The theory of planned behavior and policing: how attitudes about behavior,subjective norms,and perceived behavioral control affect the discretionary enforcement decisions of police officers

This research used qualitative methods to investigate police officer decision-making processes within the context of the theory of planned behavior from the discipline of psychology. Interviews with police officers were conducted to elicit how the constructs of attitudes about enforcement behaviors, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control manifest themselves in a policing context and how they affect the enforcement decisions that police officers ultimately make. The results indicated that officer attitudes about enforcement behaviors impact the decisions officers make with the caution that the impact of these attitudes varies across varying situational contexts. In terms of subjective norms, officers were primarily concerned with supervisor expectations more than the expectations of coworkers or the community in general. Officer decisions are also impacted by perceived limits on their discretion with these perceived limits being largely conditioned by offense seriousness. Theoretical implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.     

第三人撤销之诉撤销对象研究——以《〈民事诉讼法〉解释》第296、297条为中心

《民事诉讼法解释》第296条和第297条分别从裁判文书的内容以及适用案件类型的角度界定了第三人撤销之诉的撤销对象。在既有司法实践条件下,适用第三人撤销之诉的案件类型应当"从严把握",待理论准备和配套制度相对成熟时,可以考虑从立法和司法适用上赋予法官更大的自由裁量权。撤销对象内容的界定则应以既判力消极作用、积极作用以及预决效力等制度功能的有序区分作为基础,并契合第三人撤销之诉的立法目的与性质。     

Consensus Arbitration: A Negotiation‐Based Decision‐Making Process for Arbitrators

In reaching their decisions, arbitrators are currently expected to act like judges by listening fully to both sides and then withdrawing to write the final and complete decision. But because of some key differences between their roles, I argue, arbitrators and judges should exercise completely different styles of decision making. Unlike judges, who make decisive rulings in order to enforce the law, arbitrators are empowered and chosen by the parties themselves to handle specific disputes or govern continuing relationships. Instead of shifting a negotiated process into an authoritative one, arbitrators have the capacity to solicit input from parties as they craft the award. Under a new model of arbitration that I call “consensus arbitration,” arbitrators would facilitate negotiation between the parties but retain the power to break impasses with partial, incomplete decisions, behaving more like facilitators than judges.     

Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea

What factors make deliberative participation of public policy effective? Why, in some cases, are participants in deliberation more motivated than others, and reach their final judgment in a timely manner, based on systematic processes of opinion gathering and consensus building? By comparing and investigating two recent cases of public participation in energy policy deliberation in Korea, we argue that deliberative participation is more effective when the prospect that the outcome of their activities might be accepted by decision makers is high. The two cases, the public deliberation committee (PDC) on the nuclear waste issue which operated from 2013 to 2015, and the PDC on the nuclear power plant construction issue which operated in 2017, show that they went through similar courses of action, and used similar methods for deliberation. However, while the 2017 PDC has produced clear‐cut policy recommendations, and the government have accepted these, the 2013 PDC failed to reach conclusions on the given critical issues. We argue that the difference in the results is caused by credible empowerment along with two other factors––the sensitivity of issues and the learning effect. Participants of deliberation tend to judge the possibility of the government’s acceptance of their opinions based on either the government’s direct announcement or its inclusiveness in the past policy history. If governments are willing to consult the public to increase legitimacy and transparency, they should send explicit signals to the public on its inclusiveness in the short term, and also should increase credibility in the long term.     

Bounded rationality of identity thieves: Using offender‐based research to inform policy*

Research Summary Data for this study were collected in semistructured interviews with 59 individuals serving time in federal prisons for identity theft. We explore how offenders' experiences and life circumstances affected their subjective assessments of risks and rewards and thus facilitated the decision to engage in identity theft. Our findings suggest that offenders perceive identity theft as an easy, rewarding, and relatively risk‐free way to fund their chosen lifestyles. Policy Implications The findings suggest that several situational crime‐prevention measures may be effective at curbing identity theft. Crime‐prevention programs that are geared toward removing excuses and advertising consequences may be effective in deterring potential offenders. We also recommend that rehabilitation programs for convicted identity thieves be cognitive‐based interventions aimed at changing the way offenders think about their crimes.     

Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts

Abstract:  In this paper we employ meta-analytic procedures and estimate effect sizes indexing the degree of reliability and biasability of forensic experts. The data are based on within-expert comparisons, whereby the same expert unknowingly makes judgments on the same data at different times. This allows us to take robust measurements and conduct analyses that compare variances within the same experts, and thus to carefully quantify the degree of consistency and objectivity that underlie expert performance and decision making. To achieve consistency, experts must be reliable, at least in the very basic sense that an expert makes the same decision when the same data are presented in the same circumstances, and thus be consistent with themselves. To achieve objectivity, experts must focus only on the data and ignore irrelevant information, and thus be unbiasable by extraneous context. The analyses show that experts are not totally reliable nor are they unbiasable. These findings are based on fingerprint experts decision making, but because this domain is so well established, they apply equally well (if not more) to all other less established forensic domains.     

A Third Verdict Option: Exploring the Impact of the Not Proven Verdict on Mock Juror Decision Making

In most adversarial systems, jurors in criminal cases consider the binary verdict alternatives of "Guilty" and "Not guilty." However, in some circumstances and jurisdictions, a third verdict option is available: Not Proven. The Not Proven verdict essentially reflects the view that the defendant is indeed culpable, but that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Like a Not Guilty verdict, the Not Proven verdict results in an acquittal. The main aim of the two studies reported here was to determine how, and under what circumstances, jurors opt to use the Not Proven verdict across different case types and when the strength of the evidence varies. In both studies, jurors were more likely to choose a Not Proven verdict over a Not Guilty verdict when the alternative was available. When evidence against the defendant was only moderately strong and a Not Proven verdict option was available (Study 2), there was also a significant reduction in the conviction rate. Results also showed that understanding of the Not Proven verdict was poor, highlighting inadequacies in the nature of judicial instructions relating to this verdict.     

法律论证与司法裁判的正当性追求——转型中国语境下的司法裁判困境及其反思

司法裁判的正当性问题及以对话理论为主要内容的法律论证理论,近年来在我国受到学界广泛关注。为增强司法公信力,司法实践对此也作出了应有的回应和探索,重点是强化庭审功能,推行裁判文书改革。尤其强调裁判理由阐释及论证,要求法官必须公开其心证过程。但在中国转型社会的现实语境中,实质公正仍是司法裁判追求的最高目标,法官适用法律存在多重困境,法律论证过程不可避免地遭遇尴尬。司法裁判的正当性追求仍应以实现法律之内的正义为基础,同时应回应立法目的与社会利益。     

借金融危机之“机”促推我国公共决策体制改革

全球金融危机的发生呼唤政府这只"看得见的手"发挥作用,而政府如何在消除市场失灵的同时有效的防止政府失败,考验着各国的公共决策体制。中国作为一个负责任的大国,一个人民民主共和国,一个奉行以人为本科学发展的国家,有责任、有义务加快自身公共决策体制的改革,以保证中国经济振兴计划高效益、高质量、快速度地实施,为世界做出表率,对国人负起责任。