Framing Effects on Decision-Making for Diagnostic Genetic Testing: Results from a Randomized Trial

Genetic testing is increasingly part of routine clinical care. However, testing decisions may be characterized by regret as findings also implicate blood relatives. It is not known if genetic testing decisions are affected by the way information is presented (i.e., framing effects). We employed a randomized factorial design to examine framing effects on hypothetical genetic testing scenarios (common, life-threatening disease and rare, life-altering disease). Participants (n = 1012) received one of six decision frames: choice, default (n = 2; opt-in, opt-out), or enhanced choice (n = 3, based on the Theory of Planned Behavior). We compared testing decision, satisfaction, regret, and decision cognitions across decision frames and between scenarios. Participants randomized to ‘choice’ were least likely to opt for genetic testing compared with default and enhanced choice frames (78% vs. 83–91%, p < 0.05). Neither satisfaction nor regret differed across frames. Perceived autonomy (behavioral control) predicted satisfaction (B = 0.085, p < 0.001) while lack of control predicted regret (B = 0.346, p < 0.001). Opting for genetic testing did not differ between disease scenarios (p = 0.23). Results suggest framing can nudge individuals towards opting for genetic testing. These findings have important implications for individual self-determination in the genomic era. Similarities between scenarios with disparate disease trajectories point to possible modular approaches for web-based decisional support.

What Habeas Corpus Can (and Cannot) Do for Immigration Detainees: Scotland v Canada and the Injustices of Imprisoning Migrants

This paper closely studies Scotland v Canada to reveal the normative and substantive justice challenges facing immigration detainees across Canada. The Scotland decision at the Ontario Superior Court certified a habeas corpus writ as an individual remedy to release Mr. Ricardo Scotland from a pointless, seventeen-month incarceration. The decision frames Mr. Scotland’s detention as anomalous or divergent from an otherwise-functioning system. Against this view, this paper argues that access to habeas corpus cannot remedy the detention system’s scale of injustices. The paper contextualizes Mr. Scotland’s incarceration and the Superior Court decision against two primary claims: first, that the Canadian immigration and refugee determination system is arbitrarily biased against certain minoritized individuals, therefore transforming some people into detainable bodies; and second, that the global criminalization of migration trend has nested an arc of penal practices into Canadian policymaking and law, and this arc has seemingly normalized indefinite detention for some migrants. The paper concludes that restoration of access to habeas corpus cannot be understood as a substantive remedy to address the miscarriages of justice in the Canadian detention system.

Managing Efficiency and Thoroughness in Case Review

This chapter examines the Criminal Cases Review Commission's decision-making process through the lens of efficiency and thoroughness. It first considers the ‘sense-making’ process of gathering and interpreting information within the Commission and how the Commission prioritises cases before discussing the Commission's formal ‘knowledge-building’ based on expert evidence and complainant credibility, along with its cultural knowledge. It then analyses the Commission's field that sets the boundaries of the scope of organisational enquiry, the decision frames that help individual decision-makers to operationalise the concepts of thoroughness and efficiency, and the key performance indicators used to measure the Commission's success. It also explores the amount of ‘empirical’ investigation beyond ‘desktop’ reviews carried out by case review managers (CRMs) and the use of section 17 powers to obtain information from external bodies and experts. Finally, it explains how the Commission secures compliance without resorting to legal coercion.

Working Cooperatively with Other Criminal Justice Institutions

This chapter examines how the Criminal Cases Review Commission works with two members of the criminal justice system in conducting investigations: the police and the Court of Appeal. It analyses a variety of cases, including those rare cases where the Commission uses its powers — under section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 — to appoint an investigating officer to carry out enquiries to assist in the exercise of any of its functions. The chapter shows how the Commission deals with the investigating officer in section 19 cases and how it incorporates the results of the investigation into its decision on whether or not to refer a case back to the Court. It also explores the Commission's decision frames when it manages a section 19 investigation and when it works for the Court on section 15 investigations. Finally, it looks at section 15 investigations that involved alleged jury bias or misconduct.

