Developments in US Anti-terrorism Law: Checks and Balances Undermined

The thesis of this update on developments in US anti-terrorismlaw since 9/11 is that the system of checks and balances amongthe several branches of the government, executive, judicialand legislative, has been undermined by the deferral and avoidanceof key decisions by each of the branches and the withdrawalof authority by one branch from another. Examples are drawnfrom four Supreme Court decisions handed down since 9/11; theuse of sunset clauses in the USA PATRIOT Act; the Detainee TreatmentAct of 2005; the use of torture in interrogating suspected terrorists;National Security Agency electronic surveillance; extraordinaryrenditions of suspected terrorists; and the Military CommissionsAct of 2006.     

Crime scene investigations using portable,non-destructive space exploration technology

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASAs) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) have teamed up to explore the use of NASA developed technologies to help criminal justice agencies and professionals solve crimes. The objective of the program is to produce instruments and communication networks that have application within both NASA's space program and NIJ programs with state and local forensic laboratories. A working group of NASA scientists and law enforcement professionals has been established to develop and implement a feasibility demonstration program. Specifically, the group has focused its efforts on identifying gunpowder and primer residue, blood, and semen at crime scenes. Non-destructive elemental composition identification methods are carried out using portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) systems. These systems are similar to those being developed for planetary exploration programs. A breadboard model of a portable XRF system has been constructed for these tests using room temperature silicon and cadmium-zinc telluride (CZT) detectors. Preliminary tests have been completed with gunshot residue (GSR), blood-spatter and semen samples. Many of the element composition lines have been identified. Studies to determine the minimum detectable limits needed for the analyses of GSR, blood and semen in the crime scene environment have been initiated and preliminary results obtained. Furthermore, a database made up of the inorganic composition of GSR is being developed. Using data obtained from the open literature of the elemental composition of barium (Ba) and antimony (Sb) in handswipes of GSR, we believe that there may be a unique GSR signature based on the Sb to Ba ratio.     

Data collection in litigation control

Behavioral Litigation Support Services, Inc.     

Discretionary Justice: Decision Making in a State Juvenile Parole Board

The literature in Criminal Justice is replete with commentary on both the virtues and injustices associated with adult parole board decision-making. There has been far less attention paid to juvenile parole boards in part because so few of them exist. Institutional release decisions in most states still remain the purview of juvenile institutional staff members. This paper examines parole Authority decision-making in a citizen-dominated state juvenile parole board. The paper focuses on the conduct of hearings, dispositional guidelines, criteria used by board members in decision-making and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole Authority decision making is also discussed. During recent years, the literature in criminal justice has become replete with commentary on the virtues and injustices associated with parole board decision-making. Consequently, many questions have been raised about disparate sentences, the criteria used by parole boards in making decisions, unstructured discretion, and the pressing need for guidelines and statistically accurate parole prediction instruments. The intent of this paper is to examine parole decision-making in a state juvenile parole board where individualized treatment and rehabilitation have been long standing goals. The paper focuses upon the criteria used by board members in decision-making, the conduct of hearings, the guideline system used to determine a recommended length of confinement and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole board decision-making is also discussed. The author is presently completing the second year of a two-year appointment as a member of the Parole Authority under discussion. Since December, 1983, the author has continuously observed and participated in approximately 300 individual parole hearings over thirty-seven hearing days.     

THE COURTS AND RISK ASSESSMENT1

In the past decade the federal courts have come to play an important role in reviewing agency decision-making on prospective risks. Questioning the conventional wisdom that judges are poorly equipped for the task, the authors outline the range of choices facing courts in such cases and contend that they cannot avoid making ultimate decisions on risk policy. However, recent Supreme Court cases on nuclear hazards and occupational benzene indicate narrowing of the scope for judicial review.