Convention effects: examining the impact of national presidential nominating conventions on information,preferences, and behavioral intentions

We ask whether and how US presidential nominating conventions matter in contemporary US elections. Using individual-level panel data, we find evidence that the conventions exert important effects on the electorate by influencing post-convention intentions to participate in electoral politics, knowledge about the candidates, and candidate favorability ratings, even after controlling for pre-convention intentions, knowledge, and candidate ratings. We conclude that conventions remain important campaign events that play a role in facilitating democratic processes in America.     

Poetic Justice: An Interpretation of Lawyers’ Reactions to Verse Judgments

This article offers an interpretation of lawyers’ reactions to verse judgments, being judicial decisions rendered in rhymed poetry form. While, in recent history, there has been an unexplained break in the close historical connection between poetry and law, some judges nevertheless continue to render their judicial decisions in verse. This has met strong criticism from fellow judges, inevitably, but also from lawyers. However, there is no evidence in academic writing of anyone attempting to explain why lawyers are having these reactions. Endeavouring to fill that void, this research employs hermeneutics to offer an interpretation of lawyers’ reactions to verse judgments. The article analyses the varied opinions uncovered in five qualitative interviews with lawyers of different backgrounds, and contends that a movement of poetry back towards its utilitarian origins would see lawyers change their reaction to verse judgments, instead viewing them as an appropriate form of judicial expression.     

The Impact of Unpunished Hate Crimes: When Derogating the Victim Extends into Derogating the Group

Just world research has shown that observers derogate victims more for their misfortunes if the perpetrator is not harshly punished (Lerner in J Personal Soc Psychol 1(4):355–360, 1980). However, few studies have investigated minority group derogation as a just world preservation strategy after instances of intergroup harm-doing. This study is among the first to demonstrate the derogation of both individual victims and of the victim’s minority group experimentally, using the context of a racist hate crime in Australia. In the present experiment, participants (N = 110) read a news article describing a hate crime against an Aboriginal Australian teenager and were informed that the perpetrator was harshly or leniently punished (secure vs. justice threat condition). Our results show that in the justice threat condition, participants not only derogated the individual Aboriginal Australian victim more after his death, they also expressed greater racism toward the victim’s group. An indirect effect of the justice threat condition on modern racism via individual victim derogation was observed, along with moderating effects of individual differences in belief in a just world. These findings provide support for the alarming hypothesis that racist hate crimes are not only the manifestation of a racist society, but may also bolster racial prejudices if leniently treated. The results highlight the important role of political and judicial authorities, whose response or non-response to a hate crime can exacerbate or ameliorate existing prejudices.     

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.: Supreme Court Expands Rights of Regulated Parties to Challenge Agency Decisions

This article analyzes the potential impacts of the Supreme Court's recent decision in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Prior to this decision, federal agency action that merely provided information could not be challenged because of the Administrative Procedure Act allowed parties to challenge only “final agency action.” The Court recognized that some actions that merely provide information can be final because they have legal consequences. To understand the extent to which the Hawkes decision expands the right to challenge agency action, the article compares the Hawkes decision with the Court's decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, where the Court also discussed the issue of “final agency action.” The article concludes that the Court's reasoning regarding what type of consequences make an action “final” is the key to understanding what regulatory action can now be challenged.     

Occupational exposure to traumatic evidence and posttraumatic stress symptoms in forensic science professionals: Prevalence and patterns

Forensic science professionals are routinely exposed to potentially traumatizing evidence. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of occupational posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among forensic science professionals, identify job-related correlates of PTSD symptoms, and examine the role of social support in mitigating PTSD symptomology. In response to recruitment through the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, and Evidence Technology Magazine, 449 forensic science professionals participated in the current study. Results found that 73.5% (n = 330) of the overall sample experienced at least one work-related traumatic event consistent with meeting Criterion A for PTSD, and these rates were higher for field-based respondents (n = 203, 87.9%). The prevalence of past-month provisional PTSD was 21.6% for the full sample. Disaggregated PTSD rates were 29.0% and 14.5% for field-based and non-field-based respondents, respectively. These rates were 6- to 8-fold higher than the past-year prevalence of PTSD in the general US population, estimated to be 3.5%, and were found to be at least as high as those observed in prior epidemiological research with non-treatment seeking members of the US military deployed to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Results further showed that social support was protective against PTSD symptomology. The high rates of occupational exposure to trauma and consequent PTSD symptomology observed in this large sample of forensic science professionals highlight the under-acknowledged psychological risks of these occupations and the need for enhanced attention to mental health resources for these professionals.     

