USING A JURY SIMULATION AS A CLASSROOM EXERCISE

The authors' empirical research project considers the effects of differences in actual legal rules on jury decisions and, concurrently, gives business students the opportunity to participate in a realistic jury experience. The project uses actual trial evidence to produce a videotaped simulated trial presentation thereby insuring that the testimony, legal arguments, jury instructions and facts are realistic. To date, approximately 2,000 business students have participated in the simulation, under the supervision of 13 different Academy members at 11 different universities. This article describes the project and its curricular benefits within the context of an introductory course in law.     

Betwixt balance and community: America, ASEAN, and the security of Southeast Asia

Realist scholars have long claimed, not incorrectly, that aUS-led balance of power is fundamental to the security and prosperityof Southeast Asia. Yet the Southeast Asian experience has alsobeen one where multilateral security dialogue and regional communityformation figure prominently. In contrast to views which exaggeratethe importance of US preponderance in Southeast Asia whilstdismissing regional multilateral efforts, we offer seven argumentsagainst any undue overstatement of the US contribution to regionalpeace and stability. If anything, a historically ambivalentUS presence contributed to ASEAN's emergence as a mechanismof regional diplomacy. Such ambivalence is no longer feasiblesince 9/11. However, Washington's current engagement in SoutheastAsia should focus on revitalizing regional multilateralism.Our claim is not that the region's security is due to ASEANregionalism rather than US strategic dominance. We argue insteadthat absent the region's fluency with ‘soft’ multilateralism,Southeast Asia's security would probably have been far worse.

SoutheastAsians are more acutely aware of the uncertainties of U.S. policiesthan other regions of the world. They remember the Americanretrenchment in the 1970s followed by a decade of self-doubt.Hence ASEAN countries drew towards each other to seek greaterstrength in self-reliance. They found that together in ASEAN,they could better overcome their problems; but they still needthe United States to balance the strength of the Soviet shipsand aircraft. The renewal of self-confidence in America hasreassured us that America will help maintain the peace and stabilityof the region. It is this balance of power which has enabledthe free market economies to thrive. – Lee Kuan Yew¹

     

Changing Global Landscape and Enhanced US Engagement with Asia—Challenges and Emerging Trends

United States President Barack Obama's announcement of significant shifts in US polices towards the Middle East and East Asia in 2009 has affected the global strategic landscape. President Obama's announcement of enhanced US engagement with Asia has posed certain challenges to the prevailing regional architecture of ASEAN centric institutions and ASEAN centrality which has fostered peace and stability, and prosperity in the region. The rise of China and its growing political and economic influence in the region and its military modernisation have aroused US concern that a rising China could in the future challenge its primacy in the Asia region. President Obama's announcement of a web of military alliances of treaty allies and strategic partners with the stationing of US marines in Darwin in November 2011 was perceived by China as an attempt by the US to contain China or constrain its rise. ASEAN is uneasy about any emergence of big power rivalry in the region.     

Translational criminology and its importance in policing: a review

ABSTRACT

Translational criminology is a decision-making perspective that emphasizes the dynamic coproduction of evidence by researchers and practitioners, focusing on obstacles to and facilitators of evidence generation and utilization. It incorporates several other data-driven decision-making models, including evidence-based policy making. This review suggests that the availability of empirical research is no longer the most significant impediment to evidence-based policing. Rather, translating and implementing knowledge about ‘what works‘ in policing has arisen as the field’s primary barrier to securing the effectiveness and efficiency improvements of research and data utilization. This article orients readers to translational criminology’s various components and explores their applications. Focusing on four central considerations, this review explores the roles of researcher practitioner partnerships, policy, technology, and government in developing and sustaining translational efforts in policing. The review concludes by acknowledging challenges to fostering a translational perspective in policing, and offers examples of where it has been applied with success.     

Training in the Strategic Use of Evidence technique: Improving deception detection accuracy of American law enforcement officers

The Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) approach is a framework for planning and executing suspect interviews with the aim of facilitating judgments of truth and deception. US law enforcement officers (N = 59) either received training in the SUE approach or did not. Each officer interviewed a mock suspect (N = 59) who had either committed a simulated security breach or had completed a benign task. The officers who received SUE training interviewed in line with the training: They questioned the suspect systematically, withheld the evidence and critical case information until after questioning, and relied on statement-evidence inconsistency to detect deceit. Consequently, SUE-trained interviewers achieved a higher deception detection accuracy rate (65%) compared to untrained interviewers (43%).     

Rescuing constructivism from the constructivists: a critical reading of constructivist interventions in Southeast Asian security

Abstract

Constructivist contributions to the study of Southeast Asian security raise much-needed awareness of identity concerns and introduce conceptual and methodological innovations into the study of identity. However, their shared rationalist proclivity to couple subjectivity with sovereignty revives the enduring problem of treating agency as ultimately pre-given. Contrary to their professed aim to restore to security studies an appreciation for history and practice, the contributions of many Southeast Asia constructivists are quite tellingly essentialist, particularly their concessions to state-centrism and ideational/normative determinism, both due partly to an uncritical emulation of rationalist constructivist perspectives in International Relations (IR) theory. In granting ontological priority to states, Southeast Asia constructivists cannot fully transcend reification because their denaturalizing of international anarchy or regions comes at the expense of a reified state. In reifying either the state or ideas/norms, their claim to privilege practice in their analyses of Southeast Asian security becomes suspect. But if process and practice are to be taken seriously, then Southeast Asia constructivists must avoid presuming a preordained subjectivity that invalidates their claim to study social construction.