The role of people in information-sharing: perceptions from an analytic unit of a regional fusion center

Information sharing research has largely focused on capturing operational practices related to the exchange of information. A noticeable shortcoming of this developing literature is the lack of scholarly attention focused specifically on analytic personnel. The present study employs semi-structured interviews with 23 personnel that comprise the analytic unit within a regional fusion center located in a large metropolitan area in the United States. Findings indicate that there is significant ambiguity surrounding the organizational and geographic audiences to which intelligence products should be tailored. Moreover, it appears information sharing is sparse and reliant upon personal relationships between analysts and external organizations. Lastly, analysts do not receive feedback pertaining to the content and effectiveness of intelligence products created. These findings may be generalized to other analytical organizations whose primary goal is to gather, analyze and disseminate intelligence. Action steps for policymakers are provided.     

No room for Asia-Pacifists?

When this Journal decided to run a special issue on IP in theAsia-Pacific region, it was following the conventional wisdomof the profession and the marketplace. For many years, the conceptof the Asia-Pacific sold conferences and printed publications.And it was on this assumption that JIPLP based its decisionto give over its March issue for coverage of that zone. However,there comes a point in the life of     

Public attitudes towards the death penalty

Responses to a general question regarding the use of the death penalty were compared with the sentences that respondents chose in a set of scenarios describing homicide cases. The percentage of respondents who assigned the death sentence in one or more of the following scenarios was higher than those who favored the death penalty in the abstract question, but there were inconsistencies in the answers. A majority assigned the death penalty only for the most heinous offender described, and the figures were lower for other crimes, even clear cases of first degree murder. At the same time, a manipulation involving information about methods of execution did not affect answers. These results strongly suggest that the abstract questions typically used in public opinion polls do not accurately reflect the public's feelings about use of the death penalty in specific cases. More generally, research on public opinion regarding criminal justice policies should survey a variety of specific circumstances.     

Making the innocent pay

Even those of us who enter the legal profession for reasonsof personal advancement or greed can spot an injustice whenwe see it. As students and raw recruits to the profession, weshare with our clients the notion that, in any cause, one sideis ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’. Toallow the party in the wrong to vanquish the party in the rightwould be unjust, notwithstanding the fact that the law permitsit. In time our perspective mellows: we learn to appreciatethat     

Organizational Process,Rulemaking Pace,and the Shadow of Judicial Review

Scholars have long understood that structuring internal work processes into more hierarchical or team‐based arrangements has consequences for organizational outputs. Building on this insight, this research examines the relationship between how agencies organize their rulemaking routines and the resulting rules. Tracking the job functions of rule contacts for economically significant rules proposed over a four‐year period, the analysis demonstrates that expanding the breadth of personnel types closely involved in a rulemaking is associated with a reduction in the time it takes to promulgate the rule. However, increasing the pace at which rules are finalized is not without cost, as those completed faster appear more likely to be overturned when challenged in court. The article not only adds another dimension to empirical scholarship studying rulemaking, which has largely focused on how forces originating outside the agency affect rules, but also suggests the importance of considering competing priorities in designing rulemaking processes.