Voice and trust in parliamentary representation

In both social and political matters, individuals trust those they believe will treat them fairly. Individuals in democracies have little objection to abiding by policies instituted by parties they did not vote for because the system by which the parliament is formed is considered fair. However, even among democracies, some electoral systems are fairer than others. It stands to reason that trust in parliament is affected by the perceived fairness of the electoral system. This research demonstrates that actual or perceived provision of voice in parliamentary representation does increase individual trust in parliament. Systems designed with the intent to provide fair representation and those that provide the illusion of fair representation produce higher levels of trust in parliament.     

Share and Share Alike? Hedge Funds,Human Rights,and Owning Enterprise in Britain

This article explores the meanings of ownership and shareholding in the context of the 2007 run on Northern Rock, its subsequent nationalization in 2008, and the resulting legal challenge brought by former shareholders. Drawing on evidence from a range of sources outside traditional legal and official doctrine, and from original empirical research, it focuses on the perspective and voices of local small individual shareholders in relation to shareholding, bank failure, and government responses to financial crisis. It tells the story of these individual shareholders against differing conceptions of share ownership rights and responsibilities, and from various angles, to show the many different subjectivities of corporate shareholding and ownership of enterprise of which orthodox legal and economic models take scant account. It concludes on a note of historic persistence in demand for proprietary shares in banking institutions, despite the differing levels of understanding and tolerance of equity risk among shareholders that our research reveals.     

Rationing psychosocial treatments in the United States

This paper briefly reviews the recent history of psychosocial treatment for adults with severe mental illnesses in the United States. It examines the current sources and financing of such care, revealing the planned and unplanned reclassification of entitled beneficiaries and eligible patients, appropriate treatment, acceptable outcomes, and levels and sources of payment. One illustration of this phenomenon is seen in current efforts to identify and deliver only those public services that are covered by Medicaid, so as to allocate state resources only when they can be matched by federal monies. Another is the reliance on private health insurance, tied in the U.S. almost exclusively to employment, for medical care delivered under an acute, rather than a chronic care model. These analyses conclude with a discussion of the implicit and explicit mechanisms used to ration access to psychosocial treatment in the United States. The implications for individuals with serious mental illnesses, their families, and the general public are placed in historical and current policy contexts, recognizing the economic, social, and clinical variables that can moderate outcomes.     

New visual technologies in court: directions for research

Litigation is being transformed by new visual communication technologies, including videoconferencing, PowerPoint, and computer animations. Yet the effects of these visual technologies on legal decision making are largely unknown. In order to understand better the most pressing issues surrounding technology in the courtroom, psychologists, lawyers, and representatives from technology companies and funding agencies attended a Research Conference on Courtroom Technology organized by the Federal Judicial Center. The goals of the conference were to identify issues raised by courtroom uses of new technologies that could be illuminated by empirical research and to suggest designs and methods for conducting that research. This paper emerged from that conference. The authors provide an overview of considerations that should guide research in this area, including a framework that takes into account features of the technology, the audience, and the legal strategy of the user of the technology. They outline a paradigm for conducting such research, illustrate it with several possible empirical studies of varying levels of experimental and conceptual complexity, and identify directions for subsequent research.     

NIBRS Data Available for Secondary Analysis

The NIBRS data program currently being implemented by the FBI and local lawenforcement agencies has by now produced sufficient data for archiving anddistribution. Although not representative of crime in the United States, existing NIBRS data can be used to investigate the nature of crimesknown to the police compared to the traditional UCR data. The Bureau ofJustice Statistics has requested the National Archive of Criminal JusticeData to store and make NIBRS data available to interested users. The datafrom 1996 will shortly be available from the NACJD web site. The 1996 datacontain almost 6.5 million records and the FBI's full file includes about 361 Mbytes of data. The data have been disaggregated from the FBI's complex single file into 11 segment levels or record types. This makes theindividual record types easier and faster to analyze than using the fullfile, which more closely resembles a relational database than a hierarchicalfile. However, splitting apart the record types requires that specialprocedures be used to merge files of different record types, which would benecessary if a user were interested in analyzing variables appearing in morethan one record type (e.g., comparing offender and victim ages). These procedures are described, and a test comparing the time to run a simple frequencycount using the full file against the merged files shows that using themerged files is considerably more efficient. Also discussed are some futuredevelopments to facilitate the analysis of NIBRS data.     

Revisiting the role of distributive justice in Tyler’s legitimacy theory

Objectives

Tyler’s theory of legitimacy identified procedural justice and distributive justice as antecedents of legitimacy, but placed distributive justice in a relatively minor position compared with procedural justice. This has led to researchers paying less attention to distributive justice in the development of theory, despite consistent findings that distributive justice is important to a number of outcomes for criminal justice authorities. This report uses uncertainty management theory to revisit Tyler’s legitimacy model and gain a more nuanced understanding of distributive justice.

Methods

The proposed model is tested using a series of latent variable analyses conducted on a sample of 2169 adults and a factorial vignette design. The vignette design randomly manipulates outcome favorability and officer behavior during a hypothetical traffic stop. Multiple indicator multiple cause (MIMIC) models are then utilized to test the impact of these manipulations on perceptions of procedural justice and distributive justice. This is followed by a structural equation model that tests the relationships between procedural justice, distributive justice, and legitimacy.

Results

Officer behavior is a primary predictor of both procedural justice and distributive justice. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that distributive justice judgments are shaped by perceptions of procedural justice. Accordingly, distributive justice mediates the relationship between procedural justice and legitimacy.

Conclusions

Distributive justice should not be treated as a competing explanation for legitimacy evaluations, but as a concept that contextualizes why procedural justice is important.