How do international lawyers handle facts? The role of folk sociological theories at the International Criminal Court.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates international crimes committed in different parts of the world. Earlier scholarly analysis of the work performed by the ICC judges has pointed out that judges often lack cultural and national understanding of the local norms and customs of regions where defendants come from. This article treats this lack of contextual knowledge displayed by the court as a case of structural ignorance rather than an aberration to be 'exposed' or censured. International lawyers indeed must ground their legal narratives with plausible sociological explanations of contextual elements to overcome their lack of familiarity with the field and the scarcity of their investigative resources. By uncovering the role of 'folk sociological theories' (FSTs) in the establishment of facts in a court context, this article addresses the debate over the efficiency of international criminal justice by highlighting the need to bring historical truth back in. The empirical evidence is based on several years of participant observation in the ICC during the trials against Mathieu Ngudjolo and Germain Katanga, two militiamen from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Unpacking insanity defence standards: an experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law / Descifrar los criterios de defensa de la vesania: estudio experimental de las pruebas de racionalidad y control en derecho penal

The present study investigated the impact of different legal standards on mock juror decisions concerning whether a defendant was guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Undergraduate students (N=477) read a simulated case summary involving a murder case and were asked to make an insanity determination. The cases differed in terms of the condition of the defendant (rationality deficit or control deficit) and the legal standard given to the jurors to make the determination (Model Penal Code, McNaughten or McNaughten plus a separate control determination). The effects of these variables on the insanity determination were investigated. Jurors also completed questionnaires measuring individualism and hierarchy attitudes and perceptions of facts in the case. Results indicate that under current insanity standards jurors do not distinguish between defendants with rationality deficits and defendants with control deficits regardless of whether the legal standard requires them to do so. Even defendants who lacked control were found guilty at equal rates under a legal standard excusing rationality deficits only and a legal standard excluding control and rationality deficits. This was improved by adding a control test as a partial defence, to be determined after a rationality determination. Implications for the insanity defence in the Criminal Justice System are discussed (AU)

Este estudio ha investigado la repercusión de los diversos cánones legales en las decisiones simuladas acerca de si un acusado es culpable o no por motivos de vesania. Una muestra de 477 estudiantes universitarios leyeron el resumen de caso relativo a un asesinato, pidiéndoseles luego que determinasen si había enajenación mental. Los casos diferían en cuanto a la condición del acusado (déficit de racionalidad o de control) y el criterio legal proporcionado a los jurados para que tomaran la determinación (Código penal modelo, McNaughten o McNaughten mas una determinación sobre el control). Se investigó el efecto de estas variables en la determinación de vesania. Los jurados rellenaron también cuestionarios que medían actitudes de individualismo y jerarquía y la percepción de los hechos del caso. Los resultados indican que con los criterios de demencia actuales los jurados no distinguen entre acusados con déficit de racionalidad y aquellos con déficit de control, aunque los criterios legales se lo exijan. Incluso los acusados que carecían de control fueron hallados culpables en la misma proporción con un criterio legal que disculpaba el déficit de racionalidad y con otro que excluía los déficit de control y racionalidad. Consiguió mejorarse añadiendo una prueba de control como defensa parcial a determinar tras la decisión sobre la racionalidad. Se comentan las implicaciones para la defensa de la enajenación mental en el sistema de justicia penal (AU)

Getting to Know You: Familiarity, Stereotypes, and Children's Eyewitness Memory.

The present study concerned how the acquisition of social information, specifically knowledge about personal characteristics, influences young children's memory and suggestibility. Effects of two sources of knowledge about a target person were systematically examined: familiarity and stereotypes. Children, aged 4-5 and 7-9 years (N = 145), were randomly assigned, per age group, to experimental conditions based on a familiarity (6 hours vs. no prior exposure) × stereotype (negative depiction as messy and clumsy vs. no stereotype) factorial design. Children then watched the target person engage in a target event (a series of contests) at a preschool ("Camp Ingrid"). The children's memory and suggestibility about the target person and target event were tested after a delay of 2 weeks. Results indicated that the negative stereotype resulted in an increase in children's correct responses both to free-recall stereotype-related questions (when children were unfamiliar with the target person) and to closed-ended questions overall (for younger children). However, the stereotype was associated with greater error to stereotype-related closed-ended questions. Moreover, familiarity increased children's accuracy to closed-ended questions. Implications for theory and application are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Use of Rorschach tests at the Nuremberg war crimes trial: A forgotten chapter in history of medicine.

Seventy years ago, psychiatrists and psychologists had unusual access to the Nazi leaders awaiting trial by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Early leaders in the field of psychosomatic medicine were instrumental in facilitating these interviews as well as arranging for the administration of psychological testing with the Rorschach inkblot test. These observations were kept under wraps for decades and there remains controversy even now about what these Rorschachs revealed-demonic psychopaths or just morally corrupt individuals.

Implementation of an enhanced probation program: evaluating process and preliminary outcomes.

Supervision, Monitoring, Accountability, Responsibility, and Treatment (SMART) is Kentucky's enhanced probation pilot program modeled after Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE). SMART is proposed to decrease substance use, new violations, and incarceration-related costs for high-risk probationers by increasing and randomizing drug testing, intensifying supervision, and creating linkages with needed resources (i.e., mental health and substance use). SMART adopts a holistic approach to rehabilitation by addressing mental health and substance abuse needs as well as life skills for fostering deterrence of criminal behavior vs. punitive action only. A mixed methods evaluation was implemented to assess program implementation and effectiveness. Qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (i.e., administration, judges, attorneys, and law enforcement/corrections) suggested successful implementation and collaboration to facilitate the pilot program. Quantitative analyses of secondary Kentucky Offender Management System (KOMS) data (grant Year 1: 07/01/2012-06/30/2013) also suggested program effectiveness. Specifically, SMART probationers showed significantly fewer: violations of probation (1.2 vs. 2.3), positive drug screens (8.6% vs. 29.4%), and days incarcerated (32.5 vs. 118.1) than comparison probationers. Kentucky's SMART enhanced probation shows preliminary success in reducing violations, substance use, and incarceration. Implications for practice and policy will be discussed.