New Foundations for a Relational Theory of Theory-revision

AGM-theory, named after its founders Carlos Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors and David Makinson, is the leading contemporary paradigm in the theory of belief-revision. The theory is reformulated here so as to deal with the central relational notions ‘J is a contraction of K with respect to A’ and ‘J is a revision of K with respect to A’. The new theory is based on a principal-case analysis of the domains of definition of the three main kinds of theory-change (expansion, contraction and revision). The new theory is stated by means of introduction and elimination rules for the relational notions. In this new setting one can re-examine the relationship between contraction and revision, using the appropriate versions of the so-called Levi and Harper identities. Among the positive results are the following. One can derive the extensionality of contraction and revision, rather than merely postulating it. Moreover, one can demonstrate the existence of revision-functions satisfying a principle of monotonicity. The full set of AGM-postulates for revision-functions allow for completely bizarre revisions. This motivates a Principle of Minimal Bloating, which needs to be stated as a separate postulate for revision. Moreover, contractions obtained in the usual way from the bizarre revisions, by using the Harper identity, satisfy Recovery. This provides a new reason (in addition to several others already adduced in the literature) for thinking that the contraction postulate of Recovery fails to capture the Principle of Minimal Mutilation. So the search is still on for a proper explication of the notion of minimal mutilation, to do service in both the theory of contraction and the theory of revision. The new relational formulation of AGM-theory, based on principal-case analysis, shares with the original, functional form of AGM-theory the idealizing assumption that the belief-sets of rational agents are to be modelled as consistent, logically closed sets of sentences. The upshot of the results presented here is that the new relational theory does a better job of making important matters clear than does the original functional theory. A new setting has been provided within which one can profitably address two pressing questions for AGM-theory: (1) how is the notion of minimal mutilation (by both contractions and revisions) best analyzed? and (2) how is one to rule out unnecessary bloating by revisions?     

How does crime pay? The differentiation of criminal specialisms by fundamental incentive

Most attempts to determine offence specialisms have not benefited from any formal psychological framework of behavioural differentiation. Bandura's framework (Social foundations of thought and action, 1986) of the fundamental incentives to human action offers an interesting perspective on what might underlie differential patterns of offending. The framework draws attention to the distinction between Material, Power/Status, and Sensory incentives, leading to the hypotheses that crimes which share any one of these incentives will be more likely to be committed by the same person, as revealed through high inter‐correlations, but be less highly correlated with crimes with different fundamental incentives. To test these hypotheses the correlations between 42 offending behaviours as self‐reported by 185 convicted young offenders were examined. A Multidimensional Scaling analysis of the inter‐correlations revealed three distinct styles of offending that could be related to Bandura's Material (Cronbach's α = 0.94), Power/Status (α = 0.90) and Sensory (α = 0.76) incentives. The identification of this psychological basis for the differentiation of criminal styles provides a model for considering offenders' patterns of specialisation which is of value both in clarifying the aetiology of different types of crime and in considering which crimes may be behaviourally equivalent when trying to link them to a common offender or infer offender characteristics from crime scene information. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bayesian journey-to-crime modelling of single and multiple crime-type series in Baltimore County,MD

This study tested different Bayesian Journey-to-Crime (JTC) models on a sample group of 850 serial offenders apprehended in Baltimore County, MD from 1993 to 1997. In this research, Bayesian JTC models were being used to predict the home locations of the offenders. The sample group data included 133 assaults, 90 burglaries, 497 larcenies, 81 robberies, and 49 vehicle thefts. The main question this research aimed to answer was whether the addition of crimes of a different type to an existing crime series of a single type would result in more accurate and/or precise Bayesian JTC models. The standard practice by law enforcement has been to consider the same-type crime series only when modelling the anchor point of the offender. Similarly, in research, geographic profiles have been constructed exclusively with the same-type crime series. The results of this study clearly indicated that the inclusion of crimes of a different type into a single crime-type series will result in significantly more accurate and more precise Bayesian JTC models. In contrast, crime series with predominantly assault and burglary showed results that were inconclusive or indicated no significant differences. These results should encourage law enforcement agencies to re-evaluate their standard practice of constructing geographic profiles with only the same-type crime series. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

