An Indirect-Effects Model of Mediated Adjudication: The CSI Myth, the Tech Effect, and Metropolitan Jurors\u27 Expectations for Scientific Evidence

Part I of this article defines the CSI effect, a phrase has come to have many different meanings ascribed to it. It emphasizes the epistemological importance of first describing the effect of the CSI effect as observed in juror behavior documented in a new study conducted in Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan, and then looking at causative factors that may be related to an explanation of those observed effects. Part II describes the methodology of the Wayne County study, provides a descriptive analysis of Wayne County jurors, and compares the jurors demographically to the Washtenaw County jurors who were surveyed in 2006. Part III analyzes the Wayne County study results with respect to jurors\u27 expectations and demands for scientific evidence. The Wayne County study findings reinforce the earlier Washtenaw findings of heightened juror expectations and demands for scientific evidence in almost every respect. This most recent analysis reinforces conclusions from the earlier study that there is no such causative relationship between watching CSI and heightened juror expectations and demands. Part IV explores the nature of the tech effect as one causative factor for those heightened juror expectations and demands as an alternative to the CSI effect. The results of regression analyses of new data provide some support for the 2006 study\u27s suggestion of a tech effect --that the broader changes in popular culture brought about by rapid scientific and technological advances and widespread dissemination of information about them is a more likely explanation for increased juror expectations and demand for scientific evidence. Part V provides an overview of contemporary perspectives of mass-mediated effects on public attitudes, behaviors, and expectations as a prelude to a suggested Indirect-Effects Model of Mediated Adjudication. The authors propose an indirect-effects model of juror influences that triangulates the potential interactive effects of a CSI effect myth with the likelihood of a tech effect in the context of the mass mediated effects of law and order or crime and justice news media

Beyond 'Criminology vs. Zemiology': Reconciling crime with social harm

Since its emergence at the start of the twenty-first century, zemiology and the field of harm studies more generally, has borne an ambiguous and, at times, seemingly antipathetic relationship with the better-established field of criminology. Whilst the tension between the perspectives is, at times, overstated, attempts to reconcile the perspectives have also proved problematic, such that, at present, it appears that they risk either becoming polarized into mutually antagonistic projects, or harmonized to the point that zemiology is simply co-opted within criminology. Whilst tempting to view this as nothing more than an academic squabble, it is the central argument put forward in this chapter that the current trend towards either polariziaton or harmonization of the criminological and zemiological projects, risks impoverishing both perspectives, both intellectually and, more fundamentally, in terms of their capacity to effect meaningful social change. To this end, this chapter offers a critical reflection of recent attempts to reconcile the social harm perspective with criminology, focussing in particular on Majid Yar’s attempts to do so using the concept of ‘recognition’ derived from critical theory. It is suggested that such attempts, whilst important in the contribution they make to developing a theory of harm, are necessarily flawed by their reliance on an implicit assumption of a shared conception of harm underpinning both the concept of ‘crime’ and ‘social harm’. By contrast, it is the central argument put forward in this chapter that zemiology and criminology are best understood as divergent normative projects which, whilst sharing many of the same goals with regards to the improvement of the criminal justice system and the tackling of social problems, differ primarily in the means by which they seek to achieve these. Therefore, rather than denying this debate through the collapsing of one perspective into the other, or polarizing them into hostiles camps, it is only by recognising the nature of this debate and fostering dialogue between the perspectives that we can achieve our shared goals and effect meaningful change

Alternativas ao controle de fraudes de valores mobiliários de alto risco: propondo mudanças estruturais na era do expansionismo financeiro e do capital global insustentável = Alternatives to high-risk securities fraud control: proposing structural transformation in an age of financial expansionism and unsustainable global capital

Tradução de Mariana Gastal.Revisão de Ricardo Jacobsen Gloeckner

O RETORICI I REALNOSTI BORBE PROTIV FINANSIJSKE PREVARE NA VOL STRITU

This article reveals the contradictions between the political rhetoric and the legal reality of contesting the Wall Street securities frauds that were responsible for the U.S. financial meltdown of 2008. In the process, it contrasts the non-criminal enforcement of the Wall Street fraudsters with the criminal enforcement or prosecution of high-profile defendants involved in major corporate frauds between 2002 and 2007 and with some1000 prosecutions involving the Savings and Loans control frauds of the late 1980s. In light of these empirical comparisons, it suggests that when financial institutions are “too big to fail,” they are also “too big to jail.”Šest nedelja pre nego što je Albert Gonzales bio prisiljen da podnese ostavku na mestu Javnog Tužioca SAD u avgustu 2007. zbog odobravanja otpuštanja devet ’liberalnih’ federalnih tužilaca, on je stajao pred stotinama saveznih tužilaca i istraživača u Velikoj sali pravde na proslavi petogodišnjice osnivanja Operativne grupe za korporacijsku prevaru (Corporate Fraud Task Force, dalje u tekstu OGKP) gde je proglasio pobedu nad belookovratničkom korupcijom. Osnovana izvršnom odredbom u Julu 2002., radna grupa je bila odgovor predsednika Džordž V. Buša na ono što se tada smatralo epidemijom zlodela u korporativnoj SAD