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.