The utility of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory with offenders

Self-report instruments can provide useful information as part of a thorough clinical assessment. However, their use in forensic settings can be problematic. The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) has recently been proposed as an effective instrument for screening and outcome measurement in anger management programs. This study evaluated the effectiveness of this instrument in a sample of both voluntary and court-ordered anger-management clients, all of whom were determined through diagnostic interviews to have significant anger problems. Contrary to findings in nonforensic samples, the STAXI Trait Anger scale identified only about half of the participants as having anger-management problems severe enough to require intervention. Supplemental analysis with two additional scales did not significantly improve sensitivity. In addition to thorough diagnostic interviewing, forensic use of the STAXI (like similar assessment methods) may require additional validity scales to detect denial or socially desirable response patterns.     

Theory building: issues and an agenda

There is a growing recognition of the need to change the way research is conducted in management. In addition, there is an increasing belief that the philosophy of science can be applied to the research methods and standards normally employed in the study of organizations. Several recent contributions to the literature of management have indicated what must be done. Yet in many key respects, little progress has been made. This paper (1) considers the current status of theory development in management, (2) examines the approach offered by the natural sciences, (3) discusses the obstacles to implementation of the pure sciences approach, and (4) suggests what can be done to enhance the exposition and construction of theories.     

Fines and Justice Administration: The Experience of the Federal Republic of Germany

As part of the penal code revised in 1969, the Federal Republic of Germany increased its reliance on fines, including the introduction of day-fines, in lieu of short-term imprisonment for minor offenses. The previous trend toward the use of fines was accelerated by the requirement that courts order imprisonment only in exceptional cases. Traffic cases were particularly affected. The qualities of the offense and the absence of previous offenses, rather than an individualized study of the offender, continued to be the dominant criterium influencing the choice of a fine. The chief effect of day fines was higher amounts applied to the more affluent defendants; the amount of the fine appeared to have no effect on subsequent recidivism. For first offenders, fines were superior to imprisonment in avoiding reconviction. Day-fines were no more effective (but not less effective) than imprisonment in the instance of traffic offenses. Fines were superior to other sanctions for petty property offenders but not for career thieves.     

Recidivism after Fines,Suspended Sentences,and Imprisonment

In 1969 the Federal Republic of Germany abolished almost totally short prison terms in favor of fines. Between 1968 and 1971 the proportion of prison sentences was reduced by way of penal law reform from 23% to 7%. A corresponding decline in the number of prisoners per 100,000 could be observed within this period, too: whereas about 100/100,000 were incarcerated in 1969, the rate of incarceration in 1971 was 66/100,000. The dramatic decline in the number of prison sentences as well as in the number of prison inmates led to apprehensions that this change in sentencing policy might result in increasing rates of recidivism. A comparative analysis of recidivism after fines, prison sentences, as well as suspended sentences, was carried out in order to provide empirical evidence concerning this question.     

Examples of kinship analysis where Profiler Plus™ was not discriminatory enough for the identification of victims using DNA identification

The identification of the victims of the 2009 Victorian bushfires disaster, as in other mass disasters, relied on a number of scientific disciplines - including DNA analysis. As part of the DVI response, DNA analysis was performed to assist in the identification of victims through kinship (familial matching to relatives) or direct (self source of sample) matching of DNA profiles. The majority of the DNA identifications made (82%) were achieved through kinship matching of familial reference samples to post mortem (PM) samples obtained from the victims. Although each location affected by the bushfires could be treated as a mini-disaster (having a small closed-set of victims), with many such sites spread over vast areas, DNA analysis requires that the short tandem repeat (STR) system used be able to afford enough discrimination between all the DVI cases to assign a match. This publication highlights that although a 9-loci multiplex was sufficient for a DVI of this nature, there were instances that brought to light the short comings of using a 9-loci multiplex for kinship matching--particularly where multiple family members are victims. Moreso it serves to reinforce the recommendation that a minimum of 12 autosomal STR markers (plus Amelogenin) be used for DNA identification of victims which relies heavily on kinship matching.