By Ian Sample, Science Correspondent in San Diego
The Guardian, Sunday 10 November 2013
Criminal courts in the United States are facing a surge in the number of defendants arguing that their brains were to blame for their crimes and relying on questionable scans and other controversial, unproven neuroscience, a legal expert who has advised the president has warned.
Nita Farahany, a professor of law who sits on Barack Obama's bioethics advisory panel, told a Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego that those on trial were mounting ever more sophisticated defences that drew on neurological evidence in an effort to show they were not fully responsible for murderous or other criminal actions.
Lawyers typically drew on brain scans and neuropsychological tests to reduce defendants' sentences, but in a substantial number of cases the evidence was used to try to clear defendants of all culpability.
The entire story is here.
Showing posts with label Criminal Behavior. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criminal Behavior. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Friday, October 4, 2013
Judging Moral Issues in a Multicultural Society: Moral Reasoning and Social Dominance Orientation
By Stefano Passini & Paola Villano
Swiss Journal of Psychology
Abstract
People’s reactions to crimes sometimes change depending on whether the perpetrators are members of their own ingroup or an outgroup. This observation results in questions concerning how moral reasoning works in intergroup situations. In this research, we analyzed the combined effect of the nationality of the protagonist in a moral dilemma and the participant’s social dominance orientation (SDO) attitudes on the participant’s level of moral reasoning. A total of 230 Italian participants responded to two moral dilemmas taken from the Defining Issues Test, which had been modified so that one was about an Italian and the other about a Romanian. The results showed a significant interaction between the dilemma, the protagonist’s nationality, and the participant’s SDO: The P scores (postconventional reasoning) of low-SDO participants were on the same level when they were judging people of either nationality, while high-SDO participants tended to have a higher P score when judging Italians as opposed to Romanians.
Introduction
Although multiculturalism is on the rise in public opinion and politics, people sometimes judge criminal and deviant actions differently depending on the group membership of the person involved. For instance, the Italian media regularly report people being run over and even killed by drunk drivers. People's reactions to such events, however, differ depending on whether the perpetrators are members of their own ingroup or members of an outgroup. Moreover, when the aggressors are immigrants, the media do not consider these events to be related to the problems of road safety and alcohol alone. They often also relate these events to issues of immigration and national security, and they tend to judge the event more harshly than when the aggressors are ingroup members (see van Dijk, 2000). This shift of attention from the event itself to the person involved - in terms of his/her nationality - poses new questions concerning how moral reasoning works in intergroup situations.
The entire article can be found here, hiding behind a paywall.
Swiss Journal of Psychology
Abstract
People’s reactions to crimes sometimes change depending on whether the perpetrators are members of their own ingroup or an outgroup. This observation results in questions concerning how moral reasoning works in intergroup situations. In this research, we analyzed the combined effect of the nationality of the protagonist in a moral dilemma and the participant’s social dominance orientation (SDO) attitudes on the participant’s level of moral reasoning. A total of 230 Italian participants responded to two moral dilemmas taken from the Defining Issues Test, which had been modified so that one was about an Italian and the other about a Romanian. The results showed a significant interaction between the dilemma, the protagonist’s nationality, and the participant’s SDO: The P scores (postconventional reasoning) of low-SDO participants were on the same level when they were judging people of either nationality, while high-SDO participants tended to have a higher P score when judging Italians as opposed to Romanians.
Introduction
Although multiculturalism is on the rise in public opinion and politics, people sometimes judge criminal and deviant actions differently depending on the group membership of the person involved. For instance, the Italian media regularly report people being run over and even killed by drunk drivers. People's reactions to such events, however, differ depending on whether the perpetrators are members of their own ingroup or members of an outgroup. Moreover, when the aggressors are immigrants, the media do not consider these events to be related to the problems of road safety and alcohol alone. They often also relate these events to issues of immigration and national security, and they tend to judge the event more harshly than when the aggressors are ingroup members (see van Dijk, 2000). This shift of attention from the event itself to the person involved - in terms of his/her nationality - poses new questions concerning how moral reasoning works in intergroup situations.
The entire article can be found here, hiding behind a paywall.
Friday, September 27, 2013
The Drug Made Me Do It: An Examination of the Prozac Defense
By J. Marshall
The Neuroethics Blog
Originally posted September 10, 2013
The plot of a recent Hollywood thriller, Side Effects, revolves around many pressing legal and ethical questions surrounding the use of anti-depressant medications. The movie explores the life of a supposedly depressed woman—Emily Taylor—who seeks treatment from her psychiatrist. Emily’s doctor prescribes her an anti-depressant—Ablixa. Emily then proceeds to murder her husband in cold blood while under the influence of the drug. The movie seeks to explore the culpability of this depressed woman in a legal sense. During the trial, the psychiatrist argues that neither he nor Emily Taylor is responsible; rather, Emily Taylor was simply “a hopeless victim of circumstance and biology.” Is it possible that a drug could be responsible for one’s actions as argued by the psychiatrist in the movie? The answer is not clear. Nonetheless, the possibility that someone could escape criminal punishment due to a certain anti-depressant represents a serious ethical quandary that should be examined.
The entire blog post is here.
