In three studies, we investigated support for applying sex offender registry laws to juveniles. Family law attorneys supported registry laws less for juveniles than for adults. Laypeople and prosecutors supported juvenile and adult sex offender registration equally--even though they perceived juveniles as generally less threatening than adults (Study 1)--because most people spontaneously envision a severe sex offender prototype regardless of offender age (Study 2). People are less supportive of registry laws, however, when they envision less severe prototypes spontaneously (Study 2) or when induced to do so (Study 3). Effects of offender age, offender prototypes, and offense severity were mediated by perceptions of threat posed by the juvenile sex offender (i.e., utilitarian concerns). The effect of offense severity was also mediated by moral outrage (i.e., retributive concerns).

We tested a novel theoretical model explaining the psychological processes underlying jurors' discussions about a defendant's history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in a capital case. We coded the extent to which jurors used child abuse and alcohol abuse as mitigating factors, as aggravating factors, or argued that they should be ignored. Relying on attribution theory, we coded the extent to which jurors rendered controllable or uncontrollable and stable or unstable attributions regarding the defendant's history of child abuse and alcohol abuse. Jurors were more likely to argue that child abuse and alcohol abuse should not be used as mitigators or to even use them against the defendant as aggravators than they were to use them as mitigators. Jurors made more controllable than uncontrollable attributions regarding child abuse and more stable than unstable attributions regarding both child abuse and alcohol abuse. The more jurors supported the death penalty, the more they argued to discount child abuse and alcohol abuse as mitigators or use them as aggravators and the more controllable and stable attributions they made. Political orientation predicted discussions and attributions about alcohol abuse, but not child abuse.

In three experiments, we investigated the influence of juror, victim, and case factors on mock jurors' decisions in several types of child sexual assault cases (incest, day care, stranger abduction, and teacher-perpetrated abuse). We also validated and tested the ability of several scales measuring empathy for child victims, children's believability, and opposition to adult/child sex, to mediate the effect of jurors' gender on case judgments. Supporting a theoretical model derived from research on the perceived credibility of adult rape victims, women compared to men were more empathic toward child victims, more opposed to adult/child sex, more pro-women, and more inclined to believe children generally. In turn, women (versus men) made more pro-victim judgments in hypothetical abuse cases; that is, attitudes and empathy generally mediated this juror gender effect that is pervasive in this literature. The experiments also revealed that strength of case evidence is a powerful factor in determining judgments, and that teen victims (14 years old) are blamed more for sexual abuse than are younger children (5 years old), but that perceptions of 5 and 10 year olds are largely similar. Our last experiment illustrated that our findings of mediation generalize to a community member sample.

BackgroundDementia is a major cause of disability worldwide [1], but despite its high prevalence inadequate screening at the level of primary care remains a problem [2]. To encourage case finding, a tool needs to be quick, easy to administer, and culturally and educationally appropriate [3].Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have the worst health status of any population in Australia, with life expectancy approximately 17 years shorter than non-Indigenous people and burden of disease more than twice that of other Australians [4,5]. We have recently documented that dementia affects 12.4% of Indigenous Australians aged 45 years or older living in the Kimberley region [6], a prevalence estimate that is 5.2 times greater than for non-Indigenous Australians.Indigenous Australians, including those from the Torres Strait, express a rich diversity of traditions, law and culture, with a large number of spoken languages [7], and often have limited Western style education. For these reasons, conventional screening for cognitive impairment may not be appropriate even when translated into traditional language [7,8].The Kimberley Indigenous Cognitive Assessment (KICA) tool was developed by the authors to address a gap in the availability of a culturally appropriate assessment tool specifically Despite its widespread use, a possible limitation of the KICACog is the time required to complete the assessment, which hinders its acceptability in busy primary care settings. The aim of this study is to describe the psychometric properties of the KICA Screen and its subsequent validation in an independent population of older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in Far North Queensland. Methods Development of KICA ScreenThe KICA Screen (Appendix I) was derived from the original KICA-Cog items used to test a population sample of 363 people living in the Kimberley. Recruitment was based on semi-purposeful sampling. All residents over the age of 45 years living in six remote Aboriginal communities and a random sample of one third of eligible Indigenous people in one town were approached [6]. Their characteristics have been described in detail elsewhere [6]. Items that were best able to differentiate between the participants with and without cognitive impairment and dementia were determined by discriminant function analysis (DFA) from the full KICACog. Sensitivity, specificity and cut points for the shortened version of the instrument were determined from the original validation sample. Validation of KICA Screen in QueenslandThe KICA Screen was then evaluated in a group of people from Northern Queensland over the age of 45 years. The Queensland study used convenience sampling methods, where a deliberate attempt was made to assess participants with varying degrees of cognitive impairment ranging from normal to dementia, using an approach similar to that of the original validation study in the Kimberley [9]. Participants were initially assessed with the KICA Screen and subsequently reviewed by a geriatrician who was unawar...