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。     

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.

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.     

检察机关职务犯罪案件侦查权及监督制约机制

通过探析检察机关拥有职务犯罪案件侦查权之合理性,分析对检察机关的职务犯罪案件侦查权进行监督制约的必要性和可行性,找出监督制约的重点与难点,尝试建立起以制约机制为主、以监督机制为辅的监督制约机制。这对于确保检察机关侦查活动的合理性、公正性,维护检察机关的宪法地位将大有裨益。     

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。     

新形势下开展群众性合理化建议活动刍议

新形势下开展群众性合理化建议活动要充分发挥工会作用 ,从企业实际出发 ,讲求实效 ,不断提高职工素质 ,完善激励机制。     

判决的合理化说明与法官自由裁量权的行使

本文指出一个在实践中容易被人们忽略的问题，即判决的合理化说明有的时候会掩盖法官在自由裁量时的真实影响因素。本文探讨了判决的合理化说明与法官的自由裁量的关系，以及法官在自由裁量时可能涉及到的思考因素，指出在判决的合理化说明中，法官需要合理地组织对法官自由裁量权行使中的以上影响因素，但同时也会掩盖某些因素的影响。因此，判决的合理化说明并不一定会起到我们所期望的作用。