Considering Just-World Thinking in Counter-Terrorism Cases: Miscarriages of Justice in Northern Ireland

Recent literature has drawn a parallel between the discriminatory application of counterterrorism legislation to the Irish population in the United Kingdom during the Northern Ireland conflict and the targeting of Muslims after September 2001. Less attention has been paid to lessons that can be drawn from judicial decision making in terrorism-related cases stemming from the Northern Ireland conflict. This Article examines Northern Ireland Court of Appeal (“NICA”) jurisprudence on miscarriages of justice in cases regarding counterterrorism offenses. In particular, the Article focuses on cases referred after the 1998 peace agreements in Northern Ireland from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”), a relatively new entity that investigates potential wrongful convictions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Although the NICA’s human rights jurisprudence has developed significantly in recent years, the study of CCRC-referred cases finds that judges have retained confidence in the integrity of the conflict-era counterterrorism system even while acknowledging abuses and procedural irregularities that occurred. This study partially contradicts contentions that judicial deference to the executive recedes in a post-conflict or post-emergency period. Despite a high rate of quashed convictions, the NICA’s decisions suggest that it seeks to limit a large number of referrals and demonstrate a judicial predisposition to defend the justness of the past system’s laws and procedure. This perspective is consistent with what social psychologists have studied as “just-world thinking,” in which objective observers, although motivated by a concern with justice, believe—as a result of cognitive bias—that individuals “got what they deserved.” The Article considers other potential interpretations of the jurisprudence and contends that conservative decision making is particularly dangerous in the politicized realm of counterterrorism and in light of the criminalization of members of suspect communities.

Peer tutoring in reading in Scotland:Thinking big

A large-scale randomised-controlled trial of reading tutoring in 80 schools in Scotland used the Paired Reading (PR) technique. On long-term evaluation, cross-age PR was significantly better than regular teaching, but same-age was not. On short-term evaluation, PR pupils did significantly better than control pupils in both years, and cross-age and same-age were similarly effective. Low socio-economic pupils, lower reading ability pupils, girls and reading with maths tutoring groups did significantly better. Implementation was good in parts, but some important aspects of technique were rare. Reading gains were significantly greater for those with mistakes about every 2 minutes and those who stopped reading to talk every 5 to 7 minutes. Significant gains in self-esteem were seen in same-age and cross-age groups, and for tutees and tutors, but not for controls. The relationship of achievement gain to quality of technique and socio-emotional gains is discussed, with implications for practice. Copyright © 2011 UKLA.

Thinking about the past, present and future in adolescents growing up in Children's Homes

The present study tested the hypothesis that adolescents growing up in Children's Homes differ from adolescents growing up in a family environment in how they think about their past, present and future, in the way they make decisions about future events and rewards, and in their levels of empathy and perspective taking. The participants were 40 adolescents from Children's Homes in Budapest, Hungary, and 40 age- and gender-matched controls. Group differences were found in participants' past and present time perspectives, and girls from Children's Homes showed reduced consistency in their plans for the future. Additionally, gender differences emerged in empathy, perspective taking, and in participants' present and future time perspectives. We discuss the implications of our findings for interventions to improve the future prospects of adolescents in Children's Homes.

Can Safe Clinical Thinking be Taught?

OBJECTIVES: To determine if: (a) safe clinical decision making can be taught to undergraduate final year medical students and (b) if such students can be taught to specifically recognise illness severity from nominal clinical data. 
METHODS: 115 final year undergraduate medical students completed a 3 hour interactive Safe Thinking Workshop which focussed entirely on nontechnical skills such as potential perceptive pitfalls, attention to detail, teamwork and safe clinical decision making. The study involved students inspecting and interpreting a set of arterial blood gas results relating to a patient with acute respiratory distress, then answering a short questionnaire addressing biochemical diagnosis, clinical diagnosis and effective management. A separate question was embedded in the questionnaire to determine if astute students could determine the severity of the illness from the CO2 value provided. The study group (n = 58) completed the questionnaire immediately after the Safe Thinking Workshop, whilst the control group (n = 57) completed the questionnaire prior to the Workshop.
RESULTS: The mean total score for study students was 80.51%, with a mean total score of 63.86% for the control group (Student’s t-test; p<0.05). Correct classification of illness severity was observed in 10.35% of study students, compared with 3.51% of control students (p<0.05). 
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that safe clinical decision making and recognition of illness severity can be fostered by specific teaching in the nontechnical skill areas described above.