Analysing and exemplifying forensic conclusion criteria in terms of Bayesian decision theory

There is ongoing discussion in forensic science and the law about the nature of the conclusions reached based on scientific evidence, and on how such conclusions – and conclusion criteria – may be justified by rational argument. Examples, among others, are encountered in fields such as fingermarks (e.g., ‘this fingermark comes from Mr. A's left thumb’), handwriting examinations (e.g., ‘the questioned signature is that of Mr. A’), kinship analyses (e.g., ‘Mr. A is the father of child C’) or anthropology (e.g., ‘these are human remains'). Considerable developments using formal methods of reasoning based on, for example (Bayesian) decision theory, are available in literature, but currently such reference principles are not explicitly used in operational forensic reporting and ensuing decision-making. Moreover, applied examples, illustrating the principles, are scarce. A potential consequence of this in practical proceedings, and hence a cause of concern, is that underlying ingredients of decision criteria (such as losses quantifying the undesirability of adverse decision consequences), are not properly dealt with. There is merit, thus, in pursuing the study and discussion of practical examples, demonstrating that formal decision-theoretic principles are not merely conceptual considerations. Actually, these principles can be shown to underpin practical decision-making procedures and existing legal decision criteria, though often not explicitly apparent as such. In this paper, we will present such examples and discuss their properties from a Bayesian decision-theoretic perspective. We will argue that these are essential concepts for an informed discourse on decision-making across forensic disciplines and the development of a coherent view on this topic. We will also emphasize that these principles are of normative nature in the sense that they provide standards against which actual judgment and decision-making may be compared. Most importantly, these standards are justified independently of peoples' observable decision behaviour, and of whether or not one endorses these formal methods of reasoning.     

Can the use of minipublics backfire? Examining how policy adoption shapes the effect of minipublics on political support among the general public

Academics and practitioners are increasingly interested in deliberative minipublics and whether these can address widespread dissatisfaction with contemporary politics. While optimism seems to prevail, there is also talk that the use of minipublics may backfire. When the government disregards a minipublic's recommendations, this could lead to more dissatisfaction than not asking for its advice in the first place. Using an online survey experiment in Belgium (n = 3,102), we find that, compared to a representative decision-making process, a minipublic tends to bring about higher political support when its recommendations are fully adopted by the government, whereas it generates lower political support when its recommendations are not adopted. This study presents novel insights into whether and when the use of minipublics may alleviate or aggravate political dissatisfaction among the public at large.     

Governance reforms and public acceptance of regulatory decisions: Cross-national evidence from linked survey experiments on pesticides authorization in the European Union

Do governance reforms affect public acceptance of regulatory decisions, and if so, how? We tackled this critical but under-studied question through a pair of linked survey experiments on public attitudes toward the reform of European Union (EU) pesticides regulation among a representative sample of the adult population in six EU member states. We tested the expectation that citizens are more likely to accept a regulatory decision that runs counter to their prior policy preferences if it is taken under a procedure they support. We first conducted a conjoint experiment to study whether the specific design of decision-making procedures impacts public support for EU pesticide regulation. In a second linked experiment, we asked respondents whether farmers should be allowed to use glyphosate, the best known and most controversial pesticide. We then asked respondents if they would accept an authorization decision on glyphosate contrary to their prior expressed preference if it were taken under a decision-making procedure they supported. The results demonstrate that a regulatory decision-making procedure respondents support increases their willingness to accept a hypothetical authorization decision contrary to their prior expressed preference. Contrary to the findings of previous research, our study thus provides strong evidence that governance reforms supported by citizens can enhance acceptance of controversial regulatory decisions, even on politicized issues such as pesticides authorization.     

JUVENILE COURT FOR YOUNG ADULTS? HOW ONGOING COURT INVOLVEMENT CAN ENHANCE FOSTER YOUTHS' CHANCES FOR SUCCESS

States wishing to extend foster care supports to young adults under the Fostering Connections to Success Act are required to meet all the requirements of Title IV‐E, which include regular reviews that have traditionally been conducted in juvenile courts. For some, this requirement of ongoing judicial involvement is a reason to forgo this significant source of new federal dollars. Others are seeking ways to minimize ongoing court involvement while still complying with federal requirements. This article argues that these views are misguided. Designed properly, juvenile court reviews can play a unique and important role in helping young adults begin to take responsibility for their own futures.     

The Political Side of Consociationalism Reconsidered: Switzerland between a Polarized Parliament and Delicate Government Collegiality

This paper builds upon the concept of “coalescent elite behaviour” which is crucial in consociational theory, but contested regarding its actual conceptualization. Contrary to Lijphart's (1968) original assumption that elites are generally committed to an “overarching cooperation”, we hypothesize that institutional venues must be taken in account. Thus, the aim of this paper is twofold: Conceptually, we try to clarify the nature of “amicable agreement” regarding two core institutions (i.e. parliament, government), and regarding executive‐legislative relations. Empirically, we follow a two‐step empirical approach that combines a cross‐time comparison of the decision‐making process regarding the revision of the Swiss basic pension scheme (AHV) with a cross‐case assessment following Fischer's two‐dimensional typology. More generally, our findings serve to inductively refine the “political side” of consociationalism.     

