The sentencing reform act of 1984: A bold approach to the unwarranted sentencing disparity problem

Conclusion In 1984, after years of study and thorough debate, a bipartisan majority of the Congress enacted perhaps the most far-reaching reform of the federal criminal justice system in the history of the United States. The Sentencing Reform Act and the federal sentencing guidelines are now beginning to produce data indicating that the objectives of avoiding unwarranted disparity and invidious discrimination are being achieved.After an uncertain beginning, the guidelines are gaining acceptance by courts and criminal justice practitioners. As one appellate court observed in admonishing lower courts that the guidelines must be respected:We have embarked on a new course. Only time will tell whether the use of the guidelines will result in an improvement over the old system. But unless we follow the spirit and written directions of the guidelines, we will never know if they have been given a fair test. They at least deserve that.Indeed, the bold new approach to sentencing that is being followed today in federal courthouses throughout the United States deserves an opportunity to succeed, given its many beneficial features and the lofty goals toward which the reforms are directed. While ample work remains for the United States Sentencing Commission to monitor and improve the guidelines, indications at this still early date are that the experiment is succeeding.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the fifth conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Parliament House, Edinburgh, Scotland, August 5–9, 1990. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Sentencing Commission.B.A., Davidson College 1964; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1967.B.A., Ohio State University 1974; M.S., Arizona State University 1980; M.A., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1983.B.S., Clemson University 1971; M.S., Clemson University 1975; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1978.     

Spatial variation of refractive index in a pane of float glass.

In the statistical interpretation of forensic glass evidence it is standard practice to make the assumption of homogeneity of the refractive index (RI) of the source glass, or of localized homogeneity. However, the work of Locke and Hayes showed that, for toughened windscreen glass, this assumption might not be true. This work is well cited, but there appears to have been little follow-on published research. Furthermore, the toughening process is something known to affect the refractive index, and is a process that float glass does not undergo. Float glass is a major component of casework in New Zealand and for that reason it would be interesting to know whether the findings of Locke and Hayes apply when dealing with float glass. In this paper we describe an experiment similar to that of Locke and Hayes, systematically examining the variation of RI in a pane of float window glass. It was found that, although there were no systematic differences in refractive index, there were observable differences across the pane.     

Is technology transfer to subsistence farmers doubling nothing?

Editors Note: This commentary touches on an aspect of technology transfer to the Third World that often is neglected: Can the technology recipients afford to use it? Although the authors focus on the economics of shrimp production by subsistence farmers, affordability is one of the major concomitant issues of transfer from developed to developing countries.     

中国高等教育的将来

目前,我们处在一个相互依赖和多元文化的全球社会。世界变了,高等教育却仍然没有出现任何实质性的变革。因此,我们需要对高等教育重新进行思考,我们需要全新的教育内容、途径以及步骤。教师必须学着将学生们自己的知识看成是教——学过程中一个非常重要的新资源,同时应该继续掌控学生在课堂的学习过程。我们有关学习的新的认识和当前实际的学习方式是互相矛盾的。对于真正的素质教育来说,培养更高层次的思考方法必须优先于实际知识的学习。与其他社会制度一样,高等教育也往往抵制变革。因此我们必须设计出新的机制,不断进行变革,使这些变革对于所有的教育机构、教职员工和学生来说都是很平常的,都是容易实现的。我提议,邀请大学和学院参与进来,重新定义中国的高等教育。批准参与的大学和学院都将收到一笔特殊基金,用于贯彻实施他们自己设计的独立的改革方案。这些方案都须是小型的、独立的,并且是不受传统的和官僚性的改革方案限制的。     

Explaining “Pain and Suffering” Awards: The Role of Injury Characteristics and Fault Attributions

The present research explored factors thought to affect compensatory awards for non-economic ham (pain and suffering) in personal injury cases. Experiment 1 showed that the nature and severity of the plaintiffs injury had a strong effect on perceptions of the extent of harm suffered and on award amounts. The parties' relatively active or passive roles in causing the injury affected assessments of their degree of fault, but perceived fault had little influence on awards. Experiment 2 replicated with more varied cases the strong impact of injury severity on harm perception and on awards for pain and suffering. In both studies, the disability and the mental suffering associated with injuries were stronger predictors of awards than were pain and disfigurement.