The impact of litigants' baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts

The effects of litigants' facial appearance on judicial decisions were investigated in 506 cases heard in small claims courts. Replicating previous laboratory studies, both baby-facedness and attractiveness exerted a significant impact on adjudications. As plaintiffs increased in attractiveness, defendants were more likely to lose the case. Also, as defendants increased in baby-facedness, they were more likely to win cases involving intentional actions and less likely to win cases involving negligent actions, although the latter simple effect was not significant. Finally, as defendants increased in facial maturity, they were required to pay larger monetary awards to baby-faced plaintiffs, albeit not to average or mature-faced plaintiffs. This pattern of decisions was interpreted as reflecting assumptions about the psychological attributes of baby-faced versus mature-faced individuals. The effects of the extralegal variables of litigant attractiveness and baby-facedness were sufficiently large to have practical as well as statistical significance, and they were independent of each other and the age of the litigants as well as of legal variables predicting adjudications.This research was supported by NIMH grant No. BSR 5 R01 MH42684 to the first author. Thanks are extended to Philip Shapiro for his help with legal terminology, to Steven Samuels for his help in the data collecton, and to Michael Berbaum and Avron Spiro III for their statistical assistance in the data analysis.     

Conceptualising and measuring ‘centrism’ correctly on the Left–Right scale (RILE) - without systematic bias. A general response by MARPOR

The purpose of this response is to point out that claims of undue centrism in the MARPOR data are directly contradicted by its use to correct centrism in other leading policy measures including expert surveys.     

Explaining the under-performance of the anti-human-trafficking campaign: experience from the United States and Europe

The American and the global campaigns against the trafficking of humans for labor and for sexual exploitation have had more than a decade of time and millions of dollars of support in an effort to suppress trafficking and protect its victims. Four of the six articles in this issue explore the reasons why the campaign in the United States has not had more instrumental success with respect to its prosecution goals. The number of cases brought and convictions obtained are fewer than what might be expected. Most of the cases brought involve sex trafficking. The less than impressive record of enforcement against human trafficking appears to be another example of how even very popular law reforms and crusades can be cooled out by the social realities of the criminal justice system. Sex trafficking cases are difficult to make because the victims are difficult to work with, juries are unsympathetic, and the police, prosecutors, judges have their own priorities. The article on the attempt to eliminate sex trafficking by switching to a policy of regulating prostitution rather than treating it as a crime indicates that policy change did not succeed. An attempt to create an index for assessing the implementation of anti-trafficking programs was successful.     

Assessing Risk of Placement Instability to Aid Foster Care Placement Decision Making

Placement stability is of critical importance to the well-being of children in foster care and has an impact on other key outcomes. Placement decision-making that matches children with placement resources is often cited as a practice that impacts placement stability, but little research exists to inform this practice. The focus of this research is on a child assessment tool that was developed to determine the appropriate level of care, which serves as one component of a web-based matching system that pulls together child and placement information used to inform the placement decision. The research examines the relationship between the child assessment subscale domains and placement stability for first and subsequent placement decisions and evaluates the stability of placements made in and outside of the indicated level of care.