Search results

The purpose of this study was to fill the gap in understanding the impact of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evidence and testimony in driving under the influence (DUI) trials. This was accomplished by documenting and analyzing the perceptions of DREs and the DRE program across different stakeholders to understand how and when this type of evidence is used in DUI trials.

The methodology is a qualitative case study of the DRE program in one police agency in Washington. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with criminal justice actors and state-level experts on their perceptions of the DRE program for the agency. Themes were developed from these interviews to analyze their perceptions of the efficacy and utility of DREs in trials.

While the courts in Washington accept DRE evidence in criminal trials, DRE evidence is largely absent in the adjudication process. Participants noted multiple reasons for this, including the lack of trials, the primacy of blood evidence and the expansion of the Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) program.

Although the DRE program has been around for decades, there is a lack of peer-reviewed studies regarding DRE evidence, and no studies regarding how court actors perceive and use DRE evidence. Understanding when and how DRE evidence is utilized in DUI trials can increase its value and utility by prosecutors and the national DRE program.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and evaluate the current legal position on the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in money laundering cases.

A thorough exploratory analytical analysis signifies that such illegally obtained evidence from money laundering offences is admissible, provided it does not undermine the administration of justice or the right to a fair trial.

By virtue of the lack of written or codified rules governing the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in cases involving money laundering, the rule of admissibility remains the primary foundational principle for the governance of the admissibility and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in money laundering cases.

The Malaysian Criminal Justice System has historically relied on the long-standing admissibility principles to admit and exclude illegally obtained evidence. For decades, courts have used their discretion to admit illegally obtained evidence based on the relevancy test, and they have further demonstrated to use the same discretion to exclude gravely prejudicial evidence. Evidence obtained illegally but if relevant to the matter in issue is deemed admissible. Evidence derived from an act associated with unlawful activities or a predicate offence in money laundering may be obtained illegally, which may influence the prosecution case and conversely, defend the accused’s rights to a fair trial.

This paper aims to elucidate the responsiveness of China’s judicial system in addressing the challenges of identifying online illegal fund-raising crimes that have emerged in recent years. This study systematically evaluates the efficacy and potential pitfalls of legal guidelines contained in judicial interpretations, such as holistic determination, sampling verification and presumption of the nature of funds. In addition, the research endeavors to propose pertinent recommendations for refining the existing judicial rules.

This research mainly uses a doctrinal methodology, focusing on the principal judicial interpretations formulated by the Supreme People’s Court and other central judicial entities in China. The scope encompasses the realm of online illegal fund-raising crimes as well as other cybercrimes. The analytical framework involves a comprehensive examination of these authoritative judicial documents, coupled with a theoretical and critical analysis of relevant academic materials.

This research underscores that while judicial interpretations serve as an effective legal strategy to confront the challenges posed by online illegal fund-raising crimes, their implementation introduces a nuanced landscape. These legal guidelines, often emanating from diverse judicial departments and tackling specific issues, carry the inherent risk of giving rise to new complexities and fostering inconsistency. Judicial authorities shall exercise prudence in both the formulation and application of these guidelines, ensuring their harmonization with existing legal norms and fundamental legal principles.

This research constitutes a critical and comprehensive examination of judicial interpretations in China pertaining to online illegal fund-raising crimes. It offers valuable insights into the country’s judicial interpretation system and its legal responses to financial crimes. The paper serves as a valuable resource for academics, law enforcement professionals, policymakers, legislators and researchers.

This study aims to investigate the potential positive effects of cause-related marketing (CRM) campaigns that show evidence of commitment to espoused causes. It examines whether consumers respond positively when a CRM campaign promises to deliver proof of the espoused cause.

This study adopted the grounded theory approach to conceptualize the promised impact evidence construct. A promised impact evidence scale was developed and validated using robust qualitative and quantitative methods, including item response theory estimates.

The study provides evidence for promised impact evidence as a reflective second-order latent construct. The promised impact evidence scale demonstrates strong internal consistency, reliability and validity. In addition, this study posits that promised impact evidence is an antecedent of advertising trust, purchase intention, advertising credibility and persuasive and selling intent.

This study positioned the promised impact evidence scale against the theoretical underpinnings of the persuasion knowledge model. Specifically, this scale contributes to existing knowledge because it applies the persuasion knowledge model in CRM campaigns by adopting an acceptance focus, as opposed to the rejection focus used in developing persuasion knowledge model scales.

This study examined how likeminded Facebook comments with incivility and without supporting evidence influence readers' evaluations of the commenter and online political participation intention. This study also investigated whether the indirect effect of exposure to uncivil comments and comments without evidence on online political participation through evaluations of the commenters is contingent on the strength of partisanship.

The study used a 2 (uncivil comments vs civil comments) × 2 (comments without supporting evidence vs comments with supporting evidence) factorial design with a scenario about reading similar viewpoints about the gun control issue in Facebook comments.

The results showed that compared to exposure to civil agreeing comments, exposure to uncivil likeminded comments resulted in higher levels of negative evaluations of the commenters, which in turn decreased willingness to participate in political activities online. Exposure to comments without evidence led to more negative evaluations of the commenters, but it did not significantly influence online political participation. In addition, the strength of partisanship did not significantly moderate the indirect effect of exposure to uncivil comments and comments without evidence on online political participation through evaluations of the commenters.

