Exoneration or observation? Examining a novel difference between liars and truth tellers

Individual cues to deception are subtle and often missed by lay people and law enforcement alike. Linguistic statement analysis remains a potentially useful way of overcoming individual diagnostic limitations (e.g. Criteria based Content Analysis; Steller & Köhnken, 1989; Reality monitoring; Johnson & Raye, 1981; Scientific Content Analysis; Sapir, 1996). Unfortunately many of these procedures are time-consuming, require in-depth training, as well as lack empirical support and/or external validity. The current dissertation develops a novel approach to statement veracity analysis that is simple to learn, easy to administer, theoretically sound, and empirically validated. ^ Two strategies were proposed for detecting differences between liars' and truth-tellers' statements. Liars were hypothesized to strategically write statements with the goal of self-exoneration. Liars' statements were predicted to contain more first person pronouns and fewer third person pronouns. Truth-tellers were hypothesized to be motivated toward being informative and thus produce statements with fewer first person pronouns and more third person pronouns. Three studies were conducted to test this hypothesis. The first study explored the verbal patterns of exoneration and informativeness focused statements. The second study used a traditional theft paradigm to examine these verbal patterns in guilty liars and innocent truth tellers. In the third study to better match the context of a criminal investigation a cheating paradigm was used in which spontaneous lying was induced and written statements were taken. Support for the first person pronoun hypothesis was found. Limited support was found for the third person pronoun hypothesis. Results, implications, and future directions for the current research are discussed.^

Quantification of standards of proof thresholds in criminal and civil litigation

Standards of proof in law serve the purpose of instructing juries as to the expected levels of confidence in determinations of fact. In criminal trials, to reach a guilty verdict a jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, and in civil trials by a preponderance of the evidence. The purposes of this study are to determine the quantitative thresholds used to make these determinations; to ascertain the levels of juror agreement with basic principles of justice; and to try to predict thresholds and beliefs by juror personality characteristics. Participants read brief case descriptions and indicated thresholds in percentages, their beliefs in various principles, and completed three personality measures. A 92-94% threshold in criminal and an 80% threshold in civil matters was found; but prediction by personality was not supported. Significant percentages of jurors disavowed the presumptions of innocence and right to counsel.

Récits de croisade et digression : la conquête de Constantinople de Robert de Clari

Partant de la réputation naïve, colorée et digressive de La Conquête de Constantinople de Robert de Clari, ce mémoire propose une analyse méthodique de ce récit en prose vernaculaire de la quatrième croisade de façon à en circonscrire les moments de continuité et de rupture. En fonction de plusieurs facteurs, dont leurs formules d’introduction et de clôture, leur rapport au temps de la croisade, leur longueur relative ainsi que leur positionnement dans l’économie globale du texte, les épisodes divergents sont identifiés puis analysés en travaillant lestement avec trois caractéristiques fondamentales de la digression plutôt qu’avec une définition nucléaire du concept, ce qui permet de discerner des degrés de digressif et d’offrir un panorama nuancé de l’oeuvre. Afin d’adopter un regard plus large sur le phénomène de la digression, quatre autres récits de croisade sont étudiés, et tous, qu’ils soient écrits en prose ou en vers, en français ou en latin, sont à leur façon coupables de s’être laissés emporter par leur sujet dans des excursus qui trahissent la personnalité et les convictions de leur auteur. Tout comme Clari, Villehardouin, l’auteur de l’Estoire de la guerre sainte, Eudes de Deuil et Albert d’Aix laissent entrevoir leur propre histoire lorsque celle qu’ils mettent à l’écrit s’égare de la droite voie de sa narration. Les digressions contenues dans les récits de croisade constituent ainsi une fenêtre privilégiée sur l’histoire des mentalités du Moyen Âge central, une mine d’informations qui ne peut être adéquatement exploitée que par les efforts conjoints de l’histoire et de la littérature.

The South Carolina Juvenile Collateral Consequences Checklist

Federal and state laws impose a range of collateral consequences that affect the opportunities available to youth involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Children who have pled or have been found guilty of juvenile delinquency offenses face challenges in gaining employment finding housing and accessing educational opportunities. This publication provides a community resource containing the most current information on the short-term and long-term consequences of delinquency adjudications in South Carolina.

Delimitación de la ilicitud sustancial como elemento de la responsabilidad disciplinaria de los funcionarios públicos

La falta disciplinaria será aquella conducta típica, antijurídica y culpable, pues eso se desprende de los principios rectores del derecho disciplinario, los cuales tienen una consagración normativa en el ordenamiento jurídico colombiano, más específicamente en la Ley 734 de 2002, actual Código Disciplinario Único. La Ilicitud Sustancial es el elemento que delimita la antijuridicidad de la responsabilidad disciplinaria, y se debe decir que el alcance de dicho concepto no ha sido definido de manera precisa por parte de la ley, ni de manera unánime por parte de la doctrina, ni muchos menos por parte de la jurisprudencia. Luego de exponer las reflexiones hechas respecto al alcance de la ilicitud sustancial, se argumentará el por qué se debe entender el alcance de ese concepto bajo la siguiente hipótesis: La ilicitud sustancial debe entenderse en términos de antijuridicidad material, lo cual apunta a que la falta, además de ser típica y culpable, debe vulnerar realmente la Función Pública como bien jurídico a proteger por el Derecho Disciplinario, o ponerla en peligro manifiesto, pues ese tipo de derecho sancionador debe ser estrictamente limitado, ya que sus consecuencias son muy gravosas para los derechos de la personas destinatarias de la Ley Disciplinaria.