Should Banks Change Their Environmental Due Diligence Policies to Reflect the Revised USEPA Rule on All Appropriate Inquiry?

This article raises questions about the environmental due diligence programs common among lenders and suggests changes. The article describes the statutory, regulatory, and case law changes that have largely eliminated the liability risk that caused lenders to institute due diligence programs, and questions whether lenders have an interest in requiring borrowers to follow the new ASTM standard. The article examines the differences between environmental liabilities and environmental costs and explains why those differences should be taken into account. Finally, the article recommends a case-by-case approach to dealing with environmental issues rather than the simplistic view that looks at environmental due diligence as a yes or no question.     

The State of Nature and Laws of Seinfeld: Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That

Seinfeld (1989–1998) and it’s co-creator’s Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000–present), are each considered groundbreaking television. Critics regard their humor and intellectual comedy as Twain-like and creative. While both shows have been criticized for their character’s indifference and apolitical attitude, the programs resonate with those in society who more subtly consider law and politics. This project argues that Seinfeld and Curb present a unique theory of justice. These two shows constitute a common and current image of what is just in society. While critics have argued that Seinfeld and Curb are not shows about nothing, I argue that these comedians offer us a legal philosophy. For those who view these characters as merely “self-absorbed, superficial, and immature,” I posit that they represent the obscure area between what John Locke termed “the state of nature” and what legal scholars call “legal culture.” I propose that these sitcoms demonstrate a way of speaking about law that provides a constitutive theory of law and justice.     

A cultural theory of budgeting

My aim is to bring together various strands of thought about the relationship between cultures and budgets into a single essay. Cultural theory is a way to bring what different people want and why they want it into budgeting. If cultures are conqruent with budgetary processes, this symmetry should show up in the standard topics of the subject. Thus I shall deal with the form of budgeting, auditing, budgetary balance, and deficits. I shall also examine the place of the budgetary base—agreed understandings on totals and items—among the political cultures. Finally, I shall provide a cultural explanation for the growth of government.     

When Terrorism as Strategy Fails: Dissident Irish Republicans and the Threat to British Security

The use of terrorism as a strategy for obtaining political goals by non-state actors persists in the international system, despite attempts by states to counter the phenomenon. This article explores the resurgent threat posed to British security by dissident Irish republicans in order to illustrate the limited utility of terrorism as a strategy in the current sociopolitical context. Therefore, it has three objectives: First, it explains how strategic theory can aid in constructing a conceptual framework for explaining the persistence of terrorism, in general, and dissident republican violence, in particular. Second, it examines the dissident threat in light of the general failure of “armed struggle” to achieve republican goals in Irish politics. It is argued here that dissident republicans have confused “means” with “ends” and that this, ultimately, demonstrates the futility of their violence. Finally, the article suggests ways of tackling the dissident republican variant of terrorism.     

Coup Risk,Counterbalancing, and International Conflict

Contrary to the literature on rallies-around-the-flag, this article argues that, in some circumstances, leaders may use international conflict to promote domestic divisiveness. More specifically, the threat of a military coup generally prompts leaders to divide their militaries (a practice known as counterbalancing), and even to engage in international conflict to ensure that various branches of their own armed forces remain distrustful of one another. Two empirical tests of these claims are offered: a large-N statistical analysis that examines whether coup risk leads to counterbalancing, and whether counterbalanced nations engage in more low-level military conflict (controlling for other causes of conflict); and a case study of Georgia shortly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Both empirical studies support the arguments advanced by the authors.