The Neuroethics Blog
Originally posted September 10, 2013
The plot of a recent Hollywood thriller, Side Effects, revolves around many pressing legal and ethical questions surrounding the use of anti-depressant medications. The movie explores the life of a supposedly depressed woman—Emily Taylor—who seeks treatment from her psychiatrist. Emily’s doctor prescribes her an anti-depressant—Ablixa. Emily then proceeds to murder her husband in cold blood while under the influence of the drug. The movie seeks to explore the culpability of this depressed woman in a legal sense. During the trial, the psychiatrist argues that neither he nor Emily Taylor is responsible; rather, Emily Taylor was simply “a hopeless victim of circumstance and biology.” Is it possible that a drug could be responsible for one’s actions as argued by the psychiatrist in the movie? The answer is not clear. Nonetheless, the possibility that someone could escape criminal punishment due to a certain anti-depressant represents a serious ethical quandary that should be examined.
The entire blog post is here.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
To Bee or not To Bee: Punishment, bee keeping, and the virtue of making choices
By Katrina Siefferd
Psychiatric Ethics Blog - Kerry Gutridge
Originally posted August 28, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
Recently I’ve been thinking about the importance of rehabilitative programs and alternative sentencing from the perspective of Aristotelian virtue theory. Virtue theory supports such programs as an important way to recognize offenders’ moral agency. Moral agency involves the ability of a person to act such that their actions deserve praise or blame. Virtue theory sees choice-making as the primary means for a moral agent to develop and exercise character traits: by choosing generous actions one becomes more generous, and in turn, being generous allows one to choose generous actions more easily. The theory provides a means for critiquing punishments that unfairly impose upon this process of moral development.
The Aristotelian label for this process – where character traits like honesty, kindness and courage become stable – is “habituation.” Habituation involves practicing the trait via the use of practical reason, which allows a person to determine which actions are appropriate in any given situation. A stable disposition to act in accordance with a trait, such as honesty, is established as a result of making appropriately honest choices over time and in a variety of circumstances. However, even stable traits do not dictate automatic behavioral responses: if they were, changes in character would be impossible. Instead, traits should be seen as flexible reasons-responsive dispositions to behave that are in constant development or decline, depending on the choices that one makes (see Annas 2011; Webber 2006).
The entire blog post is here.
Psychiatric Ethics Blog - Kerry Gutridge
Originally posted August 28, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
Recently I’ve been thinking about the importance of rehabilitative programs and alternative sentencing from the perspective of Aristotelian virtue theory. Virtue theory supports such programs as an important way to recognize offenders’ moral agency. Moral agency involves the ability of a person to act such that their actions deserve praise or blame. Virtue theory sees choice-making as the primary means for a moral agent to develop and exercise character traits: by choosing generous actions one becomes more generous, and in turn, being generous allows one to choose generous actions more easily. The theory provides a means for critiquing punishments that unfairly impose upon this process of moral development.
The Aristotelian label for this process – where character traits like honesty, kindness and courage become stable – is “habituation.” Habituation involves practicing the trait via the use of practical reason, which allows a person to determine which actions are appropriate in any given situation. A stable disposition to act in accordance with a trait, such as honesty, is established as a result of making appropriately honest choices over time and in a variety of circumstances. However, even stable traits do not dictate automatic behavioral responses: if they were, changes in character would be impossible. Instead, traits should be seen as flexible reasons-responsive dispositions to behave that are in constant development or decline, depending on the choices that one makes (see Annas 2011; Webber 2006).
The entire blog post is here.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Quiet No Longer, Rape Survivors Put Pressure on Colleges
By Libby Sander
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published August 12, 2013
In February, writing on her blog, Tucker Reed identified a classmate at the University of Southern California as the man who raped her.
Ms. Reed, then a junior, included his name, three photos of him, and a detailed account of their troubled relationship.
The post went viral.
Within two weeks, Ms. Reed's apartment became a haven for fellow students who also identified as survivors of rape.
They baked cookies, killed zombies on Xbox, and began writing letters to the university, expressing their dissatisfaction with how it had treated them.
Before long they had formed a group, the Student Coalition Against Rape, or SCAR.
As the Southern California students were finding one another, so were survivors across the country.
Throughout the spring, they exchanged a hail of Facebook messages and tweets, swapping stories, giving advice, and, before long, mobilizing.
The entire story is here, behind a paywall.
Thanks to Ken Pope for this story.
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published August 12, 2013
In February, writing on her blog, Tucker Reed identified a classmate at the University of Southern California as the man who raped her.
Ms. Reed, then a junior, included his name, three photos of him, and a detailed account of their troubled relationship.
The post went viral.
Within two weeks, Ms. Reed's apartment became a haven for fellow students who also identified as survivors of rape.
They baked cookies, killed zombies on Xbox, and began writing letters to the university, expressing their dissatisfaction with how it had treated them.
Before long they had formed a group, the Student Coalition Against Rape, or SCAR.
As the Southern California students were finding one another, so were survivors across the country.
Throughout the spring, they exchanged a hail of Facebook messages and tweets, swapping stories, giving advice, and, before long, mobilizing.
The entire story is here, behind a paywall.
Thanks to Ken Pope for this story.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Pfizer Settles a Drug Marketing Case for $491 Million
By KATIE THOMAS
The New York Times
Published: July 30, 2013
The drug maker Pfizer agreed to pay $491 million to settle criminal and civil charges over the illegal marketing of the kidney-transplant drug Rapamune, the Justice Department announced on Tuesday.
The settlement is the latest in a string of big-money cases involving the sales practices of major pharmaceutical companies; four years ago, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion for improperly marketing several drugs. The recent case centers on the practices of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which Pfizer acquired in 2009.
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Published: July 30, 2013
The drug maker Pfizer agreed to pay $491 million to settle criminal and civil charges over the illegal marketing of the kidney-transplant drug Rapamune, the Justice Department announced on Tuesday.
