What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

In response to research demonstrating that irrelevant contextual information can bias forensic science analyses, authorities have increasingly urged laboratories to limit analysts' access to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror and Cole (2010) [3]; National Academy of Sciences (2009) [18]; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016) [22]; UK Forensic Science Regulator (2015) [26]). However, a great challenge in implementing this reform is determining which information is task-relevant and which is task-irrelevant. In the current study, we surveyed 183 forensic analysts to examine what they consider relevant versus irrelevant in their forensic analyses. Results revealed that analysts generally do not regard information regarding the suspect or victim as essential to their analytic tasks. However, there was significant variability among analysts within and between disciplines. Findings suggest that forensic science disciplines need to agree on what they regard as task-relevant before context management procedures can be properly implemented. The lack of consensus about what is relevant information not only leaves room for biasing information, but also reveals foundational gaps in what analysts consider crucial in forensic decision making.     

商标财产化的负面效应及其化解

商标本为一种用于区别来源的工具。然而,现代商标法将之财产化,并采用民法财产权体系中的绝对权保护模式。绝对权的认知结构预设着强有力的私权保护,这为商标权的强化和扩张埋下了种子。商标财产化的理论基础脆弱,经典的自然权利理论、现代的法经济学理论以及商誉论和广告功能保护论都无法为商标财产权提供坚实的理论支撑。商标财产化在实践中产生了一些负面效应,在我国还呈加剧之势,有必要予以纠正。在认知上,需要打破绝对权理念之拘束。在实践中,停止侵害的禁令救济的绝对化适用需加以纠正;混淆之扩张需谨慎对待,以反击"财产论"对"混淆论"的挤压。此外,还需提升商标性使用的地位,使其扮演商标法"守门人"角色,以期对商标财产权的不断扩张进行约束和限制。     

Enacting Oblivion

After periods of major political change, incoming regimes have often declared “acts of oblivion” in which courts and sometimes citizens are commanded to forget what happened under the preceding regime. But how are courts and citizens supposed to obey this command? Must they not remember what it is they are commanded to forget? If so, obedience is only possible at the price of disobedience. This paper suggests this paradox raises important issues about the concept of memory. It argues that in order to understand acts of oblivion we need to distinguish between two aspects of memory: the cognitive, concerned with the transmission of information, and the conative, concerned with the transmission of will and affect. This distinction provides a way of avoiding the more overtly paradoxical features of acts of oblivion. However, there remain significant difficulties facing the political project of forgetting.     

Relativism

Modern democracies increasingly confuse civic or political equality with a radical relativism that calls into question legitimate principles of hierarchy and the very idea of reasonable value judgments. This confusion reflects a “corruption,” in Montesquieu’s sense, of democracy rooted in a refusal to recognize distinctions that are integral to both human nature and social life. A moderate form of cultural relativism is a genuine intellectual achievement that helps combat ethnocentrism and allows one to better appreciate the full range of human experience. But criteria of meaning and truth are by no means entirely dependent upon cultural context. Our contemporary awareness of the “relativity” of cultures and historical experiences must be complemented by a robust appreciation of the universality of Reason and citizenship.

布卢姆认知领域教育目标分类理论评析

生物学上动植物分类学的理论为布卢姆构造其认知领域教育目标分类理论提供了借鉴。根据人的认知目标是从识记相对简单的知识到非常抽象的思维这样一个渐进过程,布卢姆把教育的认知目标分为六大主类（识记、领会、应用、分析、综合及评价）以及其它亚类。这种理论被证明“对研究和教学两方面都是相当有用的”。但由于布卢姆认知目标分类理论不是认识过程的先后层次,不是行为发展的过程,没有揭示出能力形成的内在机制,也缺乏学习理论的指导,导致了教育实践中的诸多困惑。我们应对布卢姆理论进行深刻的反思,立足本国实际,构建本土的教育目标分类理论。     

探微多义词的理论发展

在语义学的历史上,许多学者都研究过重要的语义现象———多义词。为了更加详细地阐述多义词的理论发展,介绍了多义词的定义,三种研究多义词的角度,即形式主义方法、结构主义方法、认知方法,且在认知方法中阐述了多义词的认知模式,多义词的意义扩展,多义词的跨语言学研究,并且在研究过程中介绍了多义词有关理论的优点及发展空间。     

法律认知和法律原则：情感、效率与公平

情感、效率、公平是人们认知活动中惯常的三个进程。对应这三个进程,人们对法律的认知有一些基本的原则。这些认知互动既可能形成社会自发秩序,也可能为法学提供一个基于认知背景的分析框架,有助于法学应对实践问题。“公平主导”的一个简单回答是,面对不同场合,情感、效率、公平三种进程被激活的程度不同。大体上,家庭场合激活情感,工程场合激活效率,市场和法律则更激活公平。在实践中,公平主导的法律原则由于比较接近主流社会认知,所以法律规范在社会中往往可能“自执行”,无需全靠外界监督或者激励。公平原则也有其自身的局限。虽然规范和原则很重要,是社会秩序的母体。但是,公平原则并不能解决所有问题。缺乏制度上的法治,光靠情理法是不足的。所以现代社会形成了规则化解决纠纷的机制,这就是二阶意义上的法律。     

Contextual information management: An example of independent-checking in the review of laboratory-based bloodstain pattern analysis

This article describes a New Zealand forensic agency's contextual information management protocol for bloodstain pattern evidence examined in the laboratory. In an effort to create a protocol that would have minimal impact on current work-flow, while still effectively removing task-irrelevant contextual information, the protocol was designed following an in-depth consultation with management and forensic staff. The resulting design was for a protocol of independent-checking (i.e. blind peer-review) where the checker's interpretation of the evidence is conducted in the absence of case information and the original examiner's notes or interpretation(s). At the conclusion of a ten-case trial period, there was widespread agreement that the protocol had minimal impact on the number of people required, the cost, or the time to complete an item examination. The agency is now looking to adopt the protocol into standard operating procedures and in some cases the protocol has been extended to cover other laboratory-based examinations (e.g. fabric damage, shoeprint examination, and physical fits). The protocol developed during this trial provides a useful example for agencies seeking to adopt contextual information management into their workflow.