The influence of implicit theories and offender characteristics on judgements of sexual offenders: a moderated mediation analysis

The psychological factors underpinning responses to sexual offenders are beginning to receive increased empirical scrutiny. One such factor is offender representativeness, which refers to the extent to which a given offender example matches a stereotype of those who are typically labelled as “sexual offenders”. Using a sample of 252 community members, we examined the role of implicit theories about sexual offenders (ie whether sexual offending is seen as fixed or malleable) in mediating the relationship between affective responses to sexual offenders and policy outcome judgements. We found support for this mediating effect, although this was eliminated when participants were presented with a “non-representative” offender vignette. We argue that the relationship between affective responses and policy judgements is contingent on the activation of a sexual offender stereotype, and that this link can be disrupted via the increased presentation of non-stereotypical case examples. Implications for public debate and professional practice are discussed.     

The influence of a possible contamination of the victim's clothing by gunpowder residue on the estimation of shooting distance

A study was conducted to assess the influence of a possible contamination of the victim's clothing by gunpowder residue on the estimation of shooting distance. The study was focused on the scenario in which the contamination might be caused by the surface on which the shot victim could fall. Contamination of two types of textile was examined after contact with two types of surfaces. One round was fired above those surfaces (the line of firing parallel to the surface) prior to the contact. It was found that few gunpowder residue particles could be transferred to the clothing. These findings should be taken into account when interpreting results for shooting distance estimation in cases when a minute quantity of gunpowder residue particles is found around the bullet entrance hole.     

That Was Then, This Is Now, What About Tomorrow? Future Directions in State Crime Studies

Research and theorizing on state crime has come to play an important role in the fields of criminology and criminal justice for understanding the worst of crimes: those of powerful state agencies and agents. Since William Chambliss’ (1989) ASC presidential address, scholars of state crime have made advances in theoretical modeling and analyzing core enactment and etiological factors of crimes of the state (e.g., Barak 1991; Friedrichs 1998; Grabosky 1989; Kauzlarich and Kramer 1998; Kramer and Michalowski 2005; Kramer et al. 2005; Michalowski and Kramer 2006; Mullins and Rothe 2008a, b; Pearce 1976; Ross 1995, 2000; Rothe 2009; Rothe and Mullins 2006, 2008). Nonetheless, the study of state crime still has a long way to go before it ever reaches the magnitude or legitimacy afforded to the study of traditional street crime. It is with this in mind that several leading scholars of state criminality have come together and reevaluated the state of state crime and the ways in which the field must move forward. This kind of inventory, where scholars examine the past, present and future of the field, is not without precedent. For example, almost a decade ago (Ross et al. 1999) explored the difficulty of conducting state crime research and made a series of recommendations on how it could be improved. Nearly 7 years later (Rothe and Friedrichs 2006) re-evaluated the state of state crime and called for more attention to those beyond US crimes of the state and include crimes of globalization and also international controls such as the International Criminal Court (Friedrichs and Friedrichs 2007; Rothe and Mullins 2006; Rothe et al. 2006, 2008). Since that time, there has been substantial movement by scholars of state crime in these other areas, yet, as we note, there still remains key issues that need to be addressed and overcome: it is with this that we again revisit the field of state crime. We wish to thank all of those that contributed to our discussions and thoughts during the American Society of Criminology Roundtable on State Crime I and II, November 2007.

---