What Did Angleton Say About Golitsyn?

In an earlier issue of this journal I examined statements attributed to James J. Angleton, then Chief of the CIA Counterintelligence Staff, that Anatoli Mikhailovich Golitsyn had worked secretly for the CIA for many years prior to defecting in Helsinki in December 1961. Further research shows that Angleton had made similar remarks on a number of occasions, but intended something other than the usual meaning of the phrase ‘worked for’.     

Inner‐city concentrated poverty and neighborhood distress: 1970 to 1990

Abstract

Tract‐level data from the 1970, 1980, and 1990 censuses of population are used to identify poverty neighborhoods, extreme poverty neighborhoods, distressed neighborhoods, and severely distressed neighborhoods within the nation's 100 largest central cities. Changes in demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of these neighborhoods are documented, including racial/ethnic composition; poverty population concentration; school dropout rates; and rates of joblessness, single‐parent households, and welfare receipt.

Results show that despite some encouraging individual city turnarounds in the Northeast (especially in New York, Newark, and Philadelphia), urban poverty concentration and neighborhood distress worsened nationwide between 1980 and 1990. The greatest deterioration occurred in midwestern cities, particularly in Detroit. Southern cities, whose neighborhoods and cities typically improved during the 1970s, slipped during the 1980s; conditions in western cities also deteriorated. Blacks fared worse than whites and Hispanics during the 1980s in terms of increased concentration of poor in poverty tracts and distressed urban neighborhoods.     

How Do We Judge Policies?

Political science has paid scant attention to the way that citizens judge public policy, assuming that citizens do so, or should do so, in ways familiar to academics themselves, depending upon which of the various schools of thought they endorse. This paper argues that approaching citizens’ judgement realistically requires attention to political psychology. Indeed, our conception of citizen judgement can be enriched by attention to research and theory in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. That work emphasises that much judgement occurs spontaneously and very rapidly, that it is involuntary and non‐semantic and that it depends upon the emotional impact of experience rather than conscious weighing of situations against explicit standards of assessment such as science, self‐interest or moral theory. A moral psychology for public life is sketched out, with implications for judgment by politicians.     

Experimental Study of Bite Mark Injuries by Digital Analysis

Abstract: This study was based on a morphometric analysis of bite marks starting from the quantitative definition of the anterior teeth by the geometric acquisition of the “injuries,” using bite marks impressed on pig skin and plastic. Each mark was photographed and acquired. A dedicated program automatically supplied the values of the shape factors and the areas of the pattern geometric figures. The values obtained for the homologous samples were compared to the heterologous values. Statistical comparison was made of the sets by linear regression, determining the correlation coefficient and the determination coefficient for each value. Results showed only 4.8% and 2% of overlap between homologous and heterologous values. This study was carried out in attempting to quantitatively define the anterior teeth of the human dentition and the procedure described and the results obtained support the advantage of morphometric studies and computer‐aided programs in this study of bite marks.     

Proportionality and Self-Defense

Proportionality is widely accepted as a necessary condition of justified self-defense. What gives rise to this particular condition and what role it plays in the justification of self-defense seldom receive focused critical attention. In this paper I address the standard of proportionality applicable to personal self-defense and the role that proportionality plays in justifying the use of harmful force in self-defense. I argue against an equivalent harm view of proportionality in self-defense, and in favor of a standard of proportionality in self-defense that requires comparable seriousness and takes into account the wrong, as opposed simply to the harm that the victim is fending off. I distinguish the standard of proportionality in self-defense from proportionality in circumstances of necessity, and I discuss whether proportionality is an internal or an external constraint on the right of self-defense.