The settlement is the latest in a string of big-money cases involving the sales practices of major pharmaceutical companies; four years ago, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion for improperly marketing several drugs. The recent case centers on the practices of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which Pfizer acquired in 2009.
The entire story is here.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Wall Street in Crisis: A Perfect Storm Looming
By Labaton Sucharow
US Financial Services Industries Survey
Published July 2013
Here is an excerpt from the Executive Summary:
To be sure, over the last decade, scandal and corruption have eroded public faith in the markets. We have witnessed the global economy in precipitous decline, leaving a casualty trail from seemingly impenetrable institutions like Lehman Brothers, to small businesses and everyday individuals who have lost jobs, homes and retirement savings.
We have hoped for, and worked toward, a better future. Governments around the world have enacted aggressive reforms to ensure greater transparency and accountability. Corporate behemoths and financial institutions have taken a more judicious approach to risk management. Industry leaders have made promises to employees and the public at large–promises about ethics and responsibility. But the reality is, we now face a moment of unparalleled crisis; many of these promises have gone unfulfilled and if we don’t take swift collective action, the battle cry this can’t happen again will be nothing more than background music to the next, more potent economic tsunami.
The complete survey is here.
US Financial Services Industries Survey
Published July 2013
Here is an excerpt from the Executive Summary:
To be sure, over the last decade, scandal and corruption have eroded public faith in the markets. We have witnessed the global economy in precipitous decline, leaving a casualty trail from seemingly impenetrable institutions like Lehman Brothers, to small businesses and everyday individuals who have lost jobs, homes and retirement savings.
We have hoped for, and worked toward, a better future. Governments around the world have enacted aggressive reforms to ensure greater transparency and accountability. Corporate behemoths and financial institutions have taken a more judicious approach to risk management. Industry leaders have made promises to employees and the public at large–promises about ethics and responsibility. But the reality is, we now face a moment of unparalleled crisis; many of these promises have gone unfulfilled and if we don’t take swift collective action, the battle cry this can’t happen again will be nothing more than background music to the next, more potent economic tsunami.
The complete survey is here.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
UNC Faces Federal Investigation Into Retaliation Complaint By Sexual Assault Survivor
By Tyler Kingkade
The Huffington Post
Originally published July 7, 2013
The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights is opening a new investigation into the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill over allegations that UNC-Chapel Hill sophomore Landen Gambill faced retaliation for filing a federal complaint against the university. Gambill's case gained national attention after she reported a sexual assault to the school and was later charged with a school honor code violation.
(cut)
Gambill filed an additional complaint in March after being charged with the honor code violation by the student-run honor court. The court charged that Gambill created an "intimidating" environment for her alleged abuser, an ex-boyfriend and fellow Chapel Hill student whom she has never named publicly. Gambill would have faced expulsion if she had been found guilty, but the charge was eventually dropped.
The entire story is here.
Prior stores about this case can be found here and here.
Editor's Note: When this story was discussed at a recent ethics education workshop, participants were stunned that there was no other civil rights actions convened against UNC-Chapel Hill. Obviously, the story has changed.
The Huffington Post
Originally published July 7, 2013
The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights is opening a new investigation into the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill over allegations that UNC-Chapel Hill sophomore Landen Gambill faced retaliation for filing a federal complaint against the university. Gambill's case gained national attention after she reported a sexual assault to the school and was later charged with a school honor code violation.
(cut)
Gambill filed an additional complaint in March after being charged with the honor code violation by the student-run honor court. The court charged that Gambill created an "intimidating" environment for her alleged abuser, an ex-boyfriend and fellow Chapel Hill student whom she has never named publicly. Gambill would have faced expulsion if she had been found guilty, but the charge was eventually dropped.
The entire story is here.
Prior stores about this case can be found here and here.
Editor's Note: When this story was discussed at a recent ethics education workshop, participants were stunned that there was no other civil rights actions convened against UNC-Chapel Hill. Obviously, the story has changed.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Diagnosis: Insufficient Outrage
By H. GILBERT WELCH
The New York Times - Op Ed
Published: July 4, 2013
RECENT revelations should lead those of us involved in America’s health care system to ask a hard question about our business: At what point does it become a crime?
I’m not talking about a violation of federal or state statutes, like Medicare or Medicaid fraud, although crime in that sense definitely exists. I’m talking instead about the violation of an ethical standard, of the very “calling” of medicine.
Medical care is intended to help people, not enrich providers. But the way prices are rising, it’s beginning to look less like help than like highway robbery. And the providers — hospitals, doctors, universities, pharmaceutical companies and device manufactures — are the ones benefiting.
A number of publications — including this one — have recently published big reports on the exorbitant cost of American health care. In March, Time magazine ran a cover story exposing outrageous hospital prices, from $108 for a tube of bacitracin — the ointment my mother put on the scrapes I got as a kid and that costs $5 at CVS — to $21,000 for a three-hour emergency room evaluation for chest pain caused by indigestion.
The entire story is here.
The New York Times - Op Ed
Published: July 4, 2013
RECENT revelations should lead those of us involved in America’s health care system to ask a hard question about our business: At what point does it become a crime?
I’m not talking about a violation of federal or state statutes, like Medicare or Medicaid fraud, although crime in that sense definitely exists. I’m talking instead about the violation of an ethical standard, of the very “calling” of medicine.