THOG问题促进效应研究

通过选取经典的THOG问题作为实验材料,探讨了大学生解决具体以及抽象选言推理问题的认知机制,结果发现:(1)具体内容的选言推理问题对抽象内容的选言推理问题有明显的促进效应,表现为先解决逃犯问题后解决THOG问题组的正确率显著高于先解决THOG问题后解决逃犯问题组;(2)提供笼统的解题策略对大学生解决THOG问题几乎没有促进作用。     

犯罪行为决策的理论与研究方法

犯罪行为是犯罪人决策的结果。犯罪行为决策研究旨在通过运用认知心理学的有关原理,说明犯罪行为实施之前的行为决策过程及影响因素,其成果能为国家制定刑事政策与犯罪预防政策等提供理论依据。犯罪行为决策的理论模型主要可分为犯罪理性模型、犯罪期望效用模型和犯罪前景理论模型。犯罪行为决策的研究方法主要采用心理物理法、过程追踪法、访谈法、投射测验法和犯罪统计法等。展望未来,应进一步探讨犯罪行为决策的理性与非理性问题,并加强对犯罪行为决策的验证性研究。     

Citizens' Sense of Justice and the Legal System

When an actor commits a wrong action, citizens have perceptions of the kind of responsibility the actor incurs, the degree to which the act was mitigated or justified, and the appropriate punishment for the actor. The legislatively mandated law of criminal courts, statutes, and criminal codes deals with the same issues. Experimental evidence shows that there are important discrepancies between the principles that people and legal codes use to assign responsibility. That is, the moral retributive-justice principles that people use are sometimes in conflict with the directions in which modern code drafters are taking criminal law. These discrepancies may cause citizens to feel alienated from authority, and to reduce their voluntary compliance with legal codes.     

违法犯罪者人格多种方法研究

本研究运用问卷法“YG人格测验”、作业法“内田－克雷佩林心理测验”和投射法“色塔人格测验”对126名违法犯罪者进行了测试。结果表明,作业法和投射法人格测验二者相互补充和印证,揭示了违法犯罪者人格的某些特点,问卷法人格测验的结果与前者不一致,应该运用多种方法对违法犯罪者的人格进行研究。     

罪犯改造成效评估量表的建构

本研究运用因素分析法,尝试建构我国监狱中罪犯改造成效评估量走。该量表分Ａ版（干警评定量表）与Ｂ版（服刑人员他评量表）。结果表明,该量表具有较高的信度、效度,所得的改造成效评估三因素结构合理,内容清晰     

The poehlman case: running away from the truth

Eric T. Poehlman, Ph.D., was an internationally recognized, tenured professor at the University of Vermont (UVM) in Burlington when, in October 2000, a junior member of Poehlman’s laboratory became convinced that he had altered data from a study on aging volunteers from the Burlington area. This suspicion developed into one of the most significant cases of scientific misconduct in the history of the US Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Research Integrity (ORI), launching a US Department of Justice (DOJ) civil and criminal fraud investigation and, eventually, to a much publicized guilty plea and felony conviction. In the end, Dr. Poehlman admitted to 54 findings of scientific misconduct made by the UVM and ORI, agreed to retract or correct ten of his publications and to exclude himself from federal procurement and nonprocurement transactions for life. The United States Government’s handling of this case was distinguished by a highly cooperative approach that integrated the resources of the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont (USAO) and both ORI and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in HHS in the common goal of prosecuting research fraud. The content of this article represents the personal views of the authors and does not express the opinion or policy of DHHS or its components. A paper on this topic was presented at the 6th International Bioethics Conference on the subject of ‘The Responsible Conduct of Basic and Clinical Research’, held in Warsaw, Poland, 3–4 June 2005.     

The insanity defense: Legal standards and clinical assessment

Although the insanity defense is used infrequently, it has received significant attention from legal and mental health professionals. In this article, we review the historical development of insanity defense standards and describe the standards currently employed in the United States. We present a model for evaluating a defendant's mental nonresponsibility, and we briefly discuss the legal standards and procedures for the assessment of insanity acquittees for release. Throughout the article, we discuss some scientific, ethical, and jurisprudential issues associated with the insanity defense and nonresponsibility evaluations.