The Use of Religion in Death Penalty Sentencing Trials

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys have presented religious appeals and testimony about a defendant's religious activities in order to influence capital jurors' sentencing. Courts that have objected to this use of religion fear that religion will improperly influence jurors' decisions and interfere with their ability to weigh aggravators and mitigators. This study investigated the effects of both prosecution and defense appeals. Prosecution appeals did not affect verdict decisions; however, use of religion by the defense affected both verdicts and the weighing of aggravators and mitigators. These results could be due to differences in perceived sincerity and remorse that are conveyed in the various appeals.     

The Last Word in Court—A Hidden Disadvantage for the Defense

In the legal systems of most western countries, defense attorneys present their sentencing recommendation after the prosecution has presented its sentencing demands. This procedural sequence for criminal cases is intended to balance the impact of both parties on the judge's final decision. Especially the positioning of the defense's plea at the end of the trial follows the fundamental legal principle “in dubio pro reo.” Research on judgmental anchoring, however, suggests that the standard procedural sequence may in fact work against this principle. Consistent with this implication, the present studies demonstrate that the defense's sentencing recommendation is anchored on, and consequently assimilated toward, the preceding recommendation by the prosecution. This influence prevents the defense attorney from effectively counterbalancing the prosecutor's demand. Instead, the biased defense attorney's recommendation partially mediates the impact of the prosecutor's demand on the judge's decision. These findings suggest that the standard procedural sequence in court may place the defense at a distinct disadvantage.     

Psychotropic Medications for Youth in Child Welfare: Developing and Pilot-Testing A Field Guide for Team Decision-Making

High rates of children involved with the child welfare system are prescribed psychotropics. In response, federal legislation has mandated state child welfare agencies to develop policies to improve the coordination and oversight around the use of psychotropics. This project aimed to support such policies by developing and pilot-testing a field guide for team discussions and decision-making related to the use of psychotropics among youth in child welfare. We used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) framework to engage a team of local stakeholders, including former youth in foster care and parents, in the research. We developed a field guide to facilitate team discussions and decisions around the individual needs and preferences of youth and families, and we pilot-tested the field guide with child welfare staff, parents, and care team members in seven team meetings. Parents and care team members, in particular, highly valued the guide and found it useful to increase knowledge and improve practices such as side effect monitoring and information sharing. Child welfare responses were more mixed, and some reported feeling burdened by the additional tasks. More work is needed to integrate the guide into routine child welfare practice and reduce burden on staff.     

Information inconsistency and the cognitive algebra of foreign policy decision making

This paper explores a special feature of the information complexity that underlies foreign policy decision making, i.e., inconsistency in information. We use the actor and action images to categorize types of inconsistency. The consequences of inconsistency for process and outcome are analyzed within the framework of a cognitive algebra model. Finally, we demonstrate the implications of the model in an experimental study. Our findings show that not every inconsistency is detected and those that are detected do not always affect the choice. The critical inconsistency is the one that presents an imbalanced structure of the actor and the action image. This inconsistency affects the choices made by decision‐makers and sensitizes them to the within image inconsistency. Furthermore, the results suggests that in the context of the scenarios employed in this experiment the actor image has a more dominant status for the foreign policy decision making process than the action image.     

博弈技术在政府危机应急管理决策中的应用

本文运用博弈论的方法，分析了政府应急管理决策中的相关者问题，指出决策相关者间的长期合作和相互信任是合作的重要基础，提出了相应的改善政府应急管理中相关者行为的策略，探讨了政府危机应急管理的一些具体方案。     

侦查和解的适用理念

当下对刑事和解的研究主要集中在审查起诉阶段和审判阶段,对侦查阶段的刑事和解关注不够。应当赋予侦查和解决定权,侦查阶段适用刑事和解指导思想应当是注重社会效果和法律效果平衡。侦查和解应当遵从和解自愿、基本事实清楚、自主和解为主他主和解为辅、和解事后监督等诸原则。     

Rules of military retaliation and their practice by the state of Israel

A major issue intriguing students of international relations is determining to what extent, if at all, do norms and standard operating procedures (SOPs) affect foreign policy. This question is addressed in this article in the case of Israel's policy of military retaliation. Alternative rules of conduct associated with this policy were deduced from strategic and normative arguments presented by Israeli decision‐makers in order to justify military reprisal attacks against Arab countries. These rules of conduct were then formulized into hypotheses and empirically tested with the aid of a database that contained daily accounts of Arab and Israeli acts of aggression towards each other between 1949 and 1982. In this manner it was possible to identify different decision rules that dominated Israel's reprisal policy at different periods of time.     

审查逮捕环节证据的审查与运用

在审查逮捕阶段的证据收集运用中,共存在十种不良倾向.为克服这些问题,从整体上讲,应当坚持证据审查的原则;从具体上讲,应当善于运用证据的审查方法.在多年司法实践的基础上,共归纳了八种行之有效的方法.     

Some individual differences in perception of the evidence and the verdict choice

Abstract

For the last century, social research has provided evidence that contradicts the idea of objectivity in judicial procedure. As a result, research on jurors' potential bias has emerged. We propose an alternative to traditional jury, one in which social researchers collaborate with judges and lawyers, providing them with information on the juror bias. Legal authoritarianism is one of the characteristics of personality, which seems to be linked to juror verdicts. We present two studies, which develop a specific measure for this variable. The first study shows the relevance of legal authoritarianism as a variable to describe the psychological profile of juror-eligible respondents. The second study explores the relationship between legal authoritarianism and interpretation of the evidence, as well as the potential of this variable to predict verdicts.