Dirty tricks of cross-examination

A mock jury study was conducted to test the hypothesis that perceptions of a witness can be biased by presumptuous cross-examination questions. A total of 105 subjects read a rape trial in which the cross-examiner asked a question that implied something negative about the reputation of either the victim or an expert. Within each condition, the question was met with either a denial, an admission, or an objection from the witness's attorney. Results indicated that although ratings of the victim's credibility were not affected by the presumptuous question, the expert's credibility was significantly diminished—even when the question had elicited a denial or a sustained objection. Conceptual and practical implications of these findings are discussed.This research was supported by funds provided to the first author by the Bronfman Science Center.     

Building bridges between the parole officer and the families of serious juvenile offenders: a preliminary report on a family-based parole program

Responding to a model of juvenile offender case supervision that called for a new intervention paradigm to guide the work of probation and parole officers, the present article reports on the use of a family-based parole initiative known as the Growing Up FAST program. Developed in part as a tool for use within this new intervention paradigm, the Growing Up FAST parole program targets serious youthful offenders who have been released from juvenile correctional facilities and their families. Based on elements contained within the "what works" literature and the Balanced and Restorative Justice model, this program recognizes the central role that field staff can play in rehabilitation efforts. Demographic information and formative data regarding the first set of families to participate in this program are presented, then program limitations and lessons learned as part of the initial offering of this parole initiative are discussed.     

Race, Caste, or Class? The Bunche–Myrdal Dispute Over An American Dilemma

Few observers doubt that Gunnar Myrdal and Ralph J. Bunche had sharp methodological disagreements and differing approaches to tactics for ending the Negro problem. Myrdal has been criticized as a statist liberal and utopian moralist by recent cultural historians defending progressive nationalism (multiculturalism), while Bunche has been characterized as a vulgar Marxist, and, with Myrdal, a denigrator of black culture. Inspection of An American Dilemma in contrast with Bunche's research memoranda suggests that Myrdal represented himself as a Burkean conservative, while Bunche's analyses transmit the radical puritan libertarian tradition, but without rejecting social democratic remedies en route to working-class control of industry. Their shared emphasis on class-based remedies to end poverty and powerlessness, however, renders them similarly unassimilable in a period where the progressive left has generally embraced racial or ethnic identity, not class power, as the source of individual emancipation, mental health, and economic betterment.     

Pre-nuptial Agreements the end of romance or an invaluable weapon in the wealth protection armoury?

Media attention directed at high profile divorce cases has emphasizedthat trust assets may be included in divorce settlements andthe advantages which pre-nuptial and similar agreements canplay in achieving acceptable and less traumatic settlements.This article examines the role that pre-nuptial agreements andsimilar measures can play in achieving an acceptable settlement.     

Reflections on reforming the Canadian electoral system

Abstract. Canada's plurality vote system has been criticized recently for contributing to the regional and linguistic imbalance of the parties in Parliament. While many of the criticisms are undoubtedly correct, some of the promises held out on behalf of a reformed electoral system are open to question. Before Canada seriously considers abandoning its present electoral system, the assumptions made about alternative systems and the arguments presented on their behalf deserve closer scrutiny than they have so far received. By reflecting on the nature of political change and the representative process in Canada this paper comments critically on the adequacy of some of the claims put forward by the reformers. These claims relate specifically to increased party ‘credibility’ and ‘sensitivity’ under a different electoral system. The paper suggests that some of the claims made on behalf of a reformed system are doubtful, that representation in the sense of acting for others could be more a feature of the current system than of any reformed one, and that further research is needed before any final decision is made to alter the present electoral system. Sommaire. On a critiqueé récemment le système électoral pluraliste du Canada, l'accusant de contribuer au déséquilibre régional et linguistique des partis au Parlement. Beaucoup de ces critiques sont certainement justifyées mais certaines promesses faites dans le cadre d'une reiorme du systeme electoral sont discu-tables. Avant que le Canada n'envisage 1'abandon de son systeme electoral actuel, il faut regarder de plus près qu'on ne l'a fait jusqu'ici les suppositions concernant des systemes de rechange et les arguments presented en leur faveur. En reiléchissant sur la nature du changement politique et sur le processus de la representation en cause, l'auteur fait une critique du bien-fonde de certaines des pretentions avancées par certains reformateurs. Ces critiques portent, plus précisément, sur la ← credibility → et la ← sensibility → d'un systeme electoral different. L'article suggere que certaines des pretentions d'un systeme reiorm6 sont contestables, que la representation dans le sens d'action pour le compte d'autrui est peut-etre beaucoup plus une caracteristique du systeme actuel que de n'importe quel systeme reform^ et que des recherches plus approfondies s'imposent avant que soit prise la decision de modifier le systeme electoral actuel. I wish to thank Duff Spafford of the University of Saskatchewan and Paul McKee, Research Fellow, Nuffield College, Oxford, for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper; the Warden and Fellows of Nuffield College for the hospitality and assistance accorded me during my sabbatical leave; and the SSHRCC for its assistance through a Leave Fellowship, 1979-80. The case for an altered Canadian electoral system must be examined a good deal more critically than it has been to date. This essay attempts to contribute to that process by examining a few of the claims made recently on behalf of a reformed electoral system and by commenting on those claims in the light of Canadian political experience. The paper is not intended to make a virtue of the present system but it does raise questions about the liklihood of a reformed system living up to its advance bil-ling. How is the problem defined? What are some of the benefits claimed on behalf of a reformed system? What are the notions of representation underlying the arguments? If answers could be suggested to such questions as these, they may give cause to reflect on the general case being made in support of an altered system and on the appropriateness of abandoning or altering the present system without further study. Although the recent literature on electoral reform in Canada has been sizable, its quality has been uneven. Between the two notable contributions of the last decade (the Cairns-Lovink debate of 1968-70 and the Irvine monograph of 1979) a number of government reports, chapters in books, and newspaper articles were published. If some of the arguments and assertions of this admittedly mixed group remain unchallenged they may in the long run prove seductive to an unsuspecting public, academic as well as general, looking for much more to come from a reformed system than it can possibly deliver. Certainly it has not yet been established in the literature that the electoral system warrants such critical analysis in isolation from or, indeed, at the expense of other representational concerns which in themselves may be more crucial to the healthy operation of the Canadian polity than a reformed electoral system.     

How do federal regulations affect consumer prices? An analysis of the regressive effects of regulation

This study is the first to measure the impact of federal regulations on consumer prices. By combining consumer expenditure and pricing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, industry supply-chain data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and industry-specific regulation information from the Mercatus Center’s RegData database, we determine that regulations promote higher consumer prices, and that these price increases have a disproportionately negative effect on low-income households. Specifically, we find that the poorest households spend larger proportions of their incomes on heavily regulated goods and services prone to sharp price increases. While the literature explores other specific costs of regulation, noting that higher consumer prices are a probable consequence of heavy regulation, this study is the first to provide a thorough empirical analysis of that relationship across industries. Irrespective of the reasons for imposing new regulations, these results demonstrate that in the aggregate, the negative consequences are significant, especially for the most vulnerable households.