Searching the Soil: Forensic Importance of Edaphic Fauna After the Removal of a Corpse

Abstract: Arthropods at different stages of development collected from human remains in an advanced stage of decomposition (following autopsy) and from the soil at the scene are reported. The corpse was found in a mixed deciduous forest of Biscay (northern Spain). Soil fauna was extracted by sieving the soil where the corpse lay and placing the remains in Berlese–Tullgren funnels. Necrophagous fauna on the human remains was dominated by the fly Piophilidae: Stearibia nigriceps (Meigen, 1826), mites Ascidae: Proctolaelaps epuraeae (Hirschmann, 1963), Laelapidae: Hypoaspis (Gaeolaelaps) aculeifer (Canestrini, 1884), and the beetle Cleridae: Necrobia rufipes (de Geer, 1775). We confirm the importance of edaphic fauna, especially if the deceased is discovered in natural environs. Related fauna may remain for days after corpse removal and reveal information related to the circumstances of death. The species Nitidulidae: Omosita depressa (Linnaeus, 1758), Acaridae: Sancassania berlesei (Michael, 1903), Ascidae: Zerconopsis remiger (Kramer, 1876) and P. epuraeae, Urodinychidae: Uroobovella pulchella (Berlese, 1904), and Macrochelidae: Glyptholaspis americana (Berlese, 1888) were recorded for the first time in the Iberian Peninsula.     

Unnatural and Violent Death in Cases with High Blood Alcohol Concentration— Autopsy Study

The use of alcohol increases the risk of dying from unnatural or violent causes. The presented study explored the distribution of age, gender, cause, and circumstances of death in persons who died in an unnatural and violent manner, with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) higher than 0.3 g/dL, and where the cause of death was not alcohol intoxication. We defined the control (0 < BAC < 0.3 g/dL) and study (BAC ≥ 0.3 g/dL) groups, as in subjects with these concentrations, there is a significant risk of gross intoxication, stupor, and death. The subjects from the study group were older, with no difference in gender distribution. Traffic accidents were the most common fatal event in both groups, followed by suicides. Other accidents (choking on food and exposure to fire) were more frequent in the study group. Compared to the control group, subjects from the study group were older persons whose deaths were mainly accidental.     

Risk,Precaution, Responsibility,and Equal Concern

Systemic risks are risks produced through interconnected non‐wrongful actions of individuals, in the sense that an individual's action is a negligible cause of the risk. Due to scale effects of interaction, their consequences can be serious but they are also difficult to predict and assess via a risk assessment. Since we can have good reason to engage in the interconnected activities giving rise to systemic risk, we incur a concurrent collective responsibility to ensure that the risks are fairly distributed and well regulated. James argues that fairness in this context requires taking reasonably available precautions ensuring for each risk‐bearer a favourable ratio of expected benefits over expected losses. In sections 2 and 3 we argue that such a conception of fairness applies but only on the condition that the systemic risks created are irreversible risks and that the general background conditions of justice are imperfectly fair. When risks are reversible, compensatory justice can correct for unfairness in risk imposition. Where risks are irreversible, compensatory justice necessarily fails, giving rise to a collective responsibility to regulate fairly ex ante. Additionally, where background conditions of justice are fully fair and the systemic risk is well understood, risk bearers can be said to have consented to the systemic risk. If they are not fair, we argue that the primary political obligation should lie in fixing the fairness of the backgrounds of justice. A related reason for addressing the general background conditions of fairness is that James’ account of fairness in systemic risk imposition encounters a baseline problem. If expected risks and benefits are calculated again an unfair historic background condition, systemic risk imposition would not be fully fair. Section 4 shows why differences in evidentiary uncertainty as to probability and levels of harm and effective responses require a normatively appropriate response in the form of additional precautions. We show that the evidentiary standards set for risk‐based cost‐benefit analysis have a connection with deontology because they express a postulate of equal treatment in formal terms. Systemic risks can have different possible degrees of epistemological certainty due to factors of social and natural origin, such as more available research funding or higher degrees of complexity for some systemic risks but not others. These differences have to be mitigated by taking even greater precautions in difficult‐to‐research systemic risks.     

A Genetic Basis of Economic Egalitarianism

Studies of political attitudes and ideologies have sought to explain their origin. They have been assumed to be a result of political values ingrained during the process of socialization until early adulthood, as well as personal political experience, party affiliation, social strata, etc. As a consequence of these environment-dominated explanations, most biology-based accounts of political preference have never been considered. However, in the light of evidence accumulated in recent years, the view that political attitudes are detached from any physical properties became unsustainable. In this paper, we investigate the origins of social justice attitudes, with special focus on economic egalitarianism and its potential genetic basis. We use Minnesota Twin Study data from 2008, collected from samples of monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs (n = 573) in order to estimate the additive genetic, shared environmental, and unique environmental components of social justice attitudes. Our results show that the large portion of the variance in a four-item economic egalitarianism scale can be attributed to genetic factor. At the same time, shared environment, as a socializing factor, has no significant effect. The effect of environment seems to be fully reserved for unique personal experience. Our findings further problematize a long-standing view that social justice attitudes are dominantly determined by socialization.     

Prohibition of Torture and Other Cruel,Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Some Remarks on the Operative Solutions at the European Level and their Effects on the Member States. The Case of Italy

This paper analyzes European measures against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in order to verify their effectiveness, especially in terms of the values that are actually being protected. First, it examines the distinction between the external and internal action of the European Union, highlighting ways in which the EU appears to be more attentive to combat practices of torture in third countries than to domestic incidents and the proposals to legalize torture made at a political level in some Member States. Then, it examines the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling in the Cestaro versus Italy case, focusing specifically on the fact that Italy was in breach of its obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, because the framework does not recognize torture as a crime and does not provide instruments of deterrence to effectively prevent the execution and the recurrence of such acts. Currently, the Italian Parliament is discussing a draft amendment to the Criminal Code and aims at introducing the concept of torture as a crime; however, in light of the comments made by the European Court of Human Rights, this project questions whether the proposed solution will be able to prevent a repeat of events similar to those that occurred in 2001 after the G8 Summit in Genoa.