State Wildlife Policy and Management: The Scope and Bias of Political Conflict

State wildlife policy and management are often characterized by divisive political conflict among competing stakeholders. This conflict is increasingly being resolved through the ballot-initiative process. One important reason the process is being used so often is the way state wildlife policy and management decisions are often made by state wildlife commissions, boards, or councils (the dominant way these decisions are made in the United States). These bodies are often perceived by important stakeholders as biased, exclusive, or unrepresentative of nonconsumptive stakeholder values. As a result, unsatisfied interest groups often try to take decision-making authority away from these institutions and give it to the public through the ballot initiative. Cases and examples from Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, and Idaho are examined in this context. The article finishes by outlining four broad alternatives that may be debated in the future: the no change alternative, the authoritative expert alternative, the structural change alternative, and the stakeholder-based collaborative conservation alternative(s).     

Re-imagining crime prevention: controlling corporate crime?

While the discourses and practices of crime prevention are of increasing salience, few criminologists have sought the inclusion of corporate illegalities on such agendas. Relatedly, within criminology, there has been a diminished tendency to think in idealistic, utopian and emancipatory terms. This paper is one small attempt to think in precisely such terms.¹ But it is not an exercise in pure imagination. In particular, the paper makes extended reference to Finland, where recent experience suggests that corporate crime prevention may be feasible, under certain conditions, albeit subject to certain limitations. Thus we consider both the desirability and the feasibility of corporate crime prevention intruding upon the generally narrowly constructed terrain of ‘crime prevention’. We begin with a critique of some of the key aspects of crime prevention discourses – at both theoretical and practical levels – with a particular emphasis upon the extent to which these are both more appropriately and usefully applied to corporate crime prevention, before going on to discuss corporate crime prevention ‘in action’, through a focus upon recent developments in Finland. In a concluding section, we consider various aspects of both the desirability and feasibility of corporate crime prevention.     

Introduction of a standardized "paternity index" for the statistical evaluation of blood group findings in paternity testing

The introduction of a standardized paternity index (PI) for the statistical evaluation of blood group findings in cases of disputed paternity is proposed and explained. By using the PI $\text{X}\text{Y}$ as parameter, it is not necessary to give the information of the probability of paternity in percent. The PI includes the full information of the blood group findings. In addition to that, by using the suggested standardization based on the probabilities of error according to Schulte Mönting and Walter the test volume is also taken into account. The interpretation of the mathematical result is given by verbal predicates, the limitations of which are orientated by the verbal predicates for the probabilities of error according to Schulte Mönting and Walter, published by us elsewhere. Besides the essential fact that the test volume is taken into account, the most important advantage of this procedure is that the mathematical result is involved in the court decision only by the PI (which is free of any valuation) and its verbal predicate and not by sometimes relatively high percentages, which may be misunderstood by laymen.