Dental participants in mass disasters--a retrospective study with future implications

Mass casualty incidents continue to require the services of forensic dentists to determine the identity of victims. Across North America and Europe. teams of forensic dentists train, using mock disaster exercises, to prepare for such duties. It is vital that these mock exercises simulate the features of real disaster situations as far as possible. In order to inform those responsible for the design and implementation of mock exercises, a study was undertaken to determine the features of actual disasters that dental personnel had attended. Using a questionnaire, data were solicited from 38 odontologists. The average number of disasters attended by the respondents was eight, with an average casualty number of 94. Aircraft crashes were the most frequent cause of disasters that were attended by the odontologists. The authors conclude that future mock disaster exercises should replicate features of aircraft crashes as closely as possible by using commingled, fragmented, and burned remains. In addition, mock disasters should require the identification of a realistic number of individuals to ensure authenticity and the maximum logistical preparedness of participants.     

All Male Panels? Representation and Democratic Legitimacy

What does women's presence in political decision‐making bodies signal to citizens? Do these signals differ based on the body's policy decisions? And do women and men respond to women's presence similarly? Though scholars have demonstrated the substantive and symbolic benefits of women's representation, little work has examined how women's presence affects citizens' perceptions of democratic legitimacy. We test the relationship between representation and legitimacy beliefs through survey experiments on a nationally representative sample of U.S. citizens. First, we find that women's equal presence legitimizes decisions that go against women's interests. We show suggestive evidence that this effect is particularly pronounced among men, who tend to hold less certain views on women's rights. Second, across decision outcomes and issue areas, women's equal presence legitimizes decision‐making processes and confers institutional trust and acquiescence. These findings add new theoretical insights into how, when, and for whom inclusive representation increases perceptions of democratic legitimacy.     

“Kind of Natural,Kind of Wrong”: Young People's Beliefs about the Morality,Legality, and Normalcy of Sexual Aggression in Public Drinking Settings

Unwelcome touching, groping, and kissing are illegal, but widely tolerated in public drinking settings. This contingency in the law's response means that patrons routinely negotiate the moral boundaries of nonconsensual sexual contact. We use 197 interviews with college‐age individuals to examine the discursive strategies young people employ when negotiating those boundaries. We find that most interviewees have experiences with sexual aggression, do not categorize it as aggression, but advocate for stronger legal punishments against offenders. In accounting for this paradox, they draw on contradictory legal and cultural narratives that both normalize and condemn men's sexual aggression. We build on legal consciousness theories and gender theories by highlighting the complex ways that gender stereotypes enshrined in law are implicated in the construction of a social problem. We also contribute to the sociology of culture by explicating the often unconscious link between culture and action revealed in young people's narratives about sexual aggression.