Killias, Haas / WEAPONS IN VIOLENT ACTSThe role of guns and other weapons in violent acts has often been a subject of debate. The present study is based on a sample of 21,314 valid interviews with 20-year-old Swiss men, representing more than 70% of this cohort. The results show a much higher frequency of violence among owners of handguns and other weapons, but not of rifles. Gun owners also have been injured more often and they suffer more often from psychiatric symptoms. A considerable proportion of violent gun owners had previous police contacts and court appearances, suggesting that policies designed to confiscate guns would be feasible. In a multivariate model, which considered a great number of conventional criminological variables (such as delinquent friends) and indicators of psychopathology, ownership of handguns and other weapons (but not rifles) turned out to be a very important factor in explaining violence leading to bodily injury.
ABSTRACT:To improve inferences about psychological and social evidence contained in pictures and texts, a five-step algorithm-Systematic Analysis (SA)-was devised. It combines basic principles of interpretation in forensic science, providing a comprehensive record of signs of evidence. Criminal justice professionals evaluated the usefulness of SA. Effects of applying SA were tested experimentally with 41 subjects, compared to 39 subjects observing naturally (naturalistic observation) and 47 subjects guessing intuitively intuitive guessing group. After being trained in SA, prosecutors and police detectives (N = 217) attributed it a good usefulness for criminal investigation. Subjects (graduate students) using SA found significantly more details about four test cases than those observing naturally (Cohen's d = 0.58). Subjects who learned SA well abducted significantly better hypotheses than those who observed naturally or who guessed intuitively. Internal validity of SA was a = 0.74. Applying SA improved observation significantly and reduced confirmation bias.
Five easily memorized formulas of Systematic Observation help the analyst to be a more proficient observer and to make sure that nothing has been left out. They are: I. Compare the object of observation to models or to similar cases. II. Separate formal aspects from the contents and analyze them separately. III. Structure the object into functional elements, and explore every one of them. IV. Explore inconsistencies, contradictions, mistakes, or astonishing coincidences. V. Discover the absence of signs (negative signs of evidence). Only after going through the process of systematically registering every import detail, we are able to draw first hypotheses. Then, hypotheses must be checked for their plausibility in listing systematically every sign for and every sign against them, as well as all indeterminate signs, too, in order to get a clear view of the case, and to ensure the best use of the available intelligence. It is true that the consequent use of those formulas demands a considerable initial effort which can only be afforded in cases of some importance. But with experience and routine analysts will grasp much more signs of evidence right from the beginning, and save themselves a lot of unnecessary work that can be caused by pursuing wrong assumptions. In the long run, the assembled inventory of signs evidence does not loose its value. Undoubtedly, by applying the presented rules of systematic observation, the result of our work will be of higher analytical value.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.