Research note: evidence for moving to an 84-person photo lineup

The traditional six-to-ten person lineup is known to be extremely unreliable. Witnesses who choose someone when the suspect is innocent are too likely to choose that suspect. One solution is to enlarge the lineup in a manner that reduces mistaken identification far more than it lowers correct identification of the culprit. This experiment was built on past research, and it displayed to witnesses lineups consisting of sets of 12 photographs in an album, either two sets (24 photos) or seven sets (84 photos). No difference was found between witnesses for the 24-person lineup or the 84-person lineup in either their ability to identify the target whom they had seen previously, or in the number of mistaken choices of someone in lineups where the target was absent. Since the chance that the witness might mistakenly identify the suspect is far less in the 84-person lineup, lineups should consist of at least that number.

Responsiveness to the chlorhexidine epidural tragedy: a mental block?

Paralysis following an epidural anaesthetic is a rare event. The mechanism usually involves accidental injection of skin antiseptic instead of local anaesthetic. Two recent cases, one involving paralysis, the other a "near-miss", are described. The first case resulted in an extensive root cause analysis and an admission of liability by the hospital. The response of the anaesthetic community and the New South Wales Department of Health was swift but failed to produce uniform protocols across the region. Furthermore, the requirement of medical staff to double check medications with a second person before their administration was not addressed. Abandoning a more effective but neurotoxic antiseptic solution in favour of a solution with weaker antiseptic properties, as had previously occurred in one Sydney hospital, could incur higher risks of epidural infection. Defensive medical practice can lead to unwanted negative consequences.     

The case for Agrarian capitalism: A response to albritton

Albritton finds Brenner's designation ‘agrarian capitalism’ inappropriate for early English agriculture, as the law of value and the commodification of labour are undeveloped. But Brenner is not theorising a ‘full‐blown’ capitalism. His theory traces a process of transition, by which new rules for social reproduction and a new capitalist logic unfolded gradually. Albritton's evidence, moreover, actually supports Brenner's thesis. Charges of class reductionism misconstrue Brenner's efforts to overcome the tendency to dichotomise society into political and economic spheres. Brenner's theory provides what the bourgeois paradigm does not: a logical explanation of how market dependency and capitalist classes emerged.     

When Local Comes to Town: Governing Local Agriculture in the South Carolina Lowcountry

The South Carolina Lowcountry—the coastal region centered on Charleston—has developed a vibrant local food system over the past several decades. This article examines the role of governance institutions in cultivating local-market farmers and the broader agricultural landscape. It argues that the region’s institutions of agricultural governance produce a farmer characterized by “entrepreneurial nostalgia”—put simply, the articulation of entrepreneurial and nostalgic subjects. This farmer subjectivity in many ways fits within what is generally deemed a neoliberal mode of being, yet this article also emphasizes, contrary to much of the work on neoliberalism, the racial politics of such a subject position. Entrepreneurial nostalgia not only emphasizes individualism and the marketing of the self but it does so in a way that aligns with both colorblind and liberal-multicultural forms of racism. The article closes by reflecting on potential openings for reworking this farmer subjectivity.     

Precautionary Maybe,but What's the Principle? The Precautionary Principle,the Regulation of Risk,and the Public Domain

The 'precautionary principle', originating in the field of environmental protection but now widely applied, is a major point for discussion in the regulation of risk. Though promising proactive and pre-emptive intervention to prevent potentially irreversible harm, its precise meaning remains somewhat unclear. Legal systems tend to view it as procedural rather than substantive, and debates abound regarding its 'stronger' or 'weaker' versions and, indeed, the very concept of 'risk'. It is also necessary to discuss how the principle operates in varying administrative and constitutional contexts but the key task is to clarify the principle's fundamental value base. If its essentially collective orientation is highlighted, it may better ensure that democratic and non-pecuniary interests are given due prominence in regulatory contexts otherwise dominated by economic interests and technological imperatives, and it may then play an important role in reasserting the values of the public domain in the face of powerful private interests.