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.     

Administering a victim impact curriculum to inmates: a multi-site replication

While restorative justice has been the topic of much research, a specific type of program included in restorative justice, Impact of Crime (IOC) on Victims programs, has not been widely studied or assessed for effectiveness. This study examines IOC on Victims Curriculum Development Programs. Offenders from programs in California, Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia were participants in this research. A four-state evaluation methodology was developed in order to assess the effectiveness of these programs in educating offenders about victims’ right and victim facts, as well as increasing their sensitivity to victims’ difficulties. The findings in this evaluation lend support to previous studies, indicating efficacy for IOC programs. Suggestions for future research are briefly discussed.     

Management not models: adaptability,responsiveness, and a few lessons from football

Despite a swathe of critiques of logframes and other blueprint approaches to development over the last 30 years, most aid infrastructure continues to concentrate on the design and subsequent implementation of closed models. This article does not propose an alternative to blueprints, but challenges the inflexibility of their implementation, which is inadequate given the complex nature of social change. It proposes a supplementary management and learning approach which enables implementers to be dynamic, adaptive, and responsive to problems and opportunities. Emphasising the role of donors, the paper presents a case study of one donor-led programme in Bangladesh doing just this.     

Lawyers' Perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court: Is the Court a “Political” Institution?

Do legal elites—lawyers admitted to federal appellate bars—perceive the Supreme Court as a “political” institution? Legal elites differentiate themselves from the mass public in the amount and sources of information about the Court. They also hold near‐universal perceptions of Court legitimacy, a result we use to derive competing theoretical expectations regarding the impact of ideological disagreement on various Court perceptions. Survey data show that many legal elites perceive the Court as political in its decision making, while a minority perceive the Court as activist and influenced by external political forces. Ideological disagreement with the Court's outputs significantly elevates political perceptions of decision making, while it exhibits a null and moderate impact on perceptions of activism and external political influence, respectively. To justify negative affect derived from ideological disagreement, elites highlight the political aspects of the Court's decision making rather than engage in “global delegitimization” of the institution itself.     

War Crimes Prosecution in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-2002): An Analysis through the Jurisprudence of the Human Rights Chamber

The authors examine the efforts to bring persons suspected ofwar crimes committed during the 1992–1995 war in Bosniaand Herzegovina (BiH) to justice before the national judiciary.The analysis is based on the case law of the Human Rights Chamberfor BiH, which from 1996–2003 was the highest court competentto adjudicate violations of human rights in post-war BiH. TheChamber heard complaints linked to war-time atrocities fromtwo main perspectives: (i) that of persons put on trial forwar crimes and (ii) the perspective of the relatives of war-crimesvictims complaining about the failure to investigate and prosecute.The Chamber cases establish that (a) the few prosecutions whichtook place were nearly exclusively directed against suspectsbelonging to the war-time adversary, (b) the authorities failedto comply with the Rules of the Road (a procedure put in placeto enable the International Criminal Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia (ICTY) to supervise Bosnian war-crimes prosecutions)and (c) suspects were often severely ill-treated to extort confessionsand denied a fair trial. The rule, however, was the lack ofany investigatory or prosecutorial action, with the exceptionof the so-called ‘ethnically mixed’ Cantons of theFederation of BiH, where proceedings were sometimes initiatedbut failed to yield an appreciable outcome. The authors discussthree reasons for the poor record: (i) ethnic bias among theauthorities, (ii) disempowerment and passivity of the victimsand (iii) failure to enact legislation that would give effectto and clarify the BiH side of the obligation to exercise jurisdictionconcurrently with the ICTY. They finally set forth some suggestionson lessons to be learned for future attempts to bring justiceto a war-torn society by the concurrent exercise of criminaljurisdiction by an international court and the judiciary ofthe country in transition.