The referral decision scale with mentally disordered inmates

Correctional facilities are increasingly burdened with mentally disordered offenders and are faced with the formidable task of effectively screening inmates for major mental disorders and suicide potential. Teplin and Swartz (1989) developed the Referral Decision Scale (RDS) as a rapid screen for schizophrenia and major mood disorders in jail populations. However, more recent research by Hart, Roesch, Corrado, and Cox (1993) has called into question the effectiveness of the RDS. In this study, we examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the RDS with the Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia—Change Version (SADS-C) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) on a sample of 108 mentally disordered inmates. The RDS provided moderate evidence of convergent validity but failed to demonstrate acceptable discriminant validity, because of high intercorrelations on RDS subscales (heterotrait-monomethod coefficients). In comparison, the SADS-C yielded similar evidence of convergent validity and excellent discriminant validity.The authors would like to thank the Research Opportunities Program, University of North Texas for its grant support and Captain James Moore for his active cooperation.Tarrant County Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services.     

Suspicious circumstances on discovery of the cadaver

The authors report on three autopsy cases in which the findings at the death scene gave rise to the suspect of non-natural, in two cases even violent causes of death. The medico-legal and criminalistic investigations led to surprising results: Death was due to acute intoxication with narcotics, supposed delirium tremens and a suicide attempt in the presence of bronchopneumonia. External force was ruled out in all three fatalities by cooperative work of police investigators and forensic medicine.     

First‐Hand Experience and Second‐Hand Information: Changing Trust across Three Levels of Government

Little is known about how different sources of information drive citizen trust in government. To address that gap this article compares disaster evacuees to observers, noting how trust differs as attention to media coverage increases. First‐hand experience supplies information to update trust through biological and personal processes and performance assessments, while secondary sources provide information about other people's experiences, filtered through lenses that take an active role in crafting information. These two types of information have varying effects depending on the level of government being trusted. Using surveys administered a year after Hurricane Katrina, I find that Katrina evacuees have the highest trust in federal government, until they start paying attention to media coverage, and that attention to coverage has the most dramatic effect on these evacuees compared to all other groups. I also find that increasing attention to second‐hand information corresponds with higher trust in local officials, and that this effect decreases as the level of government increases. It appears media coverage creates a comparison in the mind of hurricane evacuees, causing them to update their performance assessments based on comparing their own experience to that which they observe, thereby updating their political trust.     

Der neue europ?ische Hochwasserschutz

Die in jüngerer Zeit aufgetretenen verheerenden überschwemmungen in Europa haben die Europ?ische Gemeinschaft veranla?t, erstmals auf dem Wege spezifischer Richtliniensetzung den Hochwasserschutz aufzugreifen. Die Richtlinie 2007/60/EG beschr?nkt sich dabei weitestgehend auf prozedurale Instrumente und hochabstrakt gehaltene Schutzvorstellungen. Der nachstehende Beitrag setzt sich mit der Richtlinie kritisch auseinander und stellt sie in den Kontext des europ?ischen Wasserwirtschaftsrechts.     

Zum Verhältnis von Wasserrecht und Naturschutzrecht

Zusammenfassung  Der Beitrag befasst sich mit dem praktisch h?chst problematischen Verh?ltnis von Wasserrecht und Naturschutzrecht, dessen übliche Handhabung unter dem gemeinsamen Dach des ?ffentlichen Umweltschutzrechts den spezifischen Belangen und Regelungszielen der Bereiche nur unzureichend gerecht wird. Insbesondere drohen durch eine allein ?kologisch orientierte Systematisierung wesentliche wasserwirtschaftliche Belange verdeckt und insbesondere das Institut des wasserbeh?rdlichen Bewirtschaftungsermessens eingeschr?nkt zu werden. Durch eine dies berücksichtigende Auslegung der Kollisionsnormen erscheint jedoch eine rechtliche Korrektur dieser Schieflage m?glich und geboten.     

The Role of Just World Beliefs in Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Social Justice Research - This study investigated whether people’s personal belief in a just world (BJW) is linked to their willingness to physically distance themselves from others during...