Score based procedures for the calculation of forensic likelihood ratios – Scores should take account of both similarity and typicality

Score based procedures for the calculation of forensic likelihood ratios are popular across different branches of forensic science. They have two stages, first a function or model which takes measured features from known-source and questioned-source pairs as input and calculates scores as output, then a subsequent model which converts scores to likelihood ratios. We demonstrate that scores which are purely measures of similarity are not appropriate for calculating forensically interpretable likelihood ratios. In addition to taking account of similarity between the questioned-origin specimen and the known-origin sample, scores must also take account of the typicality of the questioned-origin specimen with respect to a sample of the relevant population specified by the defence hypothesis. We use Monte Carlo simulations to compare the output of three score based procedures with reference likelihood ratio values calculated directly from the fully specified Monte Carlo distributions. The three types of scores compared are: 1. non-anchored similarity-only scores; 2. non-anchored similarity and typicality scores; and 3. known-source anchored same-origin scores and questioned-source anchored different-origin scores. We also make a comparison with the performance of a procedure using a dichotomous “match”/“non-match” similarity score, and compare the performance of 1 and 2 on real data.     

Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Equitable Sharing Activity by the Police

Research Summary

For several decades, critics have argued that civil forfeiture laws create incentives for law enforcement to increase departmental revenue by “policing for profit.” By using data on federal equitable sharing payments to nearly 600 local law enforcement agencies between 2000 and 2012, we examine the relationship between the characteristics of state forfeiture laws and equitable sharing payments to local agencies. Our results indicate that agencies in states with state laws that are more restrictive or less rewarding to police collect more in federal equitable sharing. This finding supports the critics’ argument that police behavior in regard to forfeiture activities is influenced by the financial rewards and burdens involved.

Policy Implications

Our results reveal that the findings of investigative journalism and case study research, that is, that police forfeiture activities are influenced by financial rewards, may be more generalizable to law enforcement than previously thought. Despite recent state‐level reforms, federal equitable sharing and most state forfeiture laws provide limited due process protections and have minimal accountability or reporting requirements. Concerns about the impact of civil forfeiture practices on perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy are discussed, and possible policy reforms are reviewed.     

Right place,right time: Increasing the effectiveness of agricultural development support in sub-Saharan Africa

This paper suggests that smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are well placed to seize the opportunities from expanding global and regional demand for agricultural products but that this will require a shift from extensive to more intensive production systems. The ability of SSA's smallholder farmers to increase on-farm investments in productivity is, however, constrained by their capacity to manage the risk-return trade-offs in moving towards intensified agriculture. While stakeholders are increasing their investments to assist smallholders in SSA to participate in integrated supply chains, the returns in terms of technical and financial results from these investments are generally lower than in other developing regions. This paper suggests that this is, at least in part, a consequence of problems associated with the role of spatial and temporal coordination in program delivery. Hence, much more focus needs to be devoted to delivering goods and services for smallholders at the right place and the right time, and this should be better monitored and evaluated in the context of development programs.     

Democratic transition

Democratic Transition and Consolidation in Southern Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia, edited by Diane Ethier. Macmillan, Basingstoke and London, 1990. xii+280 pp. £37.50. ISBN 0–333–52128–5.

The Process of Democratization: A Comparative Study of 147 States 1980–88, by Tatu Vanhanen. Taylor & Francis, London and New York, 1900. viii+328 pp. £39 hardback, £25 paperback. ISBN 0–8448–1640‐X and 0–8448–1641–8.     

The publication of Australian Press Council Adjudication 1468: a failure to meet ‘due prominence’ requirements

The Australian Press Council, the print media self‐regulation body in Australia that receives and adjudicates complaints by the public, states that upheld adjudications are to be published with ‘due prominence’. The Council defines ‘due prominence’ as publishing the adjudication such that it is ‘likely to be read by those who saw the offending material’. In 2010 the Council upheld a complaint about misleading material that occurred on the front page of a newspaper. The complaint included that the misleading front page material triggered a large number of insulting letters about the person in that story which the newspaper published the following day. The newspaper published the upheld adjudication (no. 1468) on the letters page even though the primary offending material occurred on the front page. Rather than seek re‐publication in a more prominent location, the Australian Press Council accepted the newspaper's placement as satisfying their ‘due prominence’ requirement. Given the apparent inconsistency between publication of the adjudication on the letters page and the ‘likely to be read by’ definition of due prominence, we provided 100 adult newspaper readers with brief details of the upheld complaint and the definition of due prominence and asked where in the paper the adjudication should be published. Contrary to the Council's acceptance of the location of the newspaper's publication of the adjudication, the vast majority of newspaper readers (88%) responded with the front page (62%) or the first three pages (26%). This discrepancy is discussed in the context of the efficacy of self‐regulation and the ethical standards of bodies charged with ethical governance. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.