Accurately identifying death and its causes is integral to the compilation of mortality data and ultimately to the operation of the criminal justice and public health systems. A clear understanding of who is in charge of such processes is paramount to establishing the quality, or lack thereof, of the information provided in death certificates. Our study provides a comprehensive overview of all state statutes identifying death investigators charged with classifying and certifying death in the United States. We found that state statutes designate a broad range of individuals as responsible for the classification and certification of death. Those vary by state and set of circumstances and can include medical examiners, coroners, pathologists, other physicians, registered nurses, and more. Our findings highlight the important need for a unified standard of qualifications in the medico-legal system, as well as, regulatory reform at the state level regarding who can complete and sign death certificates.

Sexual violence victims in the Republic of Korea (henceforth, South Korea) have mutual support groups that provide a variety of programs promoting mutual disclosure between them. These programs are based upon the premise that responses within those groups are more supportive than conventional responses; however, there is no empirical evidence of mutual disclosure. The aim of the current study is to answer two research questions: (a) How do responses and outcomes of mutual disclosure compare with those of traditional disclosure? and (b) What themes describe mutual disclosure as distinguishable from a traditional one? A sample of 25 Korean sexual violence victims reported their disclosure experiences by responding to a survey and/or an in person interview. This study found that responses and outcomes of mutual disclosure were overall positive based on their similar victimized experience. The finding emphasizes a balance between a victim's dual role as help-seeker and support provider for the benefits of mutual disclosure. Existing mutual support groups and relevant institutions should consider the aspects and effects of mutual disclosure to provide more opportunities for victims to speak out as well as to foster greater access to support.

No abstract

This study seeks to establish whether medico-legal practitioners differ in their autopsy conclusions within and across medico-legal institutions. Data include 459 violent deaths (homicides, suicides, and accidents) autopsy reports written by more than 20 death certifiers from four medico-legal institutions in two countries (France and the United States). Multinomial models show that compared with accidental deaths, weapon use and decedents' characteristics both influence a homicide verdict, but not a suicide one. In addition, French practitioners are more likely than Americans to reach a conclusion of homicide or suicide compared with accident, and homicides are more likely to be certified by male practitioners.

There are structural and organizational factors that impact how and what mortality data are collected. There are individual decision-making processes and implicit cognitive biases that influence how and what mortality data are collected. Yet there seems to be a disconnect between how and why these two broad sources of bias may collide and how both need to be understood in order to be able to approach solutions aimed at strengthening the accuracy of mortality data. Using results from a mixed-method, long-term research project at four medicolegal offices in two countries, France and the United States, this research note proposes that truly understanding the sources of implicit cognitive bias in forensic pathologists and other medicolegal actors requires knowledge of legal, cultural, and organizational structures that shape medicolegal systems and in turn constrain individual actors' decision-making processes. The goal is to advocate for multilevel and multi-methods approaches to propose systemic solutions to the issue of implicit cognitive biases in forensic pathologists and other medicolegal actors' decision-making processes. For this purpose, the author outlines a series of specific issues to be integrated in future research.