Medical care is intended to help people, not enrich providers. But the way prices are rising, it’s beginning to look less like help than like highway robbery. And the providers — hospitals, doctors, universities, pharmaceutical companies and device manufactures — are the ones benefiting.
A number of publications — including this one — have recently published big reports on the exorbitant cost of American health care. In March, Time magazine ran a cover story exposing outrageous hospital prices, from $108 for a tube of bacitracin — the ointment my mother put on the scrapes I got as a kid and that costs $5 at CVS — to $21,000 for a three-hour emergency room evaluation for chest pain caused by indigestion.
The entire story is here.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Chief of Army message regarding unacceptable behaviour
Published on Jun 12, 2013
Message from the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, AO, to the Australian Army following the announcement on Thursday, 13 June 2013 of civilian police and Defence investigations into allegations of unacceptable behaviour by Army members.
This video was made in response to news reports to the following:
Editorial notes: This video is an interesting and thought-provoking way to share unequivocal moral and ethical standards to the military community under his leadership. Also interesting is the number of comments and the wide variety of responses to this video.
Additionally, compare and contrast this response to the United States military's response to the increased reports of sexual assault in our military community. The responses are not the same.
Message from the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, AO, to the Australian Army following the announcement on Thursday, 13 June 2013 of civilian police and Defence investigations into allegations of unacceptable behaviour by Army members.
This video was made in response to news reports to the following:
Australian news outlets reported last week that at least 17 soldiers circulated video of themselves having sex with women. The videos were shared without the women's knowledge. Some of the material was distributed over military computer networks, and those under investigation include a lieutenant colonel and a major, Morrison told reporters on Thursday.The following quote is from a CNN story found here.
Editorial notes: This video is an interesting and thought-provoking way to share unequivocal moral and ethical standards to the military community under his leadership. Also interesting is the number of comments and the wide variety of responses to this video.
Additionally, compare and contrast this response to the United States military's response to the increased reports of sexual assault in our military community. The responses are not the same.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Treatment of Mental Illness Lowers Arrest Rates, Saves Money
Science Daily
Originally published June 10, 2013
Research from North Carolina State University, the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) and the University of South Florida shows that outpatient treatment of mental illness significantly reduces arrest rates for people with mental health problems and saves taxpayers money.
"This study shows that providing mental health care is not only in the best interest of people with mental illness, but in the best interests of society," says Dr. Sarah Desmarais, an assistant professor of psychology at NC State and co-author of a paper describing the research.
The researchers wanted to determine the extent to which treating mental illness can keep people with mental health problems out of trouble with the law. It is well established that people with mental health problems, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, make up a disproportionate percentage of defendants, inmates and others who come into contact with the criminal justice system.
The entire story is here.
Originally published June 10, 2013
Research from North Carolina State University, the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) and the University of South Florida shows that outpatient treatment of mental illness significantly reduces arrest rates for people with mental health problems and saves taxpayers money.
"This study shows that providing mental health care is not only in the best interest of people with mental illness, but in the best interests of society," says Dr. Sarah Desmarais, an assistant professor of psychology at NC State and co-author of a paper describing the research.
The researchers wanted to determine the extent to which treating mental illness can keep people with mental health problems out of trouble with the law. It is well established that people with mental health problems, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, make up a disproportionate percentage of defendants, inmates and others who come into contact with the criminal justice system.
The entire story is here.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Ista Pharmaceuticals To Pay $33.5 Million To Settle Claims Company Paid Doctors To Push Drug
By Jonathan Stempel
Reuters
Originally published May 24, 2013
Ista Pharmaceuticals Inc pleaded guilty on Friday to charges it used kickbacks and improper marketing to boost sales of a drug meant to treat eye pain and agreed to pay $33.5 million to settle criminal and civil liability, the U.S. Department of Justice said.
The unit of eye care company Bausch & Lomb pleaded guilty to conspiracy to offer kickbacks to induce physicians to prescribe Xibrom, a drug meant to treat pain after cataract surgery, and conspiracy to promote that drug for unapproved uses, including after Lasik and glaucoma surgeries.
Ista agreed as part of a criminal settlement to a $16.63 million fine and an $1.85 million asset forfeiture. It also agreed to a $15 million civil settlement to resolve allegations that its marketing of Xibrom caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs.
As part of the settlement, Ista will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, and Bausch & Lomb agreed to strengthen its compliance and ethics procedures.
The entire story is here.
Reuters
Originally published May 24, 2013
Ista Pharmaceuticals Inc pleaded guilty on Friday to charges it used kickbacks and improper marketing to boost sales of a drug meant to treat eye pain and agreed to pay $33.5 million to settle criminal and civil liability, the U.S. Department of Justice said.
The unit of eye care company Bausch & Lomb pleaded guilty to conspiracy to offer kickbacks to induce physicians to prescribe Xibrom, a drug meant to treat pain after cataract surgery, and conspiracy to promote that drug for unapproved uses, including after Lasik and glaucoma surgeries.
Ista agreed as part of a criminal settlement to a $16.63 million fine and an $1.85 million asset forfeiture. It also agreed to a $15 million civil settlement to resolve allegations that its marketing of Xibrom caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs.
As part of the settlement, Ista will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, and Bausch & Lomb agreed to strengthen its compliance and ethics procedures.
The entire story is here.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Students say Swarthmore has been soft on sex crime, and they’re fed up
By Will Bunch
Philadelphia Daily News
Originally published May 10, 2013
Philadelphia Daily News
Originally published May 10, 2013
IN THE DARKNESS of night, the complaints were etched in chalk up and down the walkways of Swarthmore College, a 399-acre oasis of green quads and liberal student activism southwest of Philadelphia.
