Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall offered his opinion regarding the utility of public opinion polls as a tool for assessing the “evolving standards of decency” regarding capital punishment. His arguments became known as the Marshall hypotheses and spawned a considerable body of empirical testing. The three Marshall hypotheses are: (1) support for capital punishment is inversely associated with knowledge about it, (2) exposure to information about capital punishment produces sentiments in opposition to capital punishment, but (3) exposure to information about capital punishment will have no impact on those who support it for retributive reasons. The results of previous tests of these hypotheses were somewhat mixed but supportive. None of these studies, however, examined the effects of change in knowledge levels with changes, if any, in death penalty attitudes and beliefs as needed for a more complete test of the Marshall hypotheses. The present study addressed this shortcoming. The results provided mixed support for these three hypotheses. That is, death penalty supporters were somewhat less informed than death penalty opponents; exposure to death penalty information and knowledge gains tended to be associated with attitudinal change in a directions suggested by these hypotheses; but, retributivists' attitudes toward and beliefs about capital punishment were not any more resistant to change than were the attitudes and beliefs of non-retributivists.     

Child Care Subsidies and Employment Behavior Among Very‐Low‐Income Populations in Three States

Using merged administrative data from welfare reform evaluations in three states, we estimate the effects of child care subsidy use on the length of time it takes for a welfare applicant to move into substantial employment. Findings show that the use of a child care subsidy during an unemployed or marginally employed spell of welfare receipt is associated with between a 0.6 and 1.7 quarter (or 11% to 34%) reduction in the time to substantial employment in two of the three state samples. The positive influence of subsidy use on transitions to substantial employment is strongest for those welfare applicants with the lowest earnings who are mixing welfare and work prior to subsidy receipt.     

Assessment of competency for execution? A guide for mental health professionals

Assessment of competency for execution presents two compelling ethical questions for mental health professionals: whether clinicians can ethically provide such assessment, and if so, how it should be done in order to maximize quality and minimize ethical conflict. In this article we address the issue of whether to participate and, if so, how. The question of whether to participate is discussed by summarizing the arguments for and against participation and offering guidelines for making a decision. The question of how to proceed is discussed in two contexts: preadjudication (before a formal decision about competency) and postadjudication (following a determination of "incompetent" and transfer of the offender to another facility for treatment and further assessment). Finally, recommendations are made regarding research that would improve the quality of execution competency assessments.     

The Medicare secondary payor provisions: possible rewards and pitfalls

A 1990 report prepared by the Office of Inspector General estimated that as much as $1 billion is lost to the Medicare program annually because (i) secondary payor situations are not detected and (ii) insurance companies often do not pay when they are required to be the primary payors. Office of Inspector General, No. A-09-98-00151, April 1990, Medicare and Medicaid Guide (CCH) [symbol: see text] 39,112, at 25,649. In order to better enforce the MSP provisions, suggestions have been made at the Congressional level to impose sanctions against providers who demonstrate a pattern of inappropriate billing practices such as double billing, repeated failures to screen beneficiaries for other insurance coverage, and the repeated submission to Medicare of bills that should be submitted to another payor. (See the Subcommittee Report on erroneous payments under the MSP program, supra.) Although authority for such sanctions has yet to be adopted, given the fiscal problems currently plaguing the federal government, providers can expect increased enforcement of the MSP provisions as a means of reducing Medicare costs, and should review their screening and billing practices accordingly.