License plate reader (LPR) police patrols in crime hot spots: an experimental evaluation in two adjacent jurisdictions

Objectives  

This randomized controlled experiment tests whether license plate readers (LPR) deter crime generally, and automobile crime more specifically in crime hot spots. The limited intervention tested here reflects one current likely use of LPR at the time of this publication.     

An overview of the European Artist's Resale Right Directive 2001/84/EC and its implementation in the UK via the Artist's Resale Right Regulations 2005

The artist's resale right entitles artists (and their beneficiaries)whose work is protected by copyright to a percentage share ofthe sale price every time their artwork is resold by a gallery,dealer, or auction house.     

Principles of STR multiplex amplification

We performed a systematic evaluation of template amount, multiplex primer concentration, amplification cycle number, and amplification volume on commercial multiplex performance. We determined that, except for stochastic variation with limited template amounts, the same quality, intensity, and accuracy of DNA profiles can be obtained while varying each of these parameters over a broad range. Each parameter can be used to compensate for changes in the others, allowing us to provide specific recommendations with use of limited sample material.     

The BodeChecks solution: A high throughput analysis software combining GeneMapper ID, FSS-i, LIMS, and artificial intelligence

Combining key attributes of GeneMapper^® ID and FSS-i³ software packages with our internally created LIMS and some additional analytical programming has permitted us to increase quality checks on DNA profile data review while eliminating analysis time.     

Minors' capacity to refuse treatment: a reply to Gilmore and Herring

Re R and Re W allow a parent to consent to treatment a competent minor refuses, but the cases have not been tested post-Human Rights Act 1998. Gilmore and Herring offer a means by which they might be distinguished or sidelined. They interpret Gillick to say that in order to consent a minor need only have a full understanding of the particular treatment. They argue that the minors in Re R and Re W were refusing all treatment which requires a separate assessment of capacity-an assessment which was not made. We fear that this distinction would not be workable in clinical practice and argue that their interpretation of Gillick is flawed. From a clinician's point of view, competence cannot always be judged in relation to a specific treatment, but instead must relate to the decision. We show that a decision can incorporate more than one treatment, and more than one decision might be made about one treatment. A minor's understanding of a specific treatment is not always sufficient to demonstrate competence to make a decision. The result is that whilst there might be situations when a parent and a minor both have the power to consent to a particular treatment, they will not share concurrent powers in relation to the same decision. Consequently, a challenge to Re R and Re W, if forthcoming, would need to take a different form. We emphasise the necessity to minimise the dichotomy between legal consent and how consent works in medical practice.