"Welcome to Swarthmore," said one of the scribblings that recently confronted students - and administrators - when the sun rose. "Home of my rapist."
The so-called chalkings, which infuriated Swarthmore's president, were a turning point in a controversy that has rattled one of America's top-ranked liberal-arts schools. It has also placed female students there on the cutting edge of a national movement - charging that colleges and universities are systematically ignoring, downplaying and underreporting sexual assault and sexual harassment.
"Welcome to Swarthmore," said one of the scribblings that recently confronted students - and administrators - when the sun rose. "Home of my rapist."
The so-called chalkings, which infuriated Swarthmore's president, were a turning point in a controversy that has rattled one of America's top-ranked liberal-arts schools. It has also placed female students there on the cutting edge of a national movement - charging that colleges and universities are systematically ignoring, downplaying and underreporting sexual assault and sexual harassment.
Hope Brinn says administrators were dismissive after a male student showed up in her room when she was unclothed and refused to leave, and Mia Ferguson says she was an assault victim. The two 19-year-old sophomores organized 20 other students and alums to complain to federal authorities that Swarthmore is violating the 1990 Clery Act that requires full reporting of campus crimes, including sexual assaults.
"Swarthmore will lead on this issue," said Ferguson, an engineering major who was born in England and grew up outside Boston. She acknowledged that their complaint that Swarthmore is soft on alleged perpetrators of sex crimes and underreporting incidents is at odds with the Delaware County school's reputation as a liberal oasis - one of many contradictions in a controversy that has now sparked campus protests and teach-ins.
The entire article is here.
"Swarthmore will lead on this issue," said Ferguson, an engineering major who was born in England and grew up outside Boston. She acknowledged that their complaint that Swarthmore is soft on alleged perpetrators of sex crimes and underreporting incidents is at odds with the Delaware County school's reputation as a liberal oasis - one of many contradictions in a controversy that has now sparked campus protests and teach-ins.
The entire article is here.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Schools drop Mellow’s name
By Andrew Seder
The Times Leader
Originally published April 25, 2013
The name of disgraced ex-state Sen. Robert J. Mellow has been removed from two buildings, a portion of one local college campus and one park.
On Thursday, Marywood University issued a statement saying, “After thoughtful consideration, The Marywood University Board of Trustees made the decision this past Saturday at their spring meeting to rename the university’s athletic center. The center originally named for Senator Robert J. Mellow, will for the foreseeable future be referred to as The Marywood University Center for Athletics and Wellness.”
Also, Lackawanna College President Mark Volk sent an email to all college staff members Thursday informing them that the campus’ Mellow Theater has been renamed.
“The college’s board of trustees met recently and after a serious discussion decided to name the college’s theater. Effective immediately, it is officially The Theater at Lackawanna College,” Volk wrote in the email obtained by The Times Leader.
The entire story is here.
The Times Leader
Originally published April 25, 2013
The name of disgraced ex-state Sen. Robert J. Mellow has been removed from two buildings, a portion of one local college campus and one park.
On Thursday, Marywood University issued a statement saying, “After thoughtful consideration, The Marywood University Board of Trustees made the decision this past Saturday at their spring meeting to rename the university’s athletic center. The center originally named for Senator Robert J. Mellow, will for the foreseeable future be referred to as The Marywood University Center for Athletics and Wellness.”
Also, Lackawanna College President Mark Volk sent an email to all college staff members Thursday informing them that the campus’ Mellow Theater has been renamed.
“The college’s board of trustees met recently and after a serious discussion decided to name the college’s theater. Effective immediately, it is officially The Theater at Lackawanna College,” Volk wrote in the email obtained by The Times Leader.
The entire story is here.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
The Straight Path
A Conversation with Ronald A. Howard
Sam Harris Blog
Originally posted April 20, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
As I wrote in the introduction to Lying, Ronald A. Howard was one of my favorite professors in college, and his courses on ethics, social systems, and decision making did much to shape my views on these topics. Last week, he was kind enough to speak with me at length about the ethics of lying. The following post is an edited transcript of our conversation.
Ronald A. Howard directs teaching and research in the Decision Analysis Program of the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University. He is also the Director of the Department’s Decisions and Ethics Center, which examines the efficacy and ethics of social arrangements. He defined the profession of decision analysis in 1964 and has since supervised several doctoral theses in decision analysis every year. His experience includes dozens of decision analysis projects that range over virtually all fields of application, from investment planning to research strategy, and from hurricane seeding to nuclear waste isolation. He was a founding Director and Chairman of Strategic Decisions Group and is President of the Decision Education Foundation, an organization dedicated to bringing decision skills to youth. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, a Fellow of INFORMS and IEEE, and the 1986 Ramsey medalist of the Decision Analysis Society. He is the author, with Clint Korver, of Ethics for the Real World: Creating a Personal Code to Guide Decisions in Work and Life.
(cut)
Harris: Let’s return to the case in which you are in the presence of someone who seems likely to act unethically. Can you say more about honesty in those situations?
Howard: Well, I’d make a distinction between the maxim-breakers—in other words, a person who is harming others or stealing—and those who are merely lying or otherwise speaking unethically. Lying is not a crime unless it’s part of a fraud. If someone asks for directions to Wal-Mart, and you know the way but you send them walking in the opposite direction—it’s not a nice thing to do, but it’s not a crime. Imagine if they came back with a policeman and said, “That’s the man who misdirected me.” You could say, “Yeah, I did. It just so happens that I like to watch people wandering in the wrong direction.” That’s not a crime. It’s not nice behavior. It might be reason for someone to boycott your business, or to exclude you from certain groups, but it’s not going to land you in jail.
