more contributors are a prevalent form of biological evidence. Mixture interpretation is complicated by the possibility of different genotype combinations that can explain the short tandem repeat (STR) data. Current human review simplifies this interpretation by applying thresholds to qualitatively treat STR data peaks as all‐or‐none events and assigning allele pairs equal likelihood. Computer review, however, can work instead with all the quantitative data to preserve more identification information. The present study examined the extent to which quantitative computer interpretation could elicit more identification information than human review from the same adjudicated two‐person mixture data. The base 10 logarithm of a DNA match statistic is a standard information measure that permits such a comparison. On eight mixtures having two unknown contributors, we found that quantitative computer interpretation gave an average information increase of 6.24 log units (min = 2.32, max = 10.49) over qualitative human review. On eight other mixtures with a known victim reference and one unknown contributor, quantitative interpretation averaged a 4.67 log factor increase (min = 1.00, max = 11.31) over qualitative review. This study provides a general treatment of DNA interpretation methods (including mixtures) that encompasses both quantitative and qualitative review. Validation methods are introduced that can assess the efficacy and reproducibility of any DNA interpretation method. An in‐depth case example highlights 10 reasons (at 10 different loci) why quantitative probability modeling preserves more identification information than qualitative threshold methods. The results validate TrueAllele^® DNA mixture interpretation and establish a significant information improvement over human review.     

Suicide by asphyxiation due to helium inhalation

Suicide by asphyxiation using helium is the most widely-promoted method of "self-deliverance" by right-to-die advocates. However, little is known about persons committing such suicides or the circumstances and manner in which they are completed. Prior reports of suicides by asphyxiation involving helium were reviewed and deaths determined by the North Carolina Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to be helium-associated asphyxial suicides occurring between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2008 were included in a new case series examined in this article. The 10 asphyxial suicides involving helium identified in North Carolina tended to occur almost exclusively in non-Hispanic, white men who were relatively young (M age = 41.1 T 11.6). In 6 of 10 cases, decedents suffered from significant psychiatric dysfunction; in 3 of these 6 cases, psychiatric disorders were present comorbidly with substance abuse. In none of these cases were decedents suffering from terminal illness. Most persons committing suicide with helium were free of terminal illness but suffered from psychiatric and/or substance use disorders.     

Perceptions of Safety in Intimate Relationships: Group Differences Based on Gender and Setting

Intimate partner violence continues to be prevalent, resulting in negative consequences for the individuals involved and for society as a whole. Perceptions of safety in relationships where intimate partner violence is present is an understudied topic in the literature. The Safety Assessment of Future Events Scale (SAFE) was developed to assess respondents’ perceptions of safety in their intimate relationship. The purpose of this study was to examine whether group differences existed on respondents’ SAFE scores. 428 participants from community and clinic samples completed the SAFE and other measures contained in a southwest university’s marriage and family therapy clinic intake packet. ANCOVA was used to control for gender and setting in determining if group differences existed on the SAFE based on measures assessing interpersonal violence, relational adjustment, intrapersonal symptoms, and PTSD symptoms. Results indicated group differences based on gender, interpersonal violence victimization, and relational adjustment.     

The “Same,Related, or Interrelated” Acts or Claims Provision: Insurers’ Efforts to Expand the Reasonable Application of Such Provisions to Deny or Otherwise Limit Coverage under Claims-Made Policies

Claims-made insurance policies often contain provisions regarding the treatment of the same, related, or interrelated acts or claims. Such language may affect the number of policy limits and retentions available as well as the timing of when multiple claims are deemed made. This article examines sample policy language as to the same, related, or interrelated acts or claims provisions as well as the disparate case law interpreting such provisions. The result is several principles to guide policyholders in the application of such language and to counter insurers’ efforts to unreasonably use such language to limit or deny coverage.     

A Retributive Argument Against Punishment

This paper proposes a retributive argument against punishment, where punishment is understood as going beyond condemnation or censure, and requiring hard treatment. The argument sets out to show that punishment cannot be justified. The argument does not target any particular attempts to justify punishment, retributive or otherwise. Clearly, however, if it succeeds, all such attempts fail. No argument for punishment is immune from the argument against punishment proposed here. The argument does not purport to be an argument only against retributive justifications of punishment, and so leave open the possibility of a sound non-retributive justification of punishment. Punishment cannot be justified, the paper argues, because it cannot be demonstrated that any punishment, no matter how minimal, is not a disproportionate retributive response to criminal wrongdoing. If we are to hold onto proportionality—that is, proportionality as setting a limit to morally permissible punishment—then punishment is morally impermissible. The argument is a retributive argument against punishment insofar as a just retributive response to wrongdoing must be proportionate to the wrongdoing. The argument, that is, is concerned with proportionality as a retributive requirement. The argument against punishment is set out on the basis of a familiar version of the ‘anchoring problem’, according to which it is the problem of determining the most severe punishment to anchor or ground the punishment scale. To meet the possible criticism that we have chosen a version of the anchoring problem particularly favourable to our argument, various alternative statements of the anchoring problem are considered. Considering such statements also provides a more rounded view of the anchoring problem. One such alternative holds that the punishment scale must be anchored not just in the most severe punishment, but in the least severe punishment as well. Other alternatives hold that it is necessary and sufficient to anchor the punishment scale in any two punishments, neither of which needs to be the most or least severe punishment. A further suggestion is that one anchoring point anywhere along the punishment scale is sufficient, because it is possible to ‘project’ from such a point, so as to determine the correlative punishments for all other crimes, and so derive a complete punishment scale. Finally, the suggestion is considered that one can approach the issue of a punishment scale ‘holistically’, denying any distinction between anchoring and derived (or ‘projected’) punishments.