Although previous studies have demonstrated the significant effects of incivility and reasoned argument, little is known about whether and how people evaluate ingroup members' comments that are uncivil and lacking reasoned arguments. Most of these studies have examined incivility in political contexts, but few have extended the context to the effect of likeminded comments, especially when the comments are uncivil and lack supporting evidence. The current study aims to fill this gap in the literature.

Evidence-informed decision-making is considered best practice when choosing interventions in applied settings across health, social care and education. Developing that evidence base, however, is not straightforward. The pupose of this paper is to describe the process implemented by the Sharland Foundation Developmental Disabilities Applied Behavioural Research and Impact Network (SF-DDARIN) that systematically develops an evidence base for behaviorally based interventions.

In this case study, the progressive research steps undertaken by the SF-DDARIN to develop the evidence base for an online reading intervention, the Headsprout® Early Reading programme (HER®), which uses behavioural principles to promote learning to read, are described.

A series of discrete projects targeting gaps in the evidence base for HER^® led to funding two randomised controlled trials in England, one in education and one in health and social care.

This case study illustrates an original, creative and effective way of collaborating across academic research departments and applied settings to extend the evidence base for a chosen intervention systematically.

Given the rapid growth in efforts on misinformation correction, the study aims to test how evidence type and veracity interact with news agreement on the effectiveness of fact-checking on how well a corrective message discount a false news information.

Experimental participants (N = 511) in Hong Kong were exposed to the same news article and then to a piece of corrective information debunking the news article with variation in the types of evidence (numerical vs narrative) and veracity (no verdict vs half false vs entirely false) in 2019.

Among the participants who disagreed with the news article, numerical fact-checking was more effective than narrative fact-checking in discounting the news article. Some evidence of the backfire effect was found among participants for whom the article was attitude incongruent.

When debunking false information with people exposed to attitude-incongruent news, a milder verdict presented in the form of a half-false scale can prompt a more positive perception of the issue at stake than an entirely false scale, implying that a less certain verdict can help in mitigating the backfire effect compared to a certain verdict.

There is growing interest around the world in more effectively linking public payments to the provision of public goods from agriculture. However, published evidence syntheses suggest mixed, weak or uncertain evidence for many agri-environment scheme options. To inform any future “public money for public goods” based policy, further synthesis work is needed to assess the evidence-base for the full range of interventions currently funded under agri-environment schemes. Further empirical research and trials should then focus on interventions for which there is mixed or limited evidence. Furthermore, to ensure the data collected is comparable and can be synthesised effectively, it is necessary to reach agreement on essential variables and methods that can be prioritised by those conducting research and monitoring. Future policy could then prioritise public money for the public goods that can most reliably be delivered, offering better value for taxpayers and improving the provision of ecosystem services from agricultural landscapes.

The point of departure for this viewpoint paper is the current development in which landscape architects are working towards achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals and the associated cross-cutting pledge “Leave No One Behind”. The sustainable development goals 3 and 11 can be achieved through landscape projects that are inclusive and health promoting, and the authors argue that an evidence-based design process is needed to ensure that project designs deliver what they promise. However, most landscape architects are not trained in evidence-based design and are therefore unsure of what can be used as evidence. A further challenge is the lack of relevant and applicable research evidence for design processes.

The authors present a process model for evidence-based health design in landscape architecture as an overall framework on which the authors base their arguments. The model includes four topics of evidence: target group, human health, environment and use of nature. For each topic, the authors present their view on what may be considered as evidence and where it can be found or generated. The study view is supported by a detailed presentation of where and how evidence was found and generated in a design project for an accessible and health-promoting forest trail for people with mobility disabilities.

The authors suggest a broad definition of evidence, and that the design process should draw on evidence from relevant research and practice disciplines. Evidence can be found in multiple sources, for example, scientific articles, theoretical works and design guidelines. It can also be generated by landscape architects themselves, for example, through landscape analyses and stakeholder workshops. The evidence should guide and support the landscape architect and not dictate the design process.

The authors hope that the knowledge provided on the evidence-based health design process and on where to collect or how to generate evidence may inspire landscape architects in their future health design projects.

People with mobility disabilities face many health challenges and should potentially be able to benefit from visiting green spaces. The authors hope that the knowledge provided on the evidence-based health design process and on where to collect or how to generate evidence may inspire landscape architects in their future health design projects.

This paper examines the innovative potential of micro-credentials which, arguably, is compromised if not for a particular attribute of the digital format: evidence. Evidence allows for an artifact of learning (e.g. project, writing sample) to be included in a digital micro-credential. Micro-credentials that include evidence can support individualized learning; elucidate learners' qualifications; and make assessment and credentialing processes more inclusive.

This conceptual paper explores the subject of higher education micro-credentials which are increasingly being offered as formal (albeit smaller and digital), credit-bearing credentials, far removed from the Open Digital Badge movement from which they originated. This paper presents a case for safeguarding the qualities of micro-credentials that allow for innovative practice, before micro-credentials become entirely subsumed into conventional assessment and credentialing practices.

A review of the literature indicates that evidence, when used effectively, can support the innovative potential of micro-credentials. This subject is examined from the perspective of three categories of evidence, which are identified and illustrated through specific examples from the literature.

This paper fulfills a need to address the features of micro-credentials that, if used effectively, can challenge traditional assessment and credentialing paradigms. Evidence is rarely discussed in the literature and has not been thoroughly examined from this perspective. Additionally, faculty who develop and implement micro-credentials face numerous challenges when attempting to include evidence in micro-credentials. This paper explores those challenges and offers several recommendations for practice.