I make a careful distinction between what I call “maxim violations”—interfering with peaceful, honest people—and everything else.
Harris: Yes, I see. It breaks ethics into two different categories—one of which gets promoted to the legal system to protect people from various harms.
Howard: In fact, there are also two categories in the domain of lying. The first is where people acknowledge the problem—people obviously get hurt by lies—and then the other cases where more or less everyone tends to lie and feels good about it, or sees no alternative to it. That’s why your book is so important—because people think it’s a good thing to tell so-called “white” lies. Saying “Oh, you look terrific in that dress,” even when you believe it is unattractive, is a “white” lie justified by not hurting the person’s feelings.
The example that came up in class yesterday was, do you want that mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-who’s-the-fairest-of-them-all device, or do you want a mirror that shows you what you really look like? Or imagine buying a car that came with a special option that gave you information that you might prefer to the truth: When you wanted to go fast, it would indicate that you were going even faster than you were. When you passed a gas station, it would tell you that you didn’t need any gas. Of course, nobody wants that. Well, then, why would you want it in your life in general?
The entire article is here.
Sam Harris Blog
Originally posted April 20, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
As I wrote in the introduction to Lying, Ronald A. Howard was one of my favorite professors in college, and his courses on ethics, social systems, and decision making did much to shape my views on these topics. Last week, he was kind enough to speak with me at length about the ethics of lying. The following post is an edited transcript of our conversation.
Ronald A. Howard directs teaching and research in the Decision Analysis Program of the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University. He is also the Director of the Department’s Decisions and Ethics Center, which examines the efficacy and ethics of social arrangements. He defined the profession of decision analysis in 1964 and has since supervised several doctoral theses in decision analysis every year. His experience includes dozens of decision analysis projects that range over virtually all fields of application, from investment planning to research strategy, and from hurricane seeding to nuclear waste isolation. He was a founding Director and Chairman of Strategic Decisions Group and is President of the Decision Education Foundation, an organization dedicated to bringing decision skills to youth. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, a Fellow of INFORMS and IEEE, and the 1986 Ramsey medalist of the Decision Analysis Society. He is the author, with Clint Korver, of Ethics for the Real World: Creating a Personal Code to Guide Decisions in Work and Life.
(cut)
Harris: Let’s return to the case in which you are in the presence of someone who seems likely to act unethically. Can you say more about honesty in those situations?
Howard: Well, I’d make a distinction between the maxim-breakers—in other words, a person who is harming others or stealing—and those who are merely lying or otherwise speaking unethically. Lying is not a crime unless it’s part of a fraud. If someone asks for directions to Wal-Mart, and you know the way but you send them walking in the opposite direction—it’s not a nice thing to do, but it’s not a crime. Imagine if they came back with a policeman and said, “That’s the man who misdirected me.” You could say, “Yeah, I did. It just so happens that I like to watch people wandering in the wrong direction.” That’s not a crime. It’s not nice behavior. It might be reason for someone to boycott your business, or to exclude you from certain groups, but it’s not going to land you in jail.
I make a careful distinction between what I call “maxim violations”—interfering with peaceful, honest people—and everything else.
Harris: Yes, I see. It breaks ethics into two different categories—one of which gets promoted to the legal system to protect people from various harms.
Howard: In fact, there are also two categories in the domain of lying. The first is where people acknowledge the problem—people obviously get hurt by lies—and then the other cases where more or less everyone tends to lie and feels good about it, or sees no alternative to it. That’s why your book is so important—because people think it’s a good thing to tell so-called “white” lies. Saying “Oh, you look terrific in that dress,” even when you believe it is unattractive, is a “white” lie justified by not hurting the person’s feelings.
The example that came up in class yesterday was, do you want that mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-who’s-the-fairest-of-them-all device, or do you want a mirror that shows you what you really look like? Or imagine buying a car that came with a special option that gave you information that you might prefer to the truth: When you wanted to go fast, it would indicate that you were going even faster than you were. When you passed a gas station, it would tell you that you didn’t need any gas. Of course, nobody wants that. Well, then, why would you want it in your life in general?
The entire article is here.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
College admission questions rarely identify criminal behavior
University of Colorado
Press Release
April 16, 2013
A new study shows that neither criminal background checks nor pre-admission screening questions accurately predict students likely to commit crime on college campuses.
"In an effort to reduce campus crime, more than half of all American colleges ask applicants about their criminal histories or require criminal background checks," said study author Carol Runyan , Ph.D., MPH, and professor of epidemiology at the Colorado School of Public Health. "But there is no real evidence to show this reduces campus crime."
Colleges across the U.S. ramped up background checks after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre which killed 32 people and wounded another 17.
Yet Runyan found that only 3.3 percent of college seniors who engaged in misconduct actually reported precollege criminal histories during the admissions process. And just 8.5 percent of applicants with a criminal history were charged with misconduct during college.
The study surveyed 6,972 students at a large southern university. It found that students with criminal records prior to college were more likely to commit crimes once admitted but the screening process rarely identified them.
"We didn't look at cheating or minor alcohol offences," Runyan said. "We focused on significant offences like assault, robbery, property crimes, driving under the influence of alcohol, marijuana use and other drug-related crimes."
