Police Perceptions of Irrational Unstable Behaviours and Use of Force

Police identification of people experiencing mental illness is usually based on either the person having an official contact history with police or through observing behavioural indicators commonly associated with mental illness during an encounter. Police have voiced concerns with their ability to identify and respond to people experiencing mental illness in a timely way and report that they commonly resort to more coercive tactical options to resolve encounters. The present study employed a mixed method design to examine 286 police use of force incidents to investigate the association between force used on and by offenders displaying irrational-unstable behavioural characteristics. The irrational-unstable offenders were two times more likely to be perceived by police to have an apparent mental disorder and almost four times more likely to have a known mental health history; one in six had an official record of contact with mental health services. There were few differences in police and offender use of force, considering force as both a categorical and a continuous variable, while incident-level comparisons suggested that police force was generally proportional to offender resistance. Implications are discussed in terms of the need to redress limitations with the traditional police approach style.     

Detecting Deception in Children's Testimony: Factfinders' Abilities to Reach the Truth in Open Court and Closed-Circuit Trials

This study examined the influence of closed-circuit television (CCTV) on jurors' abilities to detect deception in children's testimony. Children ages 7–9 individually played games and made a video movie with a male confederate. In the guilty condition, stickers were placed on exposed body parts (i.e., the child's arm, toes, and bellybutton). In the not-guilty and deception conditions, stickers were placed on the child's clothing rather than on bare skin. Approximately 3 weeks later, mock jurors recruited from the community viewed child participants testify either in a traditional courtroom setting or via one-way CCTV. The mock jurors responded to questions about the child witness and the defendant as well as deliberated to reach a verdict. Children in the deception condition were asked to testify as if the stickers had been placed on exposed body parts rather than on their clothing. Predeliberation, jurors were less likely to convict when a child testified in the deception condition as opposed to the guilty condition. These differences disappeared following deliberation. There was no support for the notion that jurors reach the truth better when children testify in open court versus via CCTV. Implications for jurors' abilities to reach the truth are discussed.     

Making a Difference in Criminology: Past,Present, and Future

American Journal of Criminal Justice - Over the past century, criminology has evolved as both an applied and increasingly recognized scientific discipline. Although criminology has experienced a...     

Fragmented or cohesive transnational private regulation of sustainability standards? A comparative study

Literature on private regulation recognizes the proliferation of competing regulatory organizations and approaches in various industries. Studies analyzing why fragmentation arises so far focus on single‐case studies, the exploration of single variables, or variation in types of fragmentation. This article analyzes why in certain industries and for certain issues regulatory organizations proliferate, while in others a single regulatory organization emerges which covers the entire industry. Through a comparative case study of private regulation of sustainability standards in the forestry, clothing, IT‐electronics, and chemicals industries, we show how a combination of low industrial concentration, civil society involvement in governance, and stringent standards of a first‐moving regulator offer the strongest explanation for a fragmented private regulatory field, while high industrial concentration, business‐driven governance, and lenient standards of a first‐moving regulator lead to cohesive regulation.