PRIME MINISTERS AND THE COMMONS: PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOUR, 1868 TO 1987

Since 1868 nineteen Prime Ministers have answered parliamentary questions, made statements, given major speeches, and intervened in debates in the House of Commons. This article presents a comparative and quantitative analysis of PMS' behaviour patterns on these four dimensions. Key findings include: the importance of 1940 as the critical break between a traditional and a modem form of parliamentary activity, in which Prime Ministers make fewer contributions to Commons proceedings altogether, fewer speeches and far fewer interventions in debates than in the pre-1940 period, but more statements; the emergence of question time as the absolutely dominant form of prime ministerial activity in the Commons, especially from the mid-1970s onwards; and the distinctiveness of Thatcher's minimalist Commons activity, when set against other post-1940 PMs.     

Toxicological findings in a multi-drug death involving propoxyphene, caffeine, phenacetin, acetaminophen and salicylate

The toxicological findings of a multi-drug related fatal poisoning are described here. A 35-year-old Caucasian male found dead on the kitchen floor was a known user of abused drugs and had been taking aspirin alone or in combination with phenacetin and caffeine for the relief of joint pains. The gross examination of the organs at autopsy revealed slight grooving of the uncus and various stages of necrosis in the renal papillae. Histological examination confirmed the gross appearance of pulmonary congestion and edema, cerebral edema and interstitial nephritis of the tubules. Toxicological evaluation of the blood and urine samples disclosed the presence of propoxyphene (51 and 250 mg/l), salicylate (185 and 2750 mg/l), caffeine (16 and 37 mg/l), and phenacetin (9.6 and 20 mg/l). Furthermore, acetaminophen also was present in the plasma (54 mg/l) and urine. A gas liquid chromatographic method for simultaneous analysis of phenacetin and caffeine utilizing a nitrogen phosphorus detector was proposed.     

The admissibility of polygraph evidence in court

Polygraph evidence is presently inadmissible in Canada and many jurisdictions of the United States. One of the major reasons for its exclusion lies in the belief (held by members of the judiciary) that jurors would accept such evidence without question due to its technical/scientific nature. The question of such blind acceptance was examined in two experiments on the influence of polygraph evidence on people's judgements of guilt. A second question that was also raised was whether a caution on the limitations of the polygraph would be effective in reducing people's weighting of such evidence. Although polygraph evidence was expected to exert some influence over judgements of guilt, it was not expected to be so great as to result in “blind acceptance”. The results of both experiments supported this hypothesis. The inclusion of a caution was also effective in reducing the influence of such evidence. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of the need to reexamine the admissibility of polygraph evidence in a court of law.     

A dynamic test of the marginality hypothesis

The marginality hypothesis is an attempt to relate the voting margins of members of Congress to their subsequent legislative behavior. A major corollary of the hypothesis is that members of Congress with small victory margins will be more responsive to constituents than those with large victory margins. This has been assumed to mean that electorally secure representatives can afford to be more loyal to their congressional parties, since they have less cause to worry about their chances for reelection. Previous empirical studies have produced mixed results. We ask the question in a different way: Do changes in marginality affect party voting within Congress? If so, major shifts in the electorate potentially can have a fundamental impact on the behavior of Congress itself. We find that this is not true. Electoral margin is simply not related to party loyalty.     

Fear of crime: Who is most vulnerable?

This study investigates the relationship of demographic, psychosocial, and crime-related factors to fear of crime. Data were collected from 1,499 respondents to a national public opinion survey. A discriminant analysis was used to determine those factors which contribute most to respondents' fear of crime. Overall, 12 variables were found to explain 45.7 percent of the variance in fear of crime. Demographic variables such as sex, the size of the place where the respondent lives, age, marital status, and the number of persons living with the respondent were the most important variables discriminating between fearful and nonfearful respondents. Psychosocial and crime-related variables were found to be less important than demographic variables in discriminating between fearful and nonfearful respondents.