Preparing children for cross-examination: do the practice questions matter?

Research has shown that a brief intervention involving practice and feedback can help children maintain accuracy when challenged with cross-examination-style questions. To date, however, researchers have prepared children using the same cross-examination challenges that they would encounter during the subsequent cross-examination interview. It is unknown whether the intervention will still be effective when children later face novel cross-examination-style questions. Six- to 11-year-old children (n?=?132) took part in a staged memory event, and were then interviewed with analogues of direct-examination (1–2 days later) and cross-examination (6–8 weeks later). One week prior to the cross-examination interview, some children participated in a preparation session, where they were given practice answering cross-examination-style questions about an unrelated topic, and feedback on their responses. For half of these children, the cross-examination-style challenges they encountered during the preparation session were the same as the challenges they subsequently faced during cross-examination; for the others, there was no overlap. Relative to a control group that did not receive the intervention, the preparation session resulted in better performance during cross-examination, regardless of the degree of overlap. These findings are encouraging given that we can never predict the questions that cross-examining lawyers will ask children.     

Does price really converge among provinces in Canada？ A study using unit root tests for cross-sectional panels

This paper examines price convergences across different provinces in Canada using 1983-2006 data. We adopt the new panel unit root tests for analysis that can correct for cross-sectional correlation. Our findings are contrary to previous studies and we conclude that intra-national price convergence does not occur. We also briefly discuss the reasons for the absence of convergence within Canada.     

Did Post-Floyd et al. Reforms Reduce Racial Disparities in NYPD Stop,Question, and Frisk Practices? An Exploratory Analysis Using External and Internal Benchmarks

Various methodological approaches to constructing external and internal benchmarks have been applied to estimate racial bias in police stop, question, and frisk (SQF) patterns. We apply an external benchmark of the race of the residential population and an internal benchmark of similarly-situated stops to estimate if racial disparities in New York City SQF data were impacted by the Floyd, et al. v. City of New York court settlement. We find that after the settlement, the racial composition of census tracts were no longer significant predictors of the stop rate after controlling for reported crime, socioeconomic factors, and police precincts. We further find that differences in SQF outcomes and hit rates between Blacks and Hispanics and similarly-situated others diminished substantially after the settlement. These findings suggest that court reforms may be an effective method for reducing racial disparities in SQF patterns.     

Evaluating the Role of Race in Sentencing: An Entropy Weighting Analysis

The current study builds on prior research examining racial disparities in sentencing. Entropy weighting is introduced as a new method for estimating racial disparities that has several advantages over traditionally used methods. Entropy weighting is compared to regression and propensity score methods in estimating Black-White disparities in incarceration sentences. Although all methods find non-significant racial disparities in incarceration sentences, regression and propensity score methods underestimate disparities in incarceration sentence lengths. Entropy weighting provides comparable estimates to propensity score methods, but assures that the samples are identical on all covariates aside from race. The method offers researchers a useful and flexible approach for estimating racial disparities in criminal justice, and its use may lead to alternative conclusions about the size and presence of racial disparities in sentencing.     

Does Mandatory Diversion to Drug Treatment Eliminate Racial Disparities in the Incarceration of Drug Offenders? An Examination of California’s Proposition 36

Objective

This paper addresses previous shortcomings in the literature on racial disparities in incarceration for drug offenders by taking advantage of a change in sentencing policy in California and a rich administrative dataset that is able to create a sample of comparable White and Black offenders.

Method

We use a nonparametric propensity weighting approach to identify similarly situated White and Black male offenders charged with drug-related offenses. We combine this approach with a difference-in-differences model to estimate the effect that a change in California sentencing law for convicted non-violent drug offenders had on racial disparities in prison and drug treatment dispositions.

Results

We find substantial reductions in the probability of a prison sentence after the policy change, but not differentially for Blacks. Blacks remain more likely to go to prison than similarly situated Whites after the policy, although the policy does lead to more referrals to treatment for Blacks.

Conclusions

This paper shows that even after comparing Blacks and Whites in similarly situated contexts that racial disparities in prison commitments remain after sentencing law changes that mandate diversion to drug treatment. The results suggests that addressing racial gaps in the commitments to state prisons will likely require more than shifting the eligibility of drug convictions for prison, as accumulated criminal histories are the primary driver of prison sentences. This means that expanding diversion options from prison alone will not reduce the racial gap in commitments to prison for drug offenses more than incrementally.

     

Constructing citizenship? Women, welfare and refugees in France, 1939-1940

Women were central to the provision of welfare services in France during the refugee crises of the late 1930s. By building on the services created during the First World War, women, as either volunteers or professionals, actively cared for refugees and others during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), the phoney war (September 1939-May 1940) and the German invasion of 1940. French women's involvement with refugee aid enabled them to develop a sense of autonomous civil and political activism, especially—although not exclusively—in their work with the French Red Cross. In addition, the history of welfare activities for refugees illuminates how ordinary people dealt with the extraordinary circumstances of war, invasion and the forced movement of populations.     

Mortgages, seniors and the common law contractual doctrine of mental incapacity in Australia

Seniors in Australia are being called upon to mortgage their most precious economic asset, the family home. They may be asked to guarantee the liabilities of other family members by providing a mortgage-based guarantee or they may decide to enter into a reverse mortgage to supplement financially their savings and pensions. As the family home is the single most valuable asset for most older Australians, the creation of any obligations in regard to it ought to be undertaken with care and vigilance. While seniors are free to create mortgages, they may lack the capacity to understand the legal ramifications of these complex transactions or be unable to protect their interests when entering into them. It is not suggested that older Australians necessarily suffer a lack of contractual capacity. Many seniors are more than able to take care of their interests and assets. However, some seniors do suffer cognitive impairment which adversely affects their capacity to act in their best interests and to navigate the complexities of contractual relations. In contract and mortgage law, this raises the issue of mental incapacity.For centuries, the common law has recognized not only that mentally incapacitated people exist, but that they may enter into contracts such as mortgages and may later wish to have the mortgage set aside. The present formulation of the contractual doctrine of mental incapacity is the product of 19th century jurisprudence in which the courts framed the doctrine to accommodate commercial dealing rather than the interests of persons who lacked the necessary mental capacity. Accordingly, the doctrine has been very difficult to rely on successfully when challenging mortgages made by persons lacking capacity. Therefore, Australian litigators and courts alike have sought to deal with mental incapacity issues in the contractual context by using and modifying other doctrines (such as non est factum, undue influence and unconscionable dealing) in which the issue of capacity may be incorporated, but where mental incapacity need not be the sole or primary focus. While this had led to greater success for mortgagors, this has been at the expense of the common law doctrine. The article concludes by offering some suggestions as to how the doctrine may be modernized and mental capacity dealt with in a way both to empower competent seniors and protect those vulnerable seniors suffering cognitive impairment.