Contrast and lustre:a model that accounts for eleven different forms of contrast discrimination in binocular vision

Our goal here is a more complete understanding of how information about luminance contrast is encoded and used by the binocular visual system. In two-interval forced-choice experiments we assessed observers' ability to discriminate changes in contrast that could be an increase or decrease of contrast in one or both eyes, or an increase in one eye coupled with a decrease in the other (termed IncDec). The base or pedestal contrasts were either in-phase or out-of-phase in the two eyes. The opposed changes in the IncDec condition did not cancel each other out, implying that along with binocular summation, information is also available from mechanisms that do not sum the two eyes' inputs. These might be monocular mechanisms. With a binocular pedestal, monocular increments of contrast were much easier to see than monocular decrements. These findings suggest that there are separate binocular (B) and monocular (L,R) channels, but only the largest of the three responses, max(L,B,R), is available to perception and decision. Results from contrast discrimination and contrast matching tasks were described very accurately by this model. Stimuli, data, and model responses can all be visualized in a common binocular contrast space, allowing a more direct comparison between models and data. Some results with out-of-phase pedestals were not accounted for by the max model of contrast coding, but were well explained by an extended model in which gratings of opposite polarity create the sensation of lustre. Observers can discriminate changes in lustre alongside changes in contrast.

Audit report on the Black Hawk County Criminal Justice Information System for the year ended June 30, 2016

Audit report on the Black Hawk County Criminal Justice Information System for the year ended June 30, 2016

Review of "Violence, Prejudice and Sexuality" by Stephen Tomsen (Routledge, New York and London, 2009)

Tomsen’s book Violence, Prejudice and Sexuality engages with important questions about sexuality and anti homosexual sentiment that criminologists have grappled with for some time. Tomsen’s work refines these questions in the context of essentialism, and notes how this concept has enabled only very specific ways of thinking about and analysing violence, prejudice, and sexuality. Indeed, thinking about the nexus between these three concepts are now almost taken for granted. As Tomsen demonstrates in his discussion of historical understandings of sexual desire, although social constructionism and queer perspectives have challenged essentialist notions of sexuality, research has in many respects upheld a binary understanding of heterosexuality as normal and homosexuality as abnormal. Interestingly, essentialist binaries like this have been conveniently employed in more recent times when activists align with minority status to gain basic human rights. While no one could deny the importance of access to rights and justice, Tomsen notes the danger inherent in arguments like this that draw on essentialism. He argues we are working through similar dichotomies of heterosexuality as normal and homosexuality as abnormal set up in very early research on sexual desire. The key difference now is that, in the rush towards public and political citizenship, ‘heterosexuals are recast as “perpetrators” and homosexuals as “victims”’ (Tomsen 2009: 16). Violence, Prejudice and Sexuality importantly notes this is no less an essentialist dichotomy and no less divisive....

The perils and politics of criminological research and the threat to academic freedom

This article focuses on government acts of intimidation or the "policing of knowledge". It is more concerned with the suppression of academic freedom, the contractual ambiguities of contemporary criminological research and the ways in which independent scholarship is controlled or influenced by funding bodies than with the specifics of the original crime prevention research which forms the basis of the case study.

Green crime and the role of environmental courts

Environmental issues continue to capture international headlines and remain the subject of intense intellectual, political and public debate. As a result, environmental law is widely recognised as the fastest growing area of international jurisprudence. This, combined with the rapid expansion of environmental agreements and policies, has created a burgeoning landscape of administrative, regulatory and judicial regimes. Emerging from these developments are increases in environmental offences, and more recently environmental crimes. The judicial processing of environmental or ‘green’ crimes is rapidly developing across many jurisdictions. Since 1979, Australia has played a lead role in criminal justice processing of environment offences through the New South Wales Land and Environment Court (NSW LEC). This article draws on case data, observations and interviews with court personnel, to examine the ways in which environmental justice is now administered through the existing court structures, and how it has changed since the Court’s inception.

Contemporary comment : is it time for Australia to adopt Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA)?

Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) - an innovative process for reintegrating child sex offenders into the community after a period of incarceration - have not yet been firmly established in any Australian jurisdiction. This is the case despite their widespread use in Canada, the United Kingdom. and parts of the United States of America, and despite a growing body of research evidence that demonstrates their efficacy in reducing recidivism among child sex offenders. This Contemporary Comment outlines the emergence of COSA and the existing evidence in support of COSA. It argues that COSA should be piloted in Australia.

Criminalisation and normative theory

Criminal law scholarship is enjoying a renaissance in normative theory, evident in a growing list of publications from leading scholars that attempt to elucidate a set of principles on which criminalisation and criminal law might — indeed should — be based. This development has been less marked in Australia, where a stream of criminologically influenced criminal law scholarship, teaching and practice has emerged over nearly three decades. There are certain tensions between this predominantly contextual, process-oriented and criminological tradition that has emerged in Australia, characterised by a critical approach to the search for ‘general principles’ of the criminal law, and the more recent revival of interest in developing a set of principles on which a ‘normative theory of criminal law’ might be founded. Aspects of this tension will be detailed through examination of recent examples of criminalisation in New South Wales that are broadly representative of trends across all Australian urisdictions. The article will then reflect on the links between these particular features of criminalisation and attempts to develop a ‘normative theory’ of criminalisation.

Australian domestic violence protection order legislation : a comparative quantitative content analysis of victim safety provisions

In Australia, protection orders are a key legal response to domestic violence, and are often viewed as a way of providing for victim safety. For instance, recently the joint Australian and New South Wales Law Reform Commissions recommended that a common core purpose of all state and territory domestic violence legislation should be ‘to ensure or maximise the safety and protection of persons who fear or experience family violence’ (2010:Recommendation 7-4). Drawing and building upon prior research in Australia and the United States (‘US’), this paper uses comparative quantitative content analysis to assess the victim safety focus of domestic violence protection order legislation in each Australian state and territory. The findings of this analysis show that the Northern Territory, South Australia and Victoria ‘stand out’ from the other jurisdictions, having the highest victim safety focus in their legislation. However, there remains sizeable scope for improvement in all Australian jurisdictions, in terms of the victim safety focus of their legislative provisions and the considerations of legislative inconsistency between jurisdictions.