Search

This study aimed to clarify the standard for layperson's legal decision and identify factors that contribute to establishing the criterion. Two samples were studied (undergraduate students and community members) to test the hypothesis that laypeople use a lower criterion for their legal decisions than the beyond a reasonable doubt (BRD) rule ordered by law. Relationships among individual's implicit threshold (IT) for a legal decision and other psychological representations (e.g., not blameworthy, not guilty, desire to punish) were also analyzed. Participants read one of two or three vignettes describing a murder case and provided their verdicts, perceived likelihood of guilt ratings, and quantified mental representations of 'innocent' and BRD. In both studies, mean IT was lower than mean BRD. The concordance rate comparison in both studies showed that IT, rather than BRD, is a more accurate measure of laypeople's legal decision thresholds. In Study 2, IT was positively correlated with representations of 'innocent,' suggesting that these representations of 'innocent' may be a significant factor that lowered the decision threshold. This study advances knowledge in the field by proposing a novel concept regarding layperson's legal decision and exploring its relationships with other legal decision-making factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Juvenile waiver laws allow youthful defendants who have not reached the age of adulthood to be transferred out of the juvenile court and into adult criminal court where they are subject to prosecution as if they were an adult. Using data collected from 37 urban counties, this study expands on a recent study by Kurlychek and Johnson (2004) by comparing the pretrial detention and imprisonment outcomes of juveniles transferred to criminal court to those received by adult defendants 29 years of age or younger. This study also examines the potential effects of county context on incarceration rates of the county court communities. Findings revealed that transferred juveniles are disadvantaged at sentencing stage, and that incarceration decisions regarding young defendants are shaped by the context of the county in which they are processed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2003 the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) of the State of California brought a complaint against Dr. Gloria Dodd for what they alleged was false advertising for the use of homeopathic remedies and the use of radionic devices for the diagnosis and non-local treatment of animals. Unsatisfied with Dodd's compliance the VMB brought the case to court in 2006. There, through in absentia testimony as to Dodd's abilities and my testimony as to the evidence for non-local man-machine interaction and remote viewing and the failure of the complainants to rebut our evidence Dodd was almost completely vindicated. Full vindication came with our appeal to a superior court, which permitted Dodd to continue to practice without the need to personally examine her animal patients. If sustained through appeal by the VMB the case might serve as a precedent for all practitioners of non-local healing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]