Forensic identification of a rapist using unusual evidence.

This case report demonstrates a rape case, where no semen, hair, or fingerprints were left by the perpetrator at the crime scene, but rather uncharacteristic biological and physical evidence in the form of a lollipop and a pair of glasses. Three separate forensic laboratories collaborated using conventional forensic methods of PCR DNA typing, photography, and toolmark comparisons to provide investigators with scientific evidence which in turn was instrumental in bringing a violent criminal to justice. The importance of evaluating each item of evidence and realizing its forensic value is stressed in this case report.     

Equal before the law?

This article reviews empirically the relationship between politicians and decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute businesspeople who are suspected of fraud and of complicity in the supply of arms to Iraq, within the context of (a) conventional ideas about impartiality of the administration of law; and (b) the politics of bureaucratic survival. It discusses some key difficulties in ascertaining “what happened” and relative culpability in serious fraud trials, and the personal interest-inspired factors that can influence testimony. It concludes that in the UK, there is relative autonomy in decision-making in serious fraud cases, but that in “politically sensitive areas” such as the supply of arms to Iraq, there has been overt interference on purported “public interest” grounds with the information made available to the defence and even to the prosecution itself. It notes that without access to the grounds for decisionsnot to prosecute, their “purely legal” justification is difficult to challenge, and this is of most social significance where members of social elites are concerned. It concludes by addressing some difficulties in producing procedural models which provide genuine accountability for white-collar prosecutions and non-prosecutions in different countries.     

Towards a more diversified Canada: economic arguments for re-confederation

Abstract: In the ongoing Canadian debate on confederation, variations across the country are almost invariably viewed as conditions that must be removed or at best tolerated. This paper provides an alternative view and model of confederation that builds on portfolio notions of diversification. Here, instead of seeing regional differences as barriers to a strong confederation, we envision building solidly on these differences and encouraging regions to differentiate themselves. Canada's diverse regions might then realize futures that are most appropriate to their resource endowments and human aspirations and that at the same time improve the economic growth and growth-volatility characteristics of the nation as a whole. Regions might pursue their comparative advantages rather than having to forego their distinctness in striving for a “national mean” - a mean all too frequently defined by values at the centre of economic and political power. The ensuing discussion expands this argument and applies it using two specific examples: securities regulation and housing policy. The paper concludes with some suggestions for instituting a more differentiated, diversified and decentralized form of confederation. Sommaire: Dans le cadre du debat perpetuel sur la confédération au Canada, on con-sidère presque toujours que les variations qui existent à travers le pays doivent être éliminées ou, au mieux, tolérées. Dans cet article, on présente un autre modèle de confédération qui s'inspire de la notion de diversification du portefeuille. Au lieu d'envisager les differences régionales comme autant d'obstacles s'opposant à une confédération forte, on veut bâtir du solide sur ces differences et encourager les régions à se différencier entre elles. Les régions variées du Canada seraient alors à même de suivre le cherninement le mieux adaptéà leurs richesses naturelles et aux aspirations de leurs populations, tout en améliorant les paramétres de croissance et de volatilité de la croissance de la nation toute entiére. Les régions poursuivraient alors leurs avantages comparatifs, au lieu d'abandonner leurs traits distinctifs pour tendre vers une moyenne, nationale trop souvent tributaire de valeurs situées au centre du pouvoir économique et politique. On élargit ensuite cet argument et on l'applique au moyen de deux exemples concrets: la réglementation des valeurs mobilières et la politique sur le logement. En conclusion, l'article offre quelques suggestions pour quel'on adopte une confédération plus différenciée, plus diversifiée et plus décentralisée.     

An analysis of multiple choices in MSL lineups,and a comparison with simultaneous and sequential ones

Abstract

Simultaneous lineups allow witnesses to compare lineup members, causing excessive mistaken identifications. Levi (1998b) has tested MSL lineups: they are sequential, larger, and allow multiple choices. [The MSL lineup was originally termed a Modified Sequential Lineup (Levi, 1998b). However, there are other modified sequential lineups.]

Each factor decreases mistaken identifications. However, witnesses make fewer single choices of culprits. Sometimes witnesses choose suspects more confidently than any foil. This analysis examines such multiple choices in four experiments. They account for half of multiple choices with culprits. Few foils are chosen, and such responses are rare in culprit-absent lineups, no more than single choices. They are therefore identifications too.

An experiment comparing simultaneous, sequential, and MSL lineups is also reported. The culprit was identified more in simultaneous lineups than in sequential ones. The simultaneous lineup had more mistaken choices than sequential and MSL lineups, whose results were identical. The simultaneous and sequential lineups were equally diagnostic, while the MSL lineup, four times larger, was more than four times more reliable.     

The Odyssey of the Regulatory State: From a “Thin” Monomorphic Concept to a “Thick” and Polymorphic Concept

This article assesses the “odyssey” of the regulatory state from a mere American thin and monomorphic concept to a global, thick and polymorphic concept that captures some of the more important features of the capitalist–democratic state. The burgeoning literature on the regulatory state presents a confusing number of images and characterizations that are increasingly conflicting, and it too often presents a monomorphic conception of the regulatory state. The article suggests that we need to define the regulatory state rather than merely characterizing it. And we need to do so in a manner that will allow us to move beyond the specific institutional features of a certain era, nation, region, or sector. Rather than contrasting regulation with distribution and redistribution, and contrasting the regulatory state with other forms of state, I treat the regulatory state as one morph of the polymorphic capitalist state, a morph that may help constitute other morphs (such as the welfare state and the developmental state) instead of replacing them. This in turn may help remove the artificial walls between the regulatory scholarly community and other social scientists, and promote more fruitful social science.     

Can the AML system be evaluated without better data?

The Anti-Money Laundering regime has been important in harmonizing laws and institutions, and has received global political support. Yet there has been minimal effort at evaluation of how well any AML intervention does in achieving its goals. There are no credible estimates either of the total amount laundered (globally or nationally) nor of most of the specific serious harms that AML aims to avert. Consequently, reduction of these is not a plausible outcome measure. There have been few efforts by country evaluators in the FATF Mutual Evaluation Reports (MERs) to acquire qualitative data or seriously analyze either quantitative or qualitative data. We find that data are relatively unimportant in policy development and implementation. Moreover, the long gaps of about 8 years between evaluations mean that widely used ‘country risk’ models for AML are forced still to rely largely on the 3rd Round evaluations whose use of data was minimal and inconsistent. While the 4th round MERs (2014–2022) have made an effort to be more systematic in the collection and analysis of data, FATF has still not established procedures that provide sufficiently informative evaluations. Our analysis of five recent National Risk Assessments (a major component of the new evaluations) in major countries shows little use of data, though the UK is notably better than the others. In the absence of more consistent and systematic data analysis, claims that countries have less or more effective systems will be open to allegations of ad hoc, impressionistic or politicized judgments. This reduces their perceived legitimacy, though this does not mean that the AML efforts and the evaluation processes themselves have no effects.