Guest  

 
Search: 
Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text

 

Showing 1 through 5 of 29 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6  - Next
2006 - American Political Science Association Words: unavailable || 
Info
1. Navratil, Kevin. "Gullible Public, Cunning Executives, or Negligent Media? A Theory of Misperceptions" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA, <Not Available>. 2019-11-20 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p150850_index.html>
Publication Type: Proceeding

2006 - American Political Science Association Pages: 26 pages || Words: 8667 words || 
Info
2. Bleek, Philipp. "Would 'Deterrence of Negligence' Reduce the Risk of Catastrophic Terrorism?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 31, 2006 <Not Available>. 2019-11-20 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p151547_index.html>
Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: Frustrated with the failure of more orthodox strategies to stem the risk of mass destruction terrorism, particularly with nuclear weapons, analysts have begun to advocate threatening deterrent retaliation against states whose insecure mass destruction weapons and materials are stolen and used in terrorist attacks against the United States. After elaborating on what is here termed “deterrence of negligence,” the paper evaluates a narrowly defined question: what would be the effect of the United States enunciating, either publicly or through private channels, a deterrence of negligence policy? This question is addressed in three parts. First, the status of current unilateral and cooperative efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials and weapons in the two case countries, Russia and Pakistan, is detailed. Second, the contribution of a deterrence of negligence policy towards preventing a terrorist attack with mass destruction weapons prior to such an attack is assessed. Third, the contribution of the policy towards making follow-on attacks less likely in the aftermath of an initial attack is assessed. Finally, in the context of a skeptical assessment of deterrence of negligence’s ability to ameliorate the threat of mass destruction terrorism, the paper briefly considers potential alternative strategies that could either complement or substitute for it.

2004 - The Law and Society Association Words: 301 words || 
Info
3. Keren-Paz, Tsachi. "A New Perspective on an Old Problem: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Non-Legal Sanctions" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Law and Society Association, Renaissance Hotel, Chicago, Illinois, May 27, 2004 <Not Available>. 2019-11-20 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p116905_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this paper, I compare negligence and strict liability regimes with respect to their different abilities to generate the imposition of non-legal sanctions on defendants in torts. The analysis in this paper is based on the basic assumption that any given finding of a defendant as liable in torts is likely to subject him or her to more non-legal sanctions if reached under a negligence regime than if reached under a strict liability regime. However, it is not clear which regime will produce more non-legal sanctions overall, since a strict liability regime is likely to produce more findings of liability. The main distinction between the rival regimes’ respective potential to generate non-legal sanctions derives from the fact that, in findings of liability, a strict liability regime pools together negligent and non-negligent defendants. At both the allocative and distributive levels, this pooling effect is likely to lead to a reduction in the investment made by high-risk professionals in precaution costs. Low-risk professionals might either increase their investment in precaution (as the flip-side of this adverse selection coin) or, like the high-risk professionals, reduce that investment in a tragedy-of-the-commons. A strict liability regime might serve as a hedging mechanism for low-risk professionals against the significant reputation loss involved in being found liable under a negligence regime. At the aggregate level, a strict liability regime will produce more non-legal sanctions if market participants overestimate the proportion of faulty defendants out of the pool of defendants found liable under that regime.
The paper critically examines the assumption that a negligence regime is superior to strict liability in that it better signals to potential victims the inadequacy of the professionals being found liable and, in so doing, channels potential victims from higher-risk to lower-risk professionals and reduces the likelihood of occurrence of future accidents.

2006 - The Midwest Political Science Association Pages: 37 pages || Words: 11314 words || 
Info
4. Navratil, Kevin. "Gullible Public, Cunning Executives, or Negligent Media? A Theory of Misperceptions" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, Apr 20, 2006 <Not Available>. 2019-11-20 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p137496_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper offers a theoretical and empirical analysis of false beliefs related to Iraq, defined as an individual’s response to a survey question, which is contrary to all available evidence. This paper contends previous research has failed to distinguish the uninformed from the misinformed and have not fully integrated the combination of institutional and individual factors that contribute to misperception formation and maintenance. This paper proposes a synthesized theory that explains how institutional factors, such as information provided by executive branch and the media interact with individual factors, such as individuals’ tendency to engage in politically motivated reasoning, news consumption habits, level of political sophistication, and strength of party identification influence false beliefs related to Iraq. Previous research by Kull, Ramsey, and Lewis (2003) has suggested Iraq related misperceptions would wane as new information became available and as time passed from the war. I use March 2006 PIPA/KN survey data to examine whether false beliefs related to Iraq have decreased at the aggregate level and use logistic analysis and chi-square statistics to examine individual level factors that influence false beliefs. In doing so, I demonstrate whether increased attention to news about Iraq decreases false beliefs and to whom increased attention matters. Finally, I demonstrate the importance of false beliefs by revealing their strong relationship with support for the Iraq War.

2010 - The Law and Society Association Words: 480 words || 
Info
5. Rauschenbach, Mina. "Responsibility Attribution of Legal Experts vs. Laypersons: Defining the Fine Limit between Negligence and Recklessness" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Law and Society Association, Renaissance Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, May 24, 2010 <Not Available>. 2019-11-20 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p406686_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Research (Bailis, Darley, Waxman & Robinson, 1995; Hans & Slater, 1984) has shown that commonsense notions of criminal responsibility differ from those used by the criminal justice system. Members of the public and victims often do not understand court rulings, do not accept that a person who committed a morally reprehensible and harmful act is not always punished by law and often find that the sentence afforded to perpetrators is not harsh enough, and more specifically, not commensurate with the consequences of their acts. Consequently, it seems necessary to understand better how and why responsibility judgments attributed for a given act sometimes differ to such an extent between lay persons and the criminal justice system. With this aim in mind, we chose to focus more specifically on acts of negligence and recklessness and the extent to which these two legal concepts are differentiated in legal reasoning compared to commonsense reasoning. For this study two different scenarios based on real facts were submitted to two groups of perceivers, namely, students of law and psychology. They describe a person who commits an act that is considered to be an offense which results in the death of another person. In order to manipulate the distinction between negligence and recklessness, the acts that were described in these scenarios were formulated using legal criteria that correspond to an act of negligence or an act of recklessness. The subjects had to assess the responsibility of the agent on a number of related legal and moral dimensions. The main hypothesis of this project is that criminal responsibility attributions entail two distinct spheres of reasoning, namely a legal and a moral one, which are more or less favored depending on whether the perceiver bases his/her reasoning on legal criteria acquired through an education in law or on commonsense notions to judge of responsibility. Thus, we expect the law students, given their legal training, to apply more legal criteria in their responsibility judgments and the students of psychology, who are considered here as lay persons, are expected to base more their responsibility judgments on moral dimensions. A subsequent hypothesis is that legal experts should differentiate more clearly between negligent and reckless acts than laypersons, since this difference is based on specific legal definitions. Some results provide support for the idea that psychologists could favor moral criteria when attributing responsibility, whilst law students may prefer legal criteria when making these assessments. Moreover, the law students perceive the legal distinction between negligence and recklessness much more accurately than psychology students. Law students also seem to rely more on legal criteria than on moral criteria to make this distinction compared to psychology students. Although these results support partially the initial hypotheses, they offer a important insight into understanding the nature of the differences existing between legal concepts and lay representations of responsibility and their impact on the way judicial decisions are perceived.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6  - Next

©2019 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy