Reviews

Big Men, Small Boys and Politics in Ghana: Power, Ideology and the Burden of History, 1982–1994 by Paul Nugent. Pinter Publishing Limited (London and New York). 1995. xiv plus 306pp. including bibliography and index. £35 or $63 hardback.

Understanding Contemporary Africa (2nd edition) edited by April A. Gordon and Donald L. Gordon. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder and London. 1996. xiv plus 432pp. including maps, illustrations, notes, bibliographies, appendices and index.

The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a World of Power edited by Edwin N. Wilmsen and Patrick McAllister. University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London. 1996. ix plus 210pp.

The Multilateral Development Banks. Volume 1. The African Development Bank by E. Philip English and Harris M. Mule. The North‐South Institute. Ottawa. 1996. xvi plus 213pp.

Brothers at War: Dissidence and Rebellion in Southern Africa by Abiodun Alao. British Academic Press, London and New York. 1994. xiii plus 201pp. including notes, bibliography, index. £39.50. Hardback.

Now that We are Free: Coloured Communities in Democratic South Africa edited by Wilmot James, Daria Caliguire and Kerry Cullinan. Lynne Rienner Publishing, Boulder (Colorado) and London. 1996. 142pp.

Imperialism or Solidarity? International Labour and South African Trade Unions by Roger Southall. University of Cape Town Press, Cape Town. 1995. 398pp.

The Aid Relationship in Zambia: A Conflict Scenario by Oliver Saasa and Jerker Carlsson. Institute for African Studies, Lusaka (Zambia) and Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala (Sweden). 1996. 170pp. including figures, tables, notes, bibliography and index. Paperback.     

Distributive Justice and the Allocation of Costs,Losses, and Profits

In an experimental study, participants read a scenario about five business partners who sold plants at a flea market. Each partner obtained a different outcome and still had to pay the costs of the partnership. Participants either had to indicate what they considered to be a fair distribution of the costs (given each individual partner's earnings) or what they considered to be a fair distribution of the net results (the total outcome minus the costs). The total outcome was either higher or lower than the costs (i.e., the enterprise resulted in a net profit or a net loss). The results indicate that fairness judgments are affected by the target of distribution. Negative outcomes are distributed differently than positive outcomes, and within the domain of negative outcomes, marked differences are observed between costs and net losses. The results are explained in terms of the differential salience of the distribution of the net result.     

Freedom and Opportunity

The article discusses recent attempts in rational choice theory to take account of the opportunity aspect of freedom, i.e., the value of alternatives, in measuring freedom. It is argued that each of these approaches (in terms of fixed preferences, of possible future preferences and of the preferences of reasonable persons) fails to solve important conceptual problems. Furthermore, we argue that differences between measures of opportunity freedom reflect different moral standards for the quality of alternatives, not different conceptions of freedom as such. Hence, we propose to separate discussions about the meaning of the concept of freedom from the issue of determining the value of opportunity sets.     

Rethinking critical criminology

This paper takes the form of a report on the panel discussion held at the conclusion of the 1992 meetings of the European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control in Padua in September 1992. In the light of a perceived crisis of relevance for earlier, 1970s notions of critique in criminology, and in the context of a conference dedicated to the theme of human rights in a uniting Europe, eight panellists from Italy, England, and Canada via Ireland debated their different versions of the project of critical criminology in the last years of the twentieth century. Each of these presentations is summarised here, and an attempt is made to recognise the emergence of a debate between a human rights criminology, eversensitive to the possibilities of repression and control in Fortress Europe, and an alternative perspective, predicated perhaps on some notion of Social Defence and a realist programme of crime prevention and control across free market Europe.     

The impacts of foreignness and cultural distance on commercialization of patents

The Journal of Technology Transfer - Foreign-born academic scientists have been consistently shown to be more productive than the native-born in the United States with regard to research and...     

The effectiveness of social skills training (SST) for juvenile delinquents: a meta-analytical review

Journal of Experimental Criminology - To examine the effectiveness of social skills training (SST) for juvenile offenders and for whom and under which conditions SSTs are the most effective....     

Mere presence of informal guardians deters burglars: a virtual reality study

Journal of Experimental Criminology - This study investigates the deterrent effects of incremental levels of guardianship on residential burglary and assesses how burglars differ from non-burglars...     

Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison

Since the 1960s, there have been calls for forensic voice comparison to be empirically validated under casework conditions. Since around 2000, there have been an increasing number of researchers and practitioners who conduct forensic-voice-comparison research and casework within the likelihood-ratio framework. In recent years, this community of researchers and practitioners has made substantial progress toward validation under casework conditions becoming a standard part of practice: Procedures for conducting validation have been developed, along with graphics and metrics for representing the results, and an increasing number of papers are being published that include empirical validation of forensic-voice-comparison systems under conditions reflecting casework conditions. An outstanding question, however, is: In the context of a case, given the results of an empirical validation of a forensic-voice-comparison system, how can one decide whether the system is good enough for its output to be used in court? This paper provides a statement of consensus developed in response to this question. Contributors included individuals who had knowledge and experience of validating forensic-voice-comparison systems in research and/or casework contexts, and individuals who had actually presented validation results to courts. They also included individuals who could bring a legal perspective on these matters, and individuals with knowledge and experience of validation in forensic science more broadly. We provide recommendations on what practitioners should do when conducting evaluations and validations, and what they should present to the court. Although our focus is explicitly on forensic voice comparison, we hope that this contribution will be of interest to an audience concerned with validation in forensic science more broadly. Although not written specifically for a legal audience, we hope that this contribution will still be of interest to lawyers.