Determinations of negligence and the hindsight bias

Examined the hindsight bias in determinations of negligence inTarasoff-type cases. The sample of 297 community residents was asked to read clinical case scenarios involving treatment of potentially dangerous patients. Scenarios varied by outcome: (1) the patient became violent, (2) the patient did not become violent, and (3) no outcome was specified. Respondents rated the foreseeability of violence, the reasonableness of therapist actions, and negligence. It was hypothesized that respondents who were informed that the patient became violent would be more likely to find the therapist negligent than respondents in the other two outcome conditions. Findings supported this, and respondents in the violent outcome condition rated the violence as more foreseeable and therapist actions as less reasonable. Implications for mental health and legal professionals are discussed and future research ideas are suggested.     

The Nature and Direction of Economic Reform in North Korea

In this article we critically examine the nature and direction of economic reform in North Korea. While North Korea began to experiment with reforms and a partial open-door policy in the mid-1980s, the most substantial attempt at economic restructuring occurred in July 2002. In these latest reforms, the government attempted to change the planned economic system through the introduction of price reforms, market and commodity relations, profit motivation and material incentives. However, scholars disagree on the nature and direction of economic restructuring. In order to analyze the state of economic transformation, we develop a conceptual framework of market socialism with a set of empirical indicators against which we examine the trends, direction and limitations of reforms. Our study strongly suggests that North Korea is moving away from the command economy towards a model of market socialism as practiced in China and Vietnam.     

The Role of Death Qualification in Venirepersons' Evaluations of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials

Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors' receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., J. Luginbuhl & K. Middendorf, 1988). However, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification affects jurors' endorsements of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when Witt, rather than Witherspoon, is the legal standard for death qualification. Four hundred and fifty venirepersons from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: two death qualification questions; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to endorse aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse aggravating circumstances. Excludable participants, when compared to death-qualified venirepersons, were more likely to endorse nonstatutory mitigators. There was no significant difference between death-qualified and excludable venirepersons with respect to their endorsement of 6 out of 7 statutory mitigators. It would appear that the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) decision to declare the death penalty unconstitutional is frustrated by the Lockhart v. McCree (1986) affirmation of death qualification.     

Criminology Theory and Terrorism: Introduction to the Special Issue

In this short essay, we introduce readers to a special issue of Terrorism and Political Violence on criminological approaches to the study of terrorism. In addition to summarizing the eight articles in the issue, we outline some general points about the relationship between criminological thinking and our understanding of terrorism. Our goal is to place the special issue's contributions in context and highlight under-explored issues that future research could address.     

Proscribing torture: an analysis in Indian and ethical contexts

The article seeks context for the 2010 Indian Prevention of Torture Bill, by critically examining the nature of the international law proscribing torture, then the universality of torture’s immorality. Argument covers the scholarship on torture categories and addresses the probity of evidence deriving from tortured subjects. It critically investigates the sociological literature on torture. It states a suggested policy guide, developed in a worldwide context, and therefore of use by any jurisdiction. In particular, this paper considers the underpinnings of the prohibition against torture and also will analyse the proposed Indian Bill on the delimited basis of the conflicting ideologies of the two greater jurists, Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham. This paper asks whether the new Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 (India), still not enacted, would prevent torture in India.