The impact of protective shields and videotape testimony on conviction rates in a simulated trial of child sexual abuse

In Experiment 1 mock jurors watched a videotape simulation of a sexual abuse trial that included a 10-year-old child witness testifying in one of three different modalities: (1) The child testified in court while directly confronting the defendant (open court condition). (2) The child testified in court with a protective shield placed between the child and the defendant (shield condition). (3) The child testified outside the courtroom and the child's testimony was presented to the jury and the defendant on a video monitor (video condition). The mock jurors judged the guilt of the defendant after watching the entire trial. The modality of the child's testimony had no impact on conviction rates. In Experiment 2 subjects watched the same trial that was used in Experiment 1. The trial was stopped immediately after the child testified (the child was the first witness to take the stand), and subjects judged the guilt of the defendant. The modality of the child's testimony had a significant impact on conviction rates. Subjects in the open court condition were more likely to convict the defendant than subjects in the shield and videotape conditions. These findings are relevant to Supreme Court decisions regarding the use of protective devices with child witnesses.     

Autonomy,paternalism, and institutional interest: why some conflicts can't be waived

This paper asks the question of why, in some cases, a client is precluded from demanding of their lawyer that they act for them and their adversary simultaneously. We accept that in numerous instances a lawyer can act for clients whose interests may diverge (or in some cases do in fact diverge) providing informed consent has been obtained. This paper enquires as to why the line between waivable and non-waivable conflicts is drawn where it is, and examines the theoretical underpinning of the waiver rule and its boundaries. It does so by first looking at the client autonomy argument for allowing waivers. It then turns to explore the paternalistic justifications for rendering a consensual waiver of a conflict inoperative. Finally it looks at those cases where a waiver is not permitted that are left unexplained by paternalism. It argues that paternalism, properly understood, is a legitimate justification for most refusals to accept a waiver of conflict. However, a residual body of cases remain unexplained by paternalism. Those cases are best explained by the propensity of the law and the legal profession to protect its institutional values and interest.     

The Ethics of Justice and Good Governance in African Traditional Society

The aim of this paper is two-fold: to retrieve African democratic rationalism using the Igbo schematic; based on this, to challenge the feasibility of liberal democracy as a veritable model for justice and good governance, irrespective of the ecological specificity and historical lessons of Africa. In this context, the paper examines the ethics of justice and good governance in Igbo traditional society.     

Rethinking local political leadership

The changing nature of local political leadership in Britain over the past 25 years has received scant attention from political scientists. This article argues that changes in the roles and functions of local authorities have had a marked impact on the nature of local political leadership. Three phases (operational, transitional and collaborative) are identified and leadership roles are related to changes in the political context of local government. The fundamental tasks of leadership have not changed but what has changed is the balance or relative emphasis between them and the way they have been interpreted. While elected local authorities cannot ignore the implications of the changed external agenda – notably the advent of new forms of executive leadership – the way they respond still bears the mark of the local political culture.