Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: A consideration of sentencing and unreliable confessions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASDs) are now a strong focus of policy-makers throughout Australia, they have received strikingly little consideration in Australian criminal courts. Many people who have an FASD are highly suggestible, have difficulty linking their actions to consequences, controlling impulses and remembering things, and thus FASD raises particular issues for appropriate sentencing and the admissibility of evidence. This article considers the approach of Australian criminal courts to FASD. It reviews the recent case of AH v Western Australia which exemplifies the difficulties associated with appropriate sentencing in cases where the accused is likely to have an FASD. The article also considers the implications for Australian courts of the New Zealand case of Pora v The Queen, recently heard by the Privy Council. In this case, the Privy Council accepted expert evidence that people with FASD may confabulate evidence, potentially making their testimony unreliable. The article concludes with an overview of developments in criminal policy and legal response in relation to FASD in the United States, Canada and Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".