Complainant Credibility in Sexual Offence Cases

This chapter examines the Criminal Cases Review Commission's approach to sexual offence cases that tend to present evidence pertaining to the credibility of the complainant. Drawing on forty-six cases reviewed by the Commission during the period 1998–2011, the chapter considers how the Commission establishes complainant credibility by discussing its decision ‘field’ in relation to the changing environment of the ‘surround’. It also explores developments in the field before and after 2006, the Court of Appeal's stance on the type of credibility that might persuade it to quash convictions, and the wider politics and media contribution to the growing concerns about victims of historical sexual abuse. Finally, it analyses the Commission's response to changes in the surround — driven by real experience of victim bashing and evidence of wrongful convictions — and identifies contrasting decision frames: a frame that is sensitive to the changing surround versus a frame concerned with wrongful convictions.

Managing Uncertainty in Forensic and Expert Evidence Cases

This chapter examines issues arising from cases that turn on forensic and expert evidence, focusing on how the Criminal Cases Review Commission investigates such applications and makes its decisions. Drawing on a sample of sixty-one cases involving forty-two applicants, the chapter shows how the Commission makes decisions in cases that ‘turn on’ forensic science and expert testimony. It also considers the influence of developments in the ‘surround’ of the Commission and how the surround affects the Commission's decision field — the broad setting within which decision-making at the Commission takes place. Finally, it analyses the role of decision frames in the Commission's decision-making on forensic and expert evidence cases, noting that such frames are characterised by uncertainty and even anxiety. Concerns about the interpretation and presentation of forensic evidence at trial are discussed, along with the legal and narrative frames of decision-making in forensic and expert evidence cases.

Triage: The Application Screening Process

This chapter examines how the Criminal Cases Review Commission makes sense of approximately 1,400 applications it receives each year, focusing on the mechanisms that are in place for stage one of decision-making — that is, cases are screened in or out of the process. Drawing on Keith Hawkins' theoretical framework of ‘surround’, ‘field’ and ‘frame’, it considers how the Commission screens out applications early through a ‘triage’ process. The chapter first describes the four types of applications received by the Commission before discussing individual commissioners' decision frames, the new screening policy that has been introduced at stage one decision-making, and decision frames in relation to the surround and field. It also analyses the Commission's approach to guilty pleas, the impact of legal representation on stage one decisions, and drivers of stage one decision-making. It shows that the Commission, in practice, uses ‘triggers’ as shortcuts to help guide decision-making at stage one.

Dingo singing: the howl of the advocate

World Heritage protected areas are increasingly valuable for civil society. Sectors of broader society can feel invested in such areas and engage in forms of conservation advocacy that challenge traditional formal management. Advocacy is found wherever management decisions are negotiated or contested, revealing sharp divides in positions. But there are also opportunities for partnerships in advocacy. Identifying the narrative details of advocacy positions is crucial but complicated when the parties being represented are non-human animals, plant species or broader environments: they depend on the advocate’s voice as they cannot speak in any literal sense. Thus advocates discussed in this paper are those representing scientific decision-frames: managers and scientists. Both groups frequently draw on empirical research, giving primacy to the proof of scientific voice. In this research we presented methods to build interdisciplinary literacy to move beyond traditional categorical analysis. Semantic mapping was applied to identify narrative themes as the basis for close textual analysis in a specific case study: advocacy on behalf of the K’gari-Fraser Island dingo. We differentiated three critical pillars of wisdom – Indigenous, local and scientific – but here only considered the advocacy positions within the scientific knowledge decision-making community. Thus, we compared positions taken by the formal management community (government managers) with positions taken in the scientific research community (academic researchers). Narrative themes in advocacy agendas and metaphorical strategies taken to frame positions identify differences and common ground for the two groups. Management advocacy was premised on limits to human–dingo interaction while science advocacy called for dingo welfare. The synergy was tourists, defined as the greatest threat to dingo welfare and viability. This common ground provides an effective starting point to support dingo interests. Identifying options and constraints in advocacy positions is crucial for the future of dingoes on K’gari, but also for all people who engage with World Heritage values. Implicitly, this paper defends the place of advocacy in scientific discussion. By exploring potential options for negotiation, conservation outcomes that support contested iconic species in a World Heritage context are more likely.