Deciding mental retardation and mental illness in capital cases: The effects of procedure,evidence, and attitudes

Abstract

When finding unconstitutional the execution of defendants who were mentally retarded at the time of their crime in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the US Supreme Court left the States to decide on procedures for deciding a defendant's mental retardation. This has and will lead to substantial variation, and will include juries being responsible for these verdicts. Two studies are presented that test procedural, evidentiary, and attitudinal effects on mock juror verdicts as to a capital defendant's mental retardation. Both studies show significant effects of procedural variables. Making the retardation and death decision at the same trial phase changed jurors’ interpretation of evidence, including severity of mental problems. Jurors were insensitive to differences in the burden of proof on mental retardation verdicts, although demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt may make jurors more sensitive to retardation evidence when deciding on a death sentence. Areas for future research are outlined.     

PROBLEM PROFILES OF AT-RISK YOUTH IN TWO SERVICE PROGRAMS: A MULTI-GROUP, EXPLORATORY LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS

Baseline data collected in two brief intervention projects (BI-Court and Truancy Project) were used to assess similarities and differences in subgroups of at-risk youth. Classifications of these subgroups were based on their psychosocial characteristics (e.g., substance use). Multi-group latent class analysis (LCA) identified two BI-Court subgroups of youth, and three Truant subgroups. These classes can be viewed as differing along two dimensions, substance use involvement and emotional/behavioral issues. Equality tests of means across the latent classes for BI-Court and Truancy Project youths found significant differences that were consistent with their problem group classification. These findings highlight the importance of quality assessments and allocating appropriate services based on problem profiles of at-risk youth.     

中印油气外交:“新大角逐”、“互利互赢”或“独立平行”

近年来,19世纪的口号"大角逐"在国际能源领域再次抬头。但是,西方学者往往选择少数案例来证明油价上升的主要原因是中国与印度的竞争,以及油田的买卖。本文通过对中印竞争、合作与独立购买案例的实证调研,认为双方的竞争与合作案例的数量不仅少,而且两类交易的数量相当,相比之下,平行独立的中印能源外交案例最多。中印两国能源公司都基本遵照市场规律与游戏规则,而且多数能源行动并不属于过时的份额油"大角逐"。