Crime and justice in Tudor-Stuart England and the modern United States

This paper surveys the criminal justice system in 16th and 17th, century England, for the purpose of pointing out important similarities between its workings and the operation of the criminal justice system in the modern United States. Topics covered include (1) the nature and incidence of crime; (2) citizen participation in and cooperation with the criminal justice system; and (3) the disposition of persons and cases. The authors conclude that, contrary to popular opinion, early modern England was not a halcyon period of law and order. That the English criminal justice system was beset by problems similar to those faced today seems to indicate that the interaction between law and society is inherently problematic.     

The place of public fear in sentencing and correctional policy

Public opinion about sentencing and correctional issues has emerged in recent decades as a salient topic in criminology. Empirical studies have suggested that the public has dynamic perceptions about these criminal justice issues. Sentencing and correctional policy have become key issues confronting legislators and policymakers, as correctional budgets and public interest in these areas have increased. Despite the focus on public opinion about sentencing and corrections, previous research has largely ignored how the public feels about the role of policymakers regarding these issues, and what influences opinions about whether public fear should be an important consideration in policy decisions. The current study partly replicated the work of Cullen and colleagues by examining perceptions of crime salience, crime causation, goals of the criminal justice system, and attitudes towards imprisonment and rehabilitation. It uniquely examined perceptions about the importance of legislator consideration of a specific determinant, namely, public fear, in decision making about sentencing and correctional policy.     

DOES CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT WORK? A CLINICALLY RELEVANT AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY INFORMED META-ANALYSIS *

Careful reading of the literature on the psychology of criminal conduct and of prior reviews of studies of treatment effects suggests that neither criminal sanctioning without provision of rehabilitative service nor servicing without reference to clinical principles of rehabilitation will succeed in reducing recidivism. What works, in our view, is the delivery of appropriate correctional service, and appropriate service reflects three psychological principles: (1) delivery of service to higher risk cases, (2) targeting of criminogenic needs, and (3) use of styles and modes of treatment (e.g., cognitive and behavioral) that are matched with client need and learning styles. These principles were applied to studies of juvenile and adult correctional treatment, which yielded 154 phi coefficients that summarized the magnitude and direction of the impact of treatment on recidivism. The effect of appropriate correctional service (mean phi = .30) was significantly (p <.05) greater than that of unspecified correctional service (.13), and both were more effective than inappropriate service (?.06) and non-service criminal sanctioning (?.07). Service was effective within juvenile and adult corrections, in studies published before and after 1980, in randomized and nonrandomized designs, and in diversionary, community, and residential programs (albeit, attenuated in residential settings). Clinical sensitivity and a psychologically informed perspective on crime may assist in the renewed service, research, and conceptual efforts that are strongly indicated by our review.     

Do career criminals exist in rural America?

The criminal career paradigm had essentially ignored investigating offenders in rural areas. To fill this void, a retrospective, cross-sectional design sampled 331 former adult correctional clients from the case archives in a rural midwestern state. Self-report and official records indicated that rural criminal careers were characterized by relatively few arrests, short-lived criminal justice system involvements, and a paucity of violent crime. Although the sample demonstrated relatively benign criminality overall, the most chronic offenders, top 10 percent of the sample, were plagued by overlapping, contemporaneous problems such as alcoholism, substance abuse, mental health difficulties, early onset of antisocial behavior, low educational attainment, and revolving involvement in the criminal justice system. Like rural communities, which were characterized by exceedingly low crime rates, rural career offenders tended to be relatively harmless criminals especially compared to habitual offenders commonly found in the criminological literature.     

Criminal Justice in Soviet Russia

Compared to American criminal justice, the fabric of Russia's system is a tightly woven structure operating under centralized co-ordination. During recent history, the goals of Russia's criminal justice system have shifted from repression by terrorism to crime prevention through education and an emphasis on individual duty in peace-keeping matters.

The militia (police), created in 1917, has been mandated to prevent crime through intelligence activities, direct intervention, and citizen education. In 1966, it was given the responsibility for the supervision of offenders newly released from correctional institutions. Peoples Volunteer Brigades and the DRUZHINNIKS aid the militia in crime prevention.

The courts also make use of non-professionals in the persons of lay assessors to insure that the accused is judged by his “peers.” The court system itself is inquisitorial in nature as opposed to the American accusational model. As the accused person moves through pre-trial and trial procedures, one can see how his “rights” may be legally abridged at every step.

