State Crimes of Previous Regimes: Knowledge, Accountability, and the Policing of the Past

The policy of lustration is set in the context of responses to abuses of power by previous regimes. Using examples from three recent forms of social reconstruction (in Latin America, the former communist states, and South Africa), the author reviews the “justice in transition” debate. How do societies going through democratization confront the human rights violations committed by the previous regime? Five aspects of this debate are reviewed: (1) truth: establishing and confronting the knowledge of what happened in the past; (2) justice: making offenders accountable for their past violations through three possible methods: punishment through the criminal law, compensation and restitution, and mass disqualification such as lustration; (3) impunity: giving amnesty to previous offenders; (4) expiation; and (5) reconciliation and reconstruction. A concluding discussion raises the implications of the subject for the study of time and social control.     

Data sharing

The sharing of research data to permit secondary analyses is rooted in the collegial tradition of science. Recently there has been a gradual shift from viewing data sharing as a voluntary activity to considering sharing as an obligation of researchers. This paper identifies two important dimensions of data sharing: the degree to which the primary investigators may determine whether they will share their data and the reason for which the data set is being requested. In addition to discussing the dimensions of data sharing, the negative aspects of viewing data sharing as an obligation are discussed. These negative factors are increased burden on the primary investigator; lack of incentive to share data; and loss of control over the use of data and negative effects on scientific progress. Recommendations regarding data sharing policies are made in light of these negative effects.     

Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment

Estimates of the incidence of victim gun use from the National CrimeVictimization Survey (NCVS) are consistently lower than are those fromother studies. To examine the divergence, we conducted a survey that gaugedthe impact of methodological differences between the NCVS and the otherstudies. For half of the sample, we asked questions from the NCVS, followedby questions from the other surveys. For the other half of the sample, wepresented the questions in the reverse order. We examined two hypotheses:(1) survey methods account for the divergent results, and (2) the questionscover unrelated activities. The results provided some support for the firsthypothesis, but respondents also reported many more defenses to thequestions from the other surveys than to the NCVS questions. Consistent withthe second hypothesis, this suggests that the NCVS and the other surveysmeasure responses to largely different provocations.