While colleges are generally safe environments, students can be both perpetrators and victims of crimes that pose risks to the entire campus community, Runyan said.
She noted that earlier studies had reported that up to 14 percent of all college men admitted to some kind of sexual assault or coercion while 30 percent of university males and 22 percent of females said they had driven under the influence of alcohol in the last year. Also, 19 percent of students reported illicit drug use.
Still, the screening questions have proven a weak tool in identifying would-be campus criminals, Runyan said.
Runyan's findings indicate that students who engage in criminal activity during college are more likely to have engaged in misconduct prior to college, whether they admit it on their applications or not. However, she said current screening questions on the college application often fail to detect which students will engage in misconduct during college. And most of those who have records before college don't seem to continue the behaviors in college.
Even if the screenings could identify likely troublemakers, Runyan said, colleges would have to decide whether to admit the students given that the odds of them committing a crime on campus would still be low. And much of the reported precollege crime involves marijuana use and is not violent.
Another complication is possible discrimination. Students from more affluent backgrounds, who tend to be white, can often pay to have their early criminal records expunged while others, including many minorities, can't afford it.
"Based on our work, I cannot say with confidence that colleges should stop asking about criminal backgrounds, but I would use caution in thinking that this is the best strategy to address crime on campus," said Runyan who directs the University of Colorado's Pediatric Injury Prevention, Education and Research Program. "We need to ensure a safe and supportive environment for all students rather than limiting college access for students who may need extra help."
The study was recently published in the journal Injury Prevention and will be presented by Runyan at a conference in June.
Press Release
April 16, 2013
A new study shows that neither criminal background checks nor pre-admission screening questions accurately predict students likely to commit crime on college campuses.
"In an effort to reduce campus crime, more than half of all American colleges ask applicants about their criminal histories or require criminal background checks," said study author Carol Runyan , Ph.D., MPH, and professor of epidemiology at the Colorado School of Public Health. "But there is no real evidence to show this reduces campus crime."
Colleges across the U.S. ramped up background checks after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre which killed 32 people and wounded another 17.
Yet Runyan found that only 3.3 percent of college seniors who engaged in misconduct actually reported precollege criminal histories during the admissions process. And just 8.5 percent of applicants with a criminal history were charged with misconduct during college.
The study surveyed 6,972 students at a large southern university. It found that students with criminal records prior to college were more likely to commit crimes once admitted but the screening process rarely identified them.
"We didn't look at cheating or minor alcohol offences," Runyan said. "We focused on significant offences like assault, robbery, property crimes, driving under the influence of alcohol, marijuana use and other drug-related crimes."
While colleges are generally safe environments, students can be both perpetrators and victims of crimes that pose risks to the entire campus community, Runyan said.
She noted that earlier studies had reported that up to 14 percent of all college men admitted to some kind of sexual assault or coercion while 30 percent of university males and 22 percent of females said they had driven under the influence of alcohol in the last year. Also, 19 percent of students reported illicit drug use.
Still, the screening questions have proven a weak tool in identifying would-be campus criminals, Runyan said.
Runyan's findings indicate that students who engage in criminal activity during college are more likely to have engaged in misconduct prior to college, whether they admit it on their applications or not. However, she said current screening questions on the college application often fail to detect which students will engage in misconduct during college. And most of those who have records before college don't seem to continue the behaviors in college.
Even if the screenings could identify likely troublemakers, Runyan said, colleges would have to decide whether to admit the students given that the odds of them committing a crime on campus would still be low. And much of the reported precollege crime involves marijuana use and is not violent.
Another complication is possible discrimination. Students from more affluent backgrounds, who tend to be white, can often pay to have their early criminal records expunged while others, including many minorities, can't afford it.
"Based on our work, I cannot say with confidence that colleges should stop asking about criminal backgrounds, but I would use caution in thinking that this is the best strategy to address crime on campus," said Runyan who directs the University of Colorado's Pediatric Injury Prevention, Education and Research Program. "We need to ensure a safe and supportive environment for all students rather than limiting college access for students who may need extra help."
The study was recently published in the journal Injury Prevention and will be presented by Runyan at a conference in June.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Brain Scans Might Predict Future Criminal Behavior
Science Daily
Originally published March 28, 2013
A new study conducted by The Mind Research Network in Albuquerque, N.M., shows that neuroimaging data can predict the likelihood of whether a criminal will reoffend following release from prison.
The paper, which is to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, studied impulsive and antisocial behavior and centered on the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that deals with regulating behavior and impulsivity.
The study demonstrated that inmates with relatively low anterior cingulate activity were twice as likely to reoffend than inmates with high-brain activity in this region.
"These findings have incredibly significant ramifications for the future of how our society deals with criminal justice and offenders," said Dr. Kent A. Kiehl, who was senior author on the study and is director of mobile imaging at MRN and an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico.
The entire story is here.
The journal abstract is here.
Originally published March 28, 2013
A new study conducted by The Mind Research Network in Albuquerque, N.M., shows that neuroimaging data can predict the likelihood of whether a criminal will reoffend following release from prison.
The paper, which is to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, studied impulsive and antisocial behavior and centered on the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that deals with regulating behavior and impulsivity.
The study demonstrated that inmates with relatively low anterior cingulate activity were twice as likely to reoffend than inmates with high-brain activity in this region.
"These findings have incredibly significant ramifications for the future of how our society deals with criminal justice and offenders," said Dr. Kent A. Kiehl, who was senior author on the study and is director of mobile imaging at MRN and an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico.
The entire story is here.