Russian courts have a variety of sentences from which to choose, ranging in harshness from public censure to death by shooting. Deprivation of liberty may be applied by degree from “education” to compulsory labor to strict incarceration. The Soviets are attempting an organized plan of diversionary sentencing, in order to reduce prison populations to all but the most dangerous offenders.

Correctional facilities depend on inmate commissions to keep order and motivate good behavior through group influence and peer pressure. Inmates as well as civilians have “a national duty to mind other people's business.”

In the United States, justice is fragmented into a variety of jurisdictions: municipal, county, state, and federal, each with its own law enforcement agencies, courts, and correctional agencies. Further, there is only limited coordination among the various segments of the system. There is little argument to the proposition that the American “system” of criminal justice is inefficient.

Unlike America's disjointed system, the Russian Criminal justice system is unified; militia (police), procurators (prosecutors), courts, and correctional facilities operate under a centralized coordinating body. This body is characterized by a unity of purpose and a high degree of systemic integration (Juviler, 1979, p. 1).     

The natural history of extended co-offending

Most criminal acts are committed in very small groups or alone, and are repeated sporadically. But that is not always the case. Co-offending can include larger groups, cooperating sequentially or simultaneously, knowing each other or at least knowing about one another. We may use the term “extended co-offending” to subsume varieties of crime organization, crime networks, gangs, and criminal clusters. Extended co-offending also includes vaguely organized crime repetitions, and is a matter of degree. Criminal cooperation can be extended in time, space, numbers of persons involved, and types of criminal action. The extension process has a very wide span of possibilities. Drawing ideas from Max Weber and others, this paper suggests that the natural history of criminal cooperation progresses in four stages, with steeply decreasing prevalence: (1) primordial clusters of offenders, (2) small-scale charismatic leadership of offenders, (3) a medium-scale patrimonial system of offenders, and (4) and an extended patrimonial system of criminal cooperation. Primordial co-offending occurs on a very local level, with little or no hierarchy or systematic repetition. Extended criminal cooperation usually requires personal trust among offenders, favoring patrimony over formal organization.     

罪刑法定与刑法机能之关系

社会保护机能与人权保障机能的统一是刑法的整体价值目标,而不是刑法某一个构成要素的价值目标。认为相对罪刑法定原则具有人权保障和社会保护双重机能的观点,实际上是混淆了刑法的机能与罪刑法定原则的机能,错把刑法的整体机能当成了其构成要素的机能。罪刑法定原则虽然应当服务于刑法的整体价值目标,但是,它却不应该、也不可能直接承载社会保护的价值内容。我国《刑法》第3条从正反两个方面规定罪刑法定原则,将社会保护的内容附加给罪刑法定原则,在一定程度上消解了这一原则的社会法律意义,不利于现代刑法观念的培植。     

Preventing crime in cooperation with the mental health care profession

Although major mental disorders do not have a central position in many criminological theories, there seems to be an evident relationship between these disorders and criminal behavior. In daily practice police officers and mental health care workers work jointly to prevent nuisance and crime and to keep the city livable. Examining the situations where the criminal justice system and mental health institutes are jointly involved to prevent crime, some pitfalls emerge that seem to threaten successful cooperation. There appear to be unrealistic expectations of the possibility to reduce the risk of reoffending by means of treatment and of the possibility to predict which offender poses a risk to society. Another complexity is the fact that both parties work from different backgrounds and pursue different goals. The way society and the criminal justice system deal with persons who are assumed to be a risk to the community because of a mental disorder demands a further investigation from a criminological perspective.     

Expanding a traditional criminal justice curriculum into an innovative social control curriculum

Most criminal justice curricula are limited to crime and the criminal justice system. Such programs could profit from evolution into a curriculum covering all means by which behavior is controlled in society. Subject areas of such a social control curriculum would include: sources and nature of behavior; selection of behaviors for social control; criminal justice systems; non-criminal justice, legal, social control systems; and nonlegal, social control systems. Crime and criminal justice would remain major topics, but would be complemented by and blended with the topics of noncriminal behavior and non-criminal justice system controls on behavior. However, the focus would remain on social control of behavior and would not be expanded to include all community interaction.     