Combining Citizen Participation and Expert Analysis: A Wild,Wild Horses Problem in British Columbia

Local governments face increasingly complex decisions and must inevitably rely on professional staff with specialised knowledge. However, ordinary citizens and stakeholders are demanding the right to directly participate in governmental decisions. What is the appropriate division of labour? The article proposes a practical approach to participatory decision making that tries to combine administrative efficiency and democratic legitimacy. The approach decomposes the decision problem into a number of discrete stages. An action research methodology is used to illustrate the application of the method. Specifically, we decompose a ‘roaming horse’ problem in the interior of British Columbia to identify the information requirements for each stage of the model. We use a series of web-based Delphi surveys to elicit specific information from citizens regarding objectives and potential alternatives. The survey results suggest that a relatively simple and cost-effective deliberative tool like Delphi can facilitate an effective division of labour between citizens and government experts.     

Examining Connections between the Police and Prosecution in Sexual Assault Case Processing: Does the Use of Exceptional Clearance Facilitate a Downstream Orientation?

After several decades of research on how the criminal justice system handles reports of sexual assault, the attrition of cases at the police and prosecutor stages continues to draw the attention of policy makers, victim advocates, and academics. Such attrition has implications for thousands of victims and their alleged offenders each year. Current estimates show that significant rates of attrition persist and vary across jurisdictions. Recent work in two jurisdictions reveals a pattern of exceptional clearances being used to close sexual assault cases reported to the police and that prosecutors are weighing in at the arrest stage. Broadening this analysis we use incident data from a multitude of jurisdictions that report to the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) in combination with data from other law enforcement sources to investigate how legal and extra-legal incident factors as well as agency factors differentiate the decision to clear cases by exceptional means from clearance by arrest. We find that agency, legal, and extra-legal factors predict the use of exceptional clearance relative to arrest and discuss how these findings suggest a downstream orientation in case processing.     

算法决策规制——以算法“解释权”为中心

算法决策正成为经济与社会体系的一部分,一方面,它创造了显著的社会与经济价值,但另一方面,不公不义的预测或推断会损及个人自主与尊严从而使算法备受质疑。由于算法无法解决自身导致的妨害问题,且算法控制者与数据主体间存在明显的信息或权力不对称,因此,有必要赋予个人一项具体的数据权利——算法“解释权”,以强化其对于己不利的算法决策提出异议的权利,进而促进算法正义、保护个人自主与尊严。不过,利用“解释权”对抗算法妨害虽然必要但并不充分,其在技术上面临可解释性难题,且与商业秘密存在紧张关系。因此,算法决策需要统合规制,需要进一步增强算法决策的社会控制,优化算法应用监管。     

Motivational dilemmas in collaborative learning activities: The case of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)

Complex social and environmental problems—such as climate change, rural poverty, and over‐fishing—defy simple policy solutions. An increasing number of scholars, practitioners, and policy makers now agree that coming to grips with such problems requires more collaborative and adaptive forms of learning and decision‐making. Such approaches seek to involve a variety of stakeholders to learn about system‐level effects of past human decisions and adapt future management decisions to the lessons learned. While there are plenty of success stories at the local level, the collaborative learning approach has turned out to be difficult to implement at broader scales—in large public organizations and in society at large. This article provides an explanation for such shortcomings, arguing that the creation of collaborative learning systems is plagued by several motivational dilemmas. By systematically mapping out the institutional incentives of the potential participants in collaborative learning activities, it is argued that one can gain a better understanding of the likelihood that adaptive systems will actually work. These ideas are tested on the case of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). It is found that most Sida staff face conflicting incentives to engage in collaborative learning, but there are opportunities for management to strengthen such incentives. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Regulatory reform and governance: A survey of selected developing and transition economies

Regulation is now considered an integral instrument in developing policy toolkit to support market‐led, pro‐poor growth in developing and transition economies. Institutional environment in general and regulatory governance in particular have increasingly been viewed as a factor of competitiveness. In search for better governance, regulatory reform is critical. This article assesses regulatory reform in selected developing and transition economies by reporting the results of a survey on the application of regulatory governance policies, tools and institutions. It is found that in these countries regulatory reform has not shifted in approaches and objectives to taking a systematic view of regulatory governance and the means of promoting and enhancing it. It is suggested that, in order to improve regulatory governance, focus should be put on each of the three elements: regulatory policies, tools and institutions, and that centralised and concerted efforts are needed to integrate the elements. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.