Authority dependence and judgments of utilitarian harm

Three studies tested the conditions under which people judge utilitarian harm to be authority dependent (i.e., whether its right or wrongness depends on the ruling of an authority). In Study 1, participants judged the right or wrongness of physical abuse when used as an interrogation method anticipated to yield useful information for preventing future terrorist attacks. The ruling of the military authority towards the harm was manipulated (prohibited vs. prescribed) and found to significantly influence judgments of the right or wrongness of inflicting harm. Study 2 established a boundary condition with regards to the influence of authority, which was eliminated when the utility of the harm was definitely obtained rather than forecasted. Finally, Study 3 replicated the findings of Studies 1-2 in a completely different context—an expert committee’s ruling about the harming of chimpanzees for biomedical research. These results are discussed as they inform ongoing debates regarding the role of authority in moderating judgments of complex and simple harm. 2013 Elsevier B.V. © All rights reserved.

The police officer's terrorist dilemma: Trust resilience following fatal errors

Suicide attacks have raised the stakes for officers deciding whether or not to shoot a suspect ('Police Officer's Terrorist Dilemma'). Despite high-profile errors we know little about how trust in the police is affected by their response to the terrorist threat. Building on a conceptualisation of lay observers as intuitive signal detection theorists, a general population sample (N= 1153) were presented with scenarios manipulated in terms of suspect status (Armed/Unarmed), officer decision (Shoot/Not Shoot) and outcome severity (e.g. suspect armed with Bomb/Knife; police shoot suspect/ suspect plus child bystander). Supporting predictions, people showed higher trust in officers who made correct decisions. reflecting good discrimination ability and who decided to shoot, reflecting an 'appropriate' response bias given the relative costs and benefits. This latter effect was moderated by (a) outcome severity, suggesting it did not simply reflect a preference for a particular type of action, and (b) preferences for a tough stance towards terrorism indexed by Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). Despite loss of civilian life, failure to prevent minor terror attacks resulted in no loss of trust amongst people low in RWA. whereas among people high in RWA trust was positive when police erroneously shot all unarmed suspect. Relations to alternative definitions of trust and procedural justice research are discussed. Copyright (C),. 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Future of Preventive Wars: The Case of Iraq

Eight years have past since the devastating September 11 attacks, and the USA has engaged in two wars in the name of uprooting global ‘terrorism’ and providing security to American citizens. The Bush administration bequeathed a legacy of two ongoing wars and growing threats emerging from ‘terrorist’ acts. This article analyses the future of the preventive war doctrine, formulated by the Bush administration, under international law. The article thus explores whether the preventive war doctrine has the potential to set a customary precedence, or whether it merely constitutes a breach of international law.

The right of access to a lawyer in terrorist cases

This is a survey of the applicable international human rights standards concerning the right which alleged terrorists have to access a lawyer.