A mixed DNA profile controversy revisited

Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453) discuss a mock case “where eight different individuals [P₁ through P₈] could not be excluded in a mixed DNA analysis. Even though … expert DNA mixture analysis software was used.” Two of these are the true donors. The LRs reported are incorrect due to the incorrect entry of propositions into LRmix Studio. This forced the software to account for most of the alleles as drop-in, resulting in LRs 60–70 orders of magnitude larger than expected. P₁, P₂, P₄, P₅, and P₈ can be manually excluded using peak heights. This has relevance when using LRmix which does not use peak heights. We extend the work using the same two reference genotypes who were the true contributors as Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453). We simulate three two-donor mixtures with peak heights using these two genotypes and analyze using STRmix?. For the simulated 1:1 mixture, one of the non-donors’ LRs supported him being a contributor when no conditioning was used. When considered in combination with any other potential donors (i.e., with conditioning), this non-donor was correctly eliminated. For the 3:1 mixture, all results correctly supported that the non-donors were not contributors. The low-template 4:1 mixture LRs with no conditioning showed support for all eight profiles as donors. However, the results from pair-wise conditioning showed that only the two ground truth donors had LRs supporting that they were contributors to the mixture. We recommend the use of peak heights and conditioning profiles, as this allows better sensitivity and specificity even when the persons share many alleles.     

On the Undecidability of Legal and Technological Regulation

Law and Critique - Generally, regulation is thought of as a constant that carries with it both a formative and conservative power, a power that standardises, demarcates and forms an order, through...     

An analysis of the fundamental tensions between copyright and social media: the legal implications of sharing images on Instagram

ABSTRACT

Copyright is inherently intertwined with the development of technology and none more so than the advent of the Internet and sharing technologies. More recently, social media platforms have become the latest challenge for copyright law and policy. This article builds on the literature that recognises the underlying conflict between copyright and social networking sites (SNSs); namely that the basic implication of copyright is the restriction of copying, whereas the ethos of social networking is the promotion of sharing. In particular, this article focuses on the disparity between the restricted acts of copying and communication to the public under copyright law and the encouragement of sharing on SNS Instagram. In doing so, it contextualises the debate surrounding copyright and social media and provides an understanding of the legal implications of using Instagram. As such this paper analyses (1) the infringement of copyright protected work on Instagram, and (2) the user-agreement and licensing of copyright material on Instagram. This study concludes that the disparity between the principles of copyright and social media lead to confusion and vulnerability of users. Therefore, it is suggested that Instagram should better inform its users of the implications of sharing third-party content as well as the terms of its user agreement. This could be done by implementing a copyright strategy, which includes a notice and takedown system as well as investing in producing educational content for users. Perhaps SNSs, such as Instagram might be more motivated to take steps to recognise intellectual property rights if they were considered Internet Services Provides such as YouTube.     

Prisons or Problem-Solving: Does the Public Support Specialty Courts?

ABSTRACT

Recently, “problem-solving” courts have been developed as an alternative to imprisonment. They are often called “specialty” courts because they process and divert into treatment programs offenders who are seen as different from the general criminal population, such as those with mental health or drug problems, those who are homeless or veterans, and those who engage in domestic violence. Based on a 2017 national survey of 1,000 respondents, the current study examines overall public support for rehabilitation as a goal of corrections and then focuses specifically on support for different types of specialty courts. The analysis reveals that the American public endorses not only the rehabilitative ideal but also the use of problem-solving courts. Further, with only minimal variation, strong support for these courts appears to exist regardless of political orientation and sociodemographic characteristics.     

War-Power Reform in Australia: (Re)considering the Options

The decision to go to war in Australia remains the prerogative of the Executive. The lack of parliamentary authorisation of perhaps the most significant decision a democracy can make has seen sustained, but unsuccessful, efforts to reform legislation. In the wake of the costly invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, repeated calls for legislative reform of Australia's war powers have failed to find traction amongst Coalition and Australian Labor Party (ALP) leadership. Lamenting the lack of transparency and accountability in the current system, those favouring legislative reform would see authorisation of combat missions placed in the hands of Parliament. However, given the lack of support from either of the major parties, any legislative reform remains unlikely. Given this impasse, this article argues that a compromise option, in the form of a new war-powers convention, may be a small step towards democratising the decision of going to war. While not legally binding, this constitutional convention would represent an agreement by the major parties that overseas combat operations will be properly debated in Parliament.     

The End of Wilderness: Conflict and Defeat of Wilderness in the Grand Canyon

In the early 1970s, Grand Canyon National Park intended to designate its land to “Wilderness,” including the controversial Colorado River corridor. However, by the end of the 1970s the potential for Wilderness designation was off the table, and would never seriously return for genuine consideration. Using Schattschneider's model of conflict, we explain how the organization of this conflict privileges the “causal story” of Wilderness opponents, and therefore why the canyon is not designated. It is our contention that members of Congress will not stand forward to support Wilderness designations without simultaneously providing benefits for extractive land use because (1) congressional representatives are more penalized for supporting than opposing Wilderness designations, (2) Wilderness advocacy groups do not pressure congressional delegates as firmly as opposition groups, and (3) key local congressional members are not likely to see Wilderness as a salient issue worth the risk of negative exposure. If these findings hold, the implication is that we may have reached the end of significant Wilderness designations in highly visible areas, unless critical aspects in land use conflict change.     

Race and Ethnicity: Responsible Use from Epidemiological and Public Health Perspectives

While the concepts of race and ethnicity have been abused historically, they are potentially invaluable in epidemiology and public health. Epidemiology relies upon variables that help differentiate populations by health status, thereby refining public health and health care policy, and offering insights for medical science. Race and ethnicity are powerful tools for doing this. The prerequisite for their responsible use is a society committed to reducing inequalities and inequities in health status. When this condition is met, it is irresponsible not to utilize these concepts.     

Zur Berücksichtigung des Denkmalschutzes im Bundeswaldgesetz

Die von Deutschland nach Art. 59 Abs. 2 GG ratifizierten europ?ischen und internationalen übereinkommen zum Denkmal- und Kulturgüterschutz müssen in nationales Recht transformiert werden. W?hrend die L?nder im Rahmen ihrer Kompetenz (Art. 30, 70, 83 GG) Denkmalschutzgesetze erlassen haben, hat der Bund in einschl?gigen Gesetzen wie dem Bundeswaldgesetz den Denkmalschutz bisher nicht berücksichtigt. Dabei ist bei einem Waldanteil von 30% der Wald mit seinen historischen Kulturlandschaften und seinem Waldboden als Archiv der Natur- und Kulturgeschichte von besonderer Bedeutung. Da Deutschland 60 Jahre nach Kriegsende endlich auch ausdrücklich ein Kulturstaat werden soll, ist es an der Zeit, dass die Belange des Denkmalschutzes auch im Bundeswaldgesetz (z.B. §§ 1, 2, 9 oder 11 BWaldG) berücksichtigt werden. Einige Verpflichtungen zum Denkmal- und Kulturgüterschutz sind heute ohnehin bereits V?lkergewohnheitsrecht (Art. 25 GG).