Agenda‐Setting at the Energy‐Water Nexus: Constructing and Maintaining a Policy Monopoly in U.S. Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation

Despite calls to increase federal oversight of hydraulic fracturing (HF), the U.S. Congress has maintained a regulatory system in which environmental regulatory authority is devolved to the states. We argue that this system is characterized by a long‐standing “policy monopoly”: a form of stability in policy agenda‐setting in which a specific manner of framing and regulating a policy issue becomes hegemonic. Integrating theories on agenda‐setting and environmental discourse analysis, we develop a nuanced conceptualization of policy monopoly that emphasizes the significance of regulatory history, public perceptions, industry–government relations, and environmental “storylines.” We evaluate how a policy monopoly in U.S. HF regulation has been constructed and maintained through a historical analysis of oil and gas regulation and a discourse analysis of eleven select congressional energy committee hearings. This research extends scholarship on agenda‐setting by better illuminating the importance of political economic and geographic factors shaping regulatory agendas and outcomes.     

Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task-Irrelevant Information?*†

Knowledge of task-irrelevant information influences judgments of forensic science evidence and thereby undermines their probative value (i.e., forensic confirmation bias). The current studies tested whether laypeople discount the opinion of a forensic examiner who had a priori knowledge of biasing information (i.e., a defendant's confession) that could have influenced his opinion. In three experiments, laypeople (N = 765) read and evaluated a trial summary which, for some, included testimony from a forensic examiner who was either unaware or aware of the defendant's confession, and either denied or admitted that it could have impacted his opinion. When the examiner admitted that the confession could have influenced his opinion, laypeople generally discounted his testimony, as evidenced by their verdicts and other ratings. However, when the examiner denied being vulnerable to bias, laypeople tended to believe him—and they weighted his testimony as strongly as that of the confession-unaware examiner. In short, laypeople generally failed to recognize the superiority of forensic science judgments made by context-blind examiners, and they instead trusted examiners who claimed to be impervious to bias. As such, our findings highlight the value of implementing context management procedures in forensic laboratories so as not to mislead fact-finders.     

疫学因果关系及其证明

侵权法有关因果关系的一般理论有助于从总体上理解法律上的因果关系的性质与特征,却很难将其直接适用于对特定侵权类型的因果关系判断.疫学因果关系理论对司法审判实践中如何认定特定类型的环境侵权因果关系具有重要的指导意义,却未受到我国理论界的重视.将疫学型环境侵权的因果关系分为一般因与特定因,不但可以从理论上更为清晰地界定此类侵权因果关系的特征,还可以为在司法审判实践中判断因果关系是否存在提供参考框架.证明一般因存在与否的关键证据为流行病学证据,而证明特定因存在与否的证据则包括暴露学、临床医学、病理学等科学证据以及其他的一般证据.在对科学证据进行司法审查的基础上,结合其他证据和具体案情对因果关系作出司法判断,才有可能对疫学型环境侵权案件作出合理判决.     

Can Jurors Recognize Missing Control Groups,Confounds, and Experimenter Bias in Psychological Science?

This study examined the ability of jury-eligible community members (N = 248) to detect internal validity threats in psychological science presented during a trial. Participants read a case summary in which an expert testified about a study that varied in internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low). Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group versions only. Internal validity did not influence verdict or ratings of plaintiff credibility and no differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Expert evidence quality, expert credibility, and plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for the scientific reasoning literature and for trials containing psychological science are discussed.     

论言词证据之禁止——以《德国刑事诉讼法》为中心的分析

《德国刑事诉讼法》第136条a是在特定背景下,以德国基本法为根据而单独增加的条款。它采用列举和概括相结合的方式对禁止使用的讯问方法及违法取供的程序性后果作了明确规定。该条文的内涵在德国司法实践中不断得到扩展,目前已经成为德国言词证据收集与运用的基本法则。当前我国刑事诉讼中增设非法言词证据排除规则的立法背景与德国当时增设第136条a具有许多相似性,应当借鉴德国做法,构建适合我国国情的言词证据禁止法则。     

包庇罪作假证明问题分析——兼谈包庇罪与伪证罪的区别

作假证明是包庇罪的核心行为,从作假证明的主体、阶段、行为及目的要素等方面进行分析,并与伪证罪的相关问题进行比较,会更好地解决包庇罪与伪证罪认定中的若干疑难问题。具体说来,作假证明的主体应包括被害人,发生的阶段是在刑事诉讼过程中,行为方式是积极的作为方式,目的是使犯罪的人逃避法律制裁。     

我国行政听证制度存在的问题及解决途径

行政听证作为听证制度的一种,体现了公正、公开、民主原则,具有其他手段所难以达到的独特功能。其对促进国家管理的科学性、民主性,保障公民参与国家管理有着极为重要的作用。但是,从实施效果看,还存在不尽如人意之处。通过对我国行政听证制度的考察,剖析我国行政听政制度之缺陷,进而提出相关的改进和完善措施,以求实现我国依法行政的目的。     

论事实劳动关系——兼谈《劳动合同法(草案)》相关条款的完善

书面劳动合同形式不应该成为事实劳动关系的有效要件,而应该是证明要件.在我国正在制订的<劳动合同法>中,应规定用人单位负有签订书面劳动合同的基本义务和承担违背该义务的法律责任,并规定签订合同的期限,而且在认定劳动关系时应采用举证责任倒置原则.     

污点证人作证豁免制度探析

污点证人作证豁免制度能有效分化瓦解犯罪联盟,是鼓励犯罪者和追诉机关合作的一项重要措施.其理论基础是反对强迫自证其罪的特权.我国法律中有关类似的规定并不是真正意义上的污点证人作证豁免制度,只是体现了其精神而已.在修改刑事诉讼法时,有必要对严重刑事犯罪适用该制度,并建立起相应的保障制度.