The role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials

Death qualification is a part of voir dire that is unique to capital trials. Unlike all other litigation, capital jurors must affirm their willingness to impose both legal standards (either life in prison or the death penalty). Jurors who assert they are able to do so are deemed “death-qualified” and are eligible for capital jury service: jurors who assert that they are unable to do so are deemed “excludable” or “scrupled” and are barred from hearing a death penalty case. During the penalty phase in capital trials, death-qualified jurors weigh the aggravators (i.e., arguments for death) against the mitigators (i.e., arguments for life) in order to determine the sentence. If the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, then the jury is to recommend death; if the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances, then the jury is to recommend life. The jury is free to weigh each aggravating and mitigating circumstance in any matter they see fit. Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors' receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., Luginbuhl & Middendorf, 1988). However, these studies utilized the now-defunct Witherspoon rule and did not include a case scenario for participants to reference. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification affects jurors' endorsements of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when Witt, rather than Witherspoon, is the legal standard for death qualification. Four hundred and fifty venirepersons from the 11 th Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: two death qualification questions; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to endorse aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse aggravating circumstances. Excludable participants, when compared to death-qualified venirepersons, were more likely to endorse nonstatutory mitigators. There was no significant difference between death-qualified and excludable venirepersons with respect to their endorsement of 6 out of 7 statutory mitigators. It would appear that the Furman v. Georgia (1972) decision to declare the death penalty unconstitutional is frustrated by the Lockhart v. McCree (1986) affirmation of death qualification. ^

Design and implementation of a web based shop floor control system to maintain schedule feasibility in a dynamic job shop environment

The effective control of production activities in dynamic job shop with predetermined resource allocation for all the jobs entering the system is a unique manufacturing environment, which exists in the manufacturing industry. In this thesis a framework for an Internet based real time shop floor control system for such a dynamic job shop environment is introduced. The system aims to maintain the schedule feasibility of all the jobs entering the manufacturing system under any circumstance. The system is capable of deciding how often the manufacturing activities should be monitored to check for control decisions that need to be taken on the shop floor. The system will provide the decision maker real time notification to enable him to generate feasible alternate solutions in case a disturbance occurs on the shop floor. The control system is also capable of providing the customer with real time access to the status of the jobs on the shop floor. The communication between the controller, the user and the customer is through web based user friendly GUI. The proposed control system architecture and the interface for the communication system have been designed, developed and implemented.

Mother-Infant Reciprocity and the Development of Joint Attention in 12 Month Old Infants

Social contingency is the ability to connect social stimuli, such as those behaviors performed by oneself and those performed by others. Detecting social contingencies occurs by means of reciprocity through shared experiences with others. Reciprocity denotes a circumstance in which two individuals participate in a collaborative exchange, and is distinguished from an event in which two individuals engage in separate, unrelated activities. Specifically, reciprocity incorporates joint attention (JA), which occurs when two individuals simultaneously and visually attend to the same item. JA is facilitated by gazing and pointing, whereby one individual initiates the action and the second individual follows suit by, for example, gaze-following. However, little is known about the role the mother may play in the development of JA. The purpose of our study was to investigate social contingency between mothers and infants engaging in dyadic interactions. Thirty-three 12-month-old typically developing infants (M = 12.2, SD = .19; N = 19 males) were filmed for 10 minutes during free play with their mothers and toys provided by an experimenter. Reciprocity was measured by coding mother-infant interactions when a precise chain of events occurred: (1) mother initiated a bid by introducing a toy/activity or request to the infant, (2) infant accepted the bid/request by engaging in play with the given toy/activity, and (3) mother persisted by continuing to engage in play with said toy/activity. We computed a Pearson Correlation to assess the relation between the mothers’ initiations of JA and their infants’ responses to JA. We found a moderately positive correlation between the two variables (r= 0.37, p<.05). Our findings suggest that reciprocity, an important component of social relationships, during parent-infant dyads may serve as a scaffold for joint attention abilities, which have been linked to social and language development.