Screening for Malingering in a Correctional Setting

This study outlines the development of the Screening SIRS, an abbreviated version of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS), for use as a screening measure of malingering in a correctional setting. Seventy-five inmates complaining of psychological impairment were tested for malingering. A subset of the participants was given both the original SIRS and the Screening SIRS as a separate test with the test order counterbalanced; the remainder were given the original SIRS and a derived classification was determined by extracting the Screening SIRS scale scores. Using Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses, classification based on the Screening SIRS was significantly better than chance. With a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 73%, the Screening SIRS was highly predictive of classifications based on the original SIRS. These findings have instrumental implications in correctional settings where identification of possible malingerers through a screening procedure may facilitate optimal allocation of resources.     

Resistance and compliance in women’s prisons: Towards a critique of legitimacy

This article explores how power is negotiated in women’s prisons. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in three penal establishments in England, the author analyses the ways by which women negotiate restrictions of imprisonment and the manner in which they attempt to resist institutional control. It is proposed that power is negotiated on a private, internalised level, as women often resist the institution simply by trying to maintain an image of control over their own lives. However, this image of themselves as active, reasoning agents is undermined by institutional constraints that encourage them to exhibit traditional, passive, feminine behaviour at the same time as they deny them their identities and responsibilities as mothers, wives, girlfriends, and sisters. The author concludes that women’s modes of resistance indicate that imprisonment is contested and embattled in ways reflecting broader, social norms of behaviour and identity, and thus, that the ‘legitimacy’ of imprisonment rests, at least in part, upon gender. I would like to thank Anthony Gerbino and Alison Liebling for their helpful comments on drafts of this paper which was presented in an earlier form at the Law and Society Conference, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, July 10–13, 1996.     

关于植物人的法律思考

植物人数量的不断增加引发了许多社会问题,法律对该问题却毫无触及,导致植物人及其家属和相关利害关系人的权益保护无法落实。应尽快完善立法,使与植物人相关的法律问题得到解决。准宣告死亡制度就是一种较可行的法律上的解决方法。     

ASSESSING THE PARENT–CHILD RELATIONSHIP IN PARENTING CAPACITY EVALUATIONS: CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF ATTACHMENT RESEARCH

The lack of an articulated model of parenting competence and the limited use of empirically based assessment procedures is a weakness of current parenting capacity assessment protocols. The current article attempts to address this issue through the application of attachment theory and research in assessing one of the most critical components of parenting capacity assessments: the parent–child relationship. New empirically and attachment‐based assessment tools and procedures, well suited for the assessment of parental fitness, are presented, along with recommended practice guidelines to enhance the assessment of the parent–child relationship in cases of young, maltreated children (under 6 years of age).     

The National Nanotechnology Initiative and the Social Good

The purpose of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is to promote nanotechnology in a way that benefits the citizens of the United States. It involves a commitment to support responsible development of nanotechnology. The NNI's enactment of this commitment is critically assessed. It is concluded that there are not adequate avenues within the NNI by which social and ethical issues can be raised, considered, and, when appropriate, addressed.     

Mock Defendants' Procedural Justice Judgments of Alternative Trial Procedures in a Medical Malpractice Case

Mental health professionals were asked to imagine themselves in the role of defendant in a medical malpractice case. Each participant was told that their case could be tried according to standard adversary trial procedures or by an alternative procedure. The alternative procedures involved either varying the way that expert testimony would be developed or bifurcation of issues at trial. Participants rated the available alternative procedure relative to the ADVERS procedure in terms of preference, fairness, willingness to comply with trial outcomes, and other procedural justice dimensions. Results indicated a strong endorsement of potential alternatives to the standard adversarial trial process for resolving medical malpractice claims.