Quantitative criminology in the United Kingdom in the 1990s: A brief overview

Quantitative criminology research published in the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) in the 1990s is reviewed. Publications are divided into five topical categories: measurement; explanations or correlates; police or crime prevention; sentencing; and correctional treatment. The most sophisticated studies are on longitudinal and criminal career research, correlates of victimization, quasi-experimental analysis of policing strategies, prediction of reconviction and sentencing, and evaluation of correctional treatment using statistical controls. More fundamental long-term research on the causes of crime is needed, together with more concern for reliability and validity issues, and more evaluation research including controls for extraneous variables using quasiexperimental or (preferably) experimental techniques.     

Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt

Intent to commit a crime has in recent times been used as a basis for assigning fault and making appropriate correctional decisions. The author defines attempt to commit a crime as "engaging in conduct with the specific intention to produce forbidden consequences while aware of the possibility that the circumstances that render such consequences criminal may exist." The author develops and defends the thesis that inchoate crime is more than merely anticipatory guilt. Mens rea in inchoate offenses is not merely a condition of fault-it is a component of the danger of criminal harm that determines the need for forceful intervention.     

The good,the bad,and the (sometimes) ugly truths: American penal goals and perspectives

Conclusion Identifying correctional objectives and evaluative criteria is essential to facilitating smooth operational functioning of the correctional system. Complicating this necessity is the tremendous growth and responsibilities of the correctional system as budgets continue to suffer reductions or stagnations. Traditional evaluative studies producing valuable insights, have yet to, for the most part, move beyond recidivism and incarceration rates as performance indicators. This is due mostly to the fact that criminal justicians — scholars and practitioners — and the general public lack consensus regarding correctional goals. Instead, what we are experiencing is an ambivalence placing an unfair burden upon the correctional system to create and maintain effective rehabilitative programs, devise punitive strategies, and fulfill these countervailing missions with decreased financial resources than in the past (relative to case load). To be sure, wardens and correctional administrators are called upon today to do more with drastically fewer dollars. The correctional system, we argue, given its unique task of incapacitating people, demands that scholars, practitioners, and policymakers combine efforts to develop correctional goals. These goals once defined, however, are not to become fixed static categories. Instead, they must remain flexible and imitate or adapt to social and cultural conditions, which is not to say merely reflect public opinion. Rather, correctional goals must consider legal, normative, and other structural changes affecting the correctional system — as many scholars recognize these variables having greater impact on incarceration (see Christie, 2000; Dilulio, 1993; Garland, 2001). This joint effort should take advantage of research-based knowledge and examples of best practices to identify the good aspects, weed out the bad, and eliminate the ugly in the U.S. penal system. An earlier version of this paper was presented by the first author as part of the Presidential Address to the Southern Criminal Justice Association, September 24, 2003 in Nashville, Tennessee.     

Current issues in state mental health forensic programs

The major current issues facing state and local forensic mental health programs are presented in this paper. Debates over forensic patients' rights and the insanity defense are discussed, together with many administrative problems such as the pros and cons of correctional versus mental health system program control and payment incentives for treatment. The authors cite the differing goals of correctional and mental health systems, i.e., security and treatment, as reasons for difficulties in developing needed collaboration. Guidelines are suggested to address such important issues as mixing civil with criminal patients, developing units for special populations, defining patients who can respond to treatment, and follow-up after discharge.     

Making Corrections Corrective

Revising the sentencing procedural process for convicted offenders is identified as being a key intervention point in reforming the current ineffective correctional system. A new procedural system for determining the disposition of convicted individuals is advanced which is designed to make correctional supervision more effective in curbing recidivism. If this proposed system is adopted by other countries, the rate of recidivism will be substantially reduced. Included in the recommendations are: requiring extensive testing of offenders' needs and goals in a community-based center prior to sentencing, reassignment of sentencing responsibility from criminal trial judges to a Dispositions Board, and giving supervisees an option to develop achievement contracts guaranteeing supervision release upon completion of the contract terms.     

Black–white differences in positive outcome expectancies for crime: A study of male federal prison inmates

Purpose

This study was designed to assess whether black inmates hold more positive outcome expectancies for crime than white inmates in an effort to inform the debate on the nature of well documented differences in criminal involvement between blacks and whites.

Methods

Positive outcome expectancies for crime were measured in 393 black male inmates and 154 white male inmates housed in a medium security federal correctional institution using the Outcome Expectancies for Crime (OEC: Walters, 2003b) inventory.

Results

Black inmates reported significantly stronger positive outcome expectancies for crime than white inmates after controlling for preexisting group differences in age, education, marital status, confining offense, response style, general criminal thinking, and negative outcome expectancies for crime. Anticipation