Metric forensic anthropology decisions: Reliability and biasability of sectioning-point-based sex estimates

Subjective decisions make human cognitive processes more susceptible to bias and error. Specifically, research indicates that additional context biases forensic anthropologists’ morphological analyses. To address whether metric analyses are also subject to bias, we conducted a pilot study in which 52 experienced osteologists measured a difficult-to-classify human femur, with or without additional contextual information. Using a metric sectioning-point sex-estimation method, participants provided a sex estimate for individual skeletal element(s) and, when given multiple elements, the combined skeletal assemblage. Control group participants (n = 24) measured only the femur. In addition to the femur, bias group participants (n = 28) either measured a female humerus and viewed a female-biasing photograph (n = 14) or measured a male humerus and viewed a male-biasing photograph (n = 14). We explored whether the experts in the different groups would differ in: (1) femoral measurements; (2) femoral sex-estimation conclusions; and (3) final sex-estimation conclusions for the skeletal assemblage. Although the femoral measurements and femoral sex estimates were comparable across groups, the overall sex estimates in the female-biased group were impacted by contextual information—differing from both the control and male-biased groups (p < 0.001). Our results demonstrate that cognitive bias can occur even in metric sex-estimation conclusions. Specifically, this occurred when the metric data and single-element sex estimates were synthesized into an overall estimate. Thus, our results suggest that metric methods are most vulnerable to bias when data are synthesized into an overall conclusion, highlighting the need for bias countermeasures and comprehensive statistical frameworks for synthesizing metric data to mitigate the effects of cognitive bias.     

Applying Moral Foundations Theory to the Explanation of Capital Jurors’ Sentencing Decisions

Abstract

This study applies moral foundations theory to capital juror decision making. We hypothesized that binding moral foundations would predict death qualification and punitive sentencing decisions, whereas individualizing moral foundations would be associated with juror disqualification and a leniency effect. Additionally, we considered whether moral foundations can explain differences in death penalty application between conservatives and liberals. Respondents from two independent samples participated in a mock-juror task in which the circumstances of a hypothetical defendant’s case varied. Results revealed moral foundations were strong predictors of death qualification. The binding and individualizing foundations were related to sentencing decisions in the expected ways. Supporting our contention that moral foundations operate differently across different types of cases, heterogeneity in the effects of moral foundations was observed. Finally, we found support for the hypothesis that the relationship between sentencing decisions and conservatism would be attenuated by moral foundations.     

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.     

知荣明耻 服务人民

“八荣八耻”为核心内容的社会主义荣辱观的提出具有重大的意义:它是新形势下继承中华美德,发扬革命传统,弘扬时代精神的战略任务;是确立我国改革转型期的主导价值观:是统一思想,凝聚社会力量,促进社会和谐,全面建设小康社会的强大力量;是提高党的执政能力和执政水平的迫切需要。领导干部怎样做到服务人民,而不背离人民:领导干部在权力运用,工作决策的过程中有始终以人民的利益为出发点和落脚点;领导干部在权力的运用时,不能为官与民争利,要“慎权”,“慎欲”;领导干部要坚持群众路线,相信群众,依靠群众,且勿独断专行;领导干部要加强理论修养,提高自己的政策水平,强化领导能力和领导水平。     

法、道德和软实力

软实力就是文化实力,代表了一个国家的综合实力,决定着一个国家的未来。软实力由观念文化所组成,内容丰富,但是其核心是法和道德的观念和知识。一个国家的软实力表现在法和道德的状况上。法和道德的基本精神是创造和谐,因此,具有普世的价值。     

相对集中行政处罚权：立法模式与制度创新

相对集中行政处罚权实践是我国行政管理体制的创新举措,已经取得了较明显的效果。但目前囿于立法层次较低,且各地规范不一,极大地阻碍了这一新生事物的进一步成长。因此我们应在统一立法和系统全面立法的基础上,尽快制定一部法律或行政法规系统规范该制度。同时加强诸如表明身份制度、说明理由制度、阅卷制度、时效制度、格式化制度、职能分离制度、案卷排他性制度等研究,以丰富和完善该处罚权的实践。     

论社会中介组织的新一类经济法主体地位

非法学学科对社会中介组织的研究成果交集指向其社会性和中介性,它构成了经济法上社会中介组织的理论基础。法学视野中的社会中介组织处于社会公共经济管理关系中时,民法和行政法无法调整该社会关系。社会中介组织的本质与经济法的宗旨、性质、价值本位等高度契合,其因此具有了新一类经济法主体的唯一身份。经济法主体视角下的社会中介组织理论有利于解决专利权滥用、消费者隐私权保护、公益诉讼、市场经济信用体系的构建等难题。     

论阐明权的界限

规范阐明权的核心问题之一就是明确阐明权在民事诉讼中的适用范围,在我国阐明权的界限应当如下第一,对于大部分民商事案件,都应当适用阐明权;但是,对有关身份关系的诉讼、有关公益的诉讼、特别程序案件不适用阐明权。第二,阐明权适用的诉讼事项主要应是实体事项或者可以决定实体权利归属的程序事项。第三,阐明权适用于当事人,当事人的诉讼代理人,特殊情形下的案外人,以及有权启动再审程序的人。第四,阐明权的基准时通常应当是言词辩论终结时。     

法治的实现目标及其途径

法治社会的价值目标是追求民主、平等;法治的核心问题是约束、限制权力;法治国家的本质特征是体现民治;实现 法治化的基本途径是建立安全、方便、经济的参政方式。     

关于领导干部权力运行机制的几个问题

现行领导干部权力运行机制通行的基本原则是一切权力属于人民，党的统一领导和实行民主集中制等；现行领导干部权力运行机制的优势是广泛的人民性和整体性，是政治的民主性和决策的科学性；而现行领导干部权力运行机制的缺陷则是权力过分集中，权力制约乏力和缺少具体的运行规则；完善领导干部权力运行机制的具体原则是法制化原则，公正原则，公开原则，廉洁原则，廉价原则，效率原则，监督原则和稳定原则等，要完善现行领导干部权力运行机制就必须有总体思考和具体思路。