The heat capacity of the restricted primitive model electrolyte

The constant-volume heat capacity, C_V(T, rho), of the restricted primitive model (RPM) electrolyte is considered in the vicinity of its critical point. It is demonstrated that, despite claims, recent simulations for finite systems do not convincingly indicate the absence of a divergence in C_V(T, rho)--which would point to non-Ising-type criticality. The strong qualitative difference between C_V for the RPM and for a Lennard-Jones fluid is shown to result from the low critical density of the former. If one considers the theoretically preferable configurational heat-capacity density, C_V/V, the finite-size results for the two systems display qualitatively similar behavior on near-critical isotherms.Comment: 5 Pages, including 5 EPS figures. Also available as PDF file at http://pallas.umd.edu/~luijten/erikpubs.htm

Universality of Ionic Criticality: Size- and Charge-Asymmetric Electrolytes

Grand canonical simulations designed to resolve critical universality classes are reported for $z$:1 hard-core electrolyte models with diameter ratios $\lambda {=} a_+/a_- {\lesssim} 6$. For $z {=} 1$ Ising-type behavior prevails. Unbiased estimates of $T_c(\lambda)$ are within 1% of previous (biased) estimates but the critical densities are $\sim$5 % lower. Ising character is also established for the 2:1 and 3:1 equisized models, along with critical amplitudes and improved $T_c$ estimates. For $z {=} 3$, however, strong finite-size effects reduce the confidence level although classical and O$(n {\geq} 3)$ criticality are excluded.Comment: 4 pages, 3 figure

Convictions of Innocent Persons in Massachusetts: An Overview

Scholars documenting the incidence and causes of wrongful convictions in the United States have focused on cases arising all across the country. Because reform of the practices that lead to such errors of justice must largely take place on the state level, there is value in examining wrongful convictions in particular jurisdictions. This article attempts to identify and briefly describe all known cases of conviction of innocent persons in Massachusetts from 1800 to the present time. Part I discusses the criteria for identifying the innocent. For the purpose of gaining support for needed reforms in the law, the most persuasive cases are undisputed exonerations, in which responsible judicial or executive officials have endorsed the prisoner\u27s factual innocence. Part II identifies and describes fifteen such cases, including four exonerations by DNA evidence. However, confining attention to undisputed exonerations excessively narrows the inquiry by excluding legislative exonerations, and other cases which most cautious observers would view as involving conviction of the innocent. Therefore, Part II describes eighteen additional cases in which official endorsement was lacking: a group of twelve cases (including two involving DNA evidence) in which the prisoner\u27s conviction was vacated under circumstances raising strong doubts as to factual guilt, and a group of six cases, also characterized by such doubts, in which the convict was either executed or died in prison. Part III explores the implications of these cases for law reform. Although only thirty three cases were found, some greater unknowable number of miscarriages undoubtedly exists. Over half of the Massachusetts wrongful convictions involved capital crimes, including three in which the exonerations were undisputed. Most of the prisoners served substantial sentences before being released. Two died in prison, and four were executed. In keeping with the data derived from nationwide studies, over half of the Massachusetts wrongful convictions involved mistaken identification. Other prominent causal factors in the Massachusetts cases included suppression of exculpatory evidence, police misconduct and witness perjury. Some of the procedural reform needs suggested by these cases include adoption of nationally-recognized safeguards in the conduct of eyewitness identification procedures, more rigorous requirements for the contemporaneous recording of police investigative interviews, and structured prosecution access to both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence gathered by the police. The cases also demonstrate the need for legislation authorizing state compensation and rehabilitative services for exonerated prisoners, and an Innocence Protection Act that would regulate the procedural rights of prisoners seeking to establish their innocence through DNA or other forensic testing. Finally, in order to learn from the system\u27s tragic mistakes, Massachusetts should follow the example of jurisdictions that have appointed official commissions to investigate the causes of particular miscarriages of justice

Traditional Criminal Procedure in Ethiopia

In the decade 1955-1965 the Ethiopian government completely revolutionized its legal system by promulgating comprehensive legal codes and a new constitution. These laws have a predominantly Western flavor, and seem to bear little relation to the traditional patterns of life which still prevail in the Empire-one of the least developed areas of Africa. This state of affairs has led some to characterize the new codes as fantasy law, which may serve to put a modern face on the country but, at least for some time to come, will not have any serious impact on the conduct of its affairs

The Disposition Process under the Juveniles Justice Standards Project

The Juvenile Justice Standards Project volumes were publicly discussed for months prior to their publication. Unavoidably, much of the discussion was based upon rumor regarding their contents. In that context, critics charged that the proposed Standards would destroy the nation\u27s juvenile court system and replace it with a \u27junior criminal system\u27 1 and claimed that the Standards substitute the philosophy of just deserts for the traditional rehabilitative goals of juvenile justice.\u27 The news media described the Standards on disposition of delinquents as designed to fit the penalty to the crime, no matter what the age of the perpetrator. \u273 I do not intend in this writing to argue the merits of these changes-other contributors to this volume have done so. 4 Rather, I wish to describe the extent to which the Standards have attempted to move away from traditional goals and to evaluate the internal consistency of the Standards in accomplishing any such movement

The Standards\u27 Recommendations on Dispositions: A Panel Discussion Panel Discussion

ROFESSOR STANLEY FISHER, MODERATOR: Good evening. I\u27d like to welcome you all here. Of all of the volumes of the Juvenile Justice Standards Project, I suppose the most controversial are those dealing with the disposition stage. They have elicited a good deal of critical comment, even though they haven\u27t yet been published, and many of the comments and criticisms have apparently been on the basis of speculation and rumor as to what the Standards actually say. We have with us tonight to discuss these Standards two persons who have a great deal of expertise in this field. The first, on my left, is Judge Howard Levine of the Family Court in Schenectady, New York, who has been in that position for the past seven years. Before that, for some ten years he was District Attorney in Schenectady. On my right is Professor Fred Cohen, Professor of Law at the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany. Professor Cohen is the Editor-in-Chief of the Criminal Law Bulletin and was the reporter responsible for the Juvenile Justice Standards Project volume on Dispositional Procedures, which is one of the four volumes that are most relevant to the dispositional stage. Our format tonight is first to ask Judge Levine and then Professor Cohen to give their views of the major changes that they see being proposed in these volumes and to give a summary evaluation of those changes. After that we will continue our discussion and at appropriate times entertain questions from the floor

Just the Facts, Ma\u27am: Lying and the Omission of Exculpatory Evidence in Police Reports,

George Jones\u27s ordeal was the product of, and in turn sheds light upon, police practices of investigating crimes and writing reports. Written police reports of criminal incidents and arrests give details such as the time, place, and nature of criminal conduct; the names and addresses of victims and witnesses; physical characteristics of the perpetrator(s) or arrestee(s); weapons used; property taken, recovered, or seized from the arrestee; and injuries to persons and property. Through their reports, the police have fundamental control over the construction of [the] \u27facts\u27 for a case, and all other actors (the prosecutor, the judge, the defense lawyer) must work from the framework of facts as constructed by the police. This control depends upon the faith of other actors that police reports are basically objective and reliable. False reports, and reports that omit crucial exculpatory information, undermine this trust. By exculpatory information I mean: any fact, circumstance, or item of evidence actually emerging in the course of investigation before or after arrest, other than mere protestations of innocence, which tends to suggest a criminal suspect\u27s innocence, or to raise doubt concerning his guilt or as to the reliability or inculpatory nature of other facts or circumstances