The journal abstract is here.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Psychiatrist, Also Victimized, Tells of Attack by Defendant
By Russ Buettner
The New York Times
Originally published March 12, 2013
At the murder trial of a man accused of killing an Upper East Side psychologist, several mental health experts are expected to testify about the defendant’s state of mind on the night of the slaying. But one of those experts, Dr. Kent D. Shinbach, did not come to his conclusions from the comfort of his desk.
Dr. Shinbach’s appraisal came to him as he was lying not far from a dead or dying colleague, looking up at a former patient, David Tarloff, who was wielding a bloody meat cleaver.
“He was entirely focused on the task at hand,” Dr. Shinbach, a psychiatrist, testified on Tuesday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan.
Dr. Shinbach, 75, shared an office suite with the dead psychologist, Kathryn Faughey. Mr. Tarloff’s lawyers are not contesting that he stabbed and slashed Ms. Faughey, 56, to death on Feb. 12, 2008. They are seeking to prove he was not responsible because of his mental illness.
The entire article is here.
The New York Times
Originally published March 12, 2013
At the murder trial of a man accused of killing an Upper East Side psychologist, several mental health experts are expected to testify about the defendant’s state of mind on the night of the slaying. But one of those experts, Dr. Kent D. Shinbach, did not come to his conclusions from the comfort of his desk.
Dr. Shinbach’s appraisal came to him as he was lying not far from a dead or dying colleague, looking up at a former patient, David Tarloff, who was wielding a bloody meat cleaver.
“He was entirely focused on the task at hand,” Dr. Shinbach, a psychiatrist, testified on Tuesday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan.
Dr. Shinbach, 75, shared an office suite with the dead psychologist, Kathryn Faughey. Mr. Tarloff’s lawyers are not contesting that he stabbed and slashed Ms. Faughey, 56, to death on Feb. 12, 2008. They are seeking to prove he was not responsible because of his mental illness.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Indictment Of Manhattan Doctor Who Sold Oxycodone Prescriptions To Drug Dealers
Attorney General of New York Press Release
Originally released on February 13, 2013
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today announced a 55-count indictment against Dr. David Brizer on charges he sold prescriptions for oxycodone and other powerful pain medications to drug dealers from his Rockland County and Midtown Manhattan offices. The indictment also charges Brizer with illegally possessing controlled substances and underreporting his income by at least $500,000 on his New York State personal tax returns in 2010 and 2011.
Brizer, a psychiatrist, was arraigned in Rockland County Court today on two top counts of Criminal Tax Fraud; 34 counts of Criminal Sale of a Prescription for a Controlled Substance; 15 counts of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance; 2 counts of Offering a False Instrument for Filing; along with Scheme to Defraud and Conspiracy charges. All are felony counts. He faces up to seven years behind bars.
“Instead of saving lives, Dr. Brizer used his position to supply drug dealers and feed a prescription drug epidemic that is devastating families across our state. The message is clear – whether you are a doctor or a criminal on the street, my office will prosecute those profiting off the cycle of abuse,” Attorney General Schneiderman said. “This office will use every tool at our disposal to bring criminal charges against those who line their own pockets by fueling dangerous addictions and illegally trafficking in prescription narcotics.”
The entire news release is here.
Originally released on February 13, 2013
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today announced a 55-count indictment against Dr. David Brizer on charges he sold prescriptions for oxycodone and other powerful pain medications to drug dealers from his Rockland County and Midtown Manhattan offices. The indictment also charges Brizer with illegally possessing controlled substances and underreporting his income by at least $500,000 on his New York State personal tax returns in 2010 and 2011.
Brizer, a psychiatrist, was arraigned in Rockland County Court today on two top counts of Criminal Tax Fraud; 34 counts of Criminal Sale of a Prescription for a Controlled Substance; 15 counts of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance; 2 counts of Offering a False Instrument for Filing; along with Scheme to Defraud and Conspiracy charges. All are felony counts. He faces up to seven years behind bars.
“Instead of saving lives, Dr. Brizer used his position to supply drug dealers and feed a prescription drug epidemic that is devastating families across our state. The message is clear – whether you are a doctor or a criminal on the street, my office will prosecute those profiting off the cycle of abuse,” Attorney General Schneiderman said. “This office will use every tool at our disposal to bring criminal charges against those who line their own pockets by fueling dangerous addictions and illegally trafficking in prescription narcotics.”
The entire news release is here.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Doctor Tells U.S. Judge He Created Fake L.I.R.R. Injury Claims
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 18, 2013
An orthopedist who was accused of taking cash payments for fake diagnoses and billing health insurance companies for unnecessary medical treatment in widespread disability fraud involving Long Island Rail Road workers pleaded guilty on Friday to conspiracy charges.
The doctor, Peter J. Ajemian, admitted that between the late 1990s and 2008 he invented “narratives” to justify illness and injury claims for hundreds of workers seeking to retire on disability.
The employees “were not in fact disabled and could have continued working in their railroad jobs, as they had no complaint right up to the time of their retirement date,” Dr. Ajemian told a judge in Federal District Court in Manhattan.
Prosecutors said that Dr. Ajemian, 63, received up to $1,200 for each of the fake assessments, as well as millions of dollars in health insurance payments. His patients received more than $90 million in disability benefits.
Dr. Ajemian was among 32 defendants who have been arrested in the past two years.
Three other retirees also pleaded guilty this week, bringing the number of guilty pleas in the case to 21.
Sentencing for Dr. Ajemian was set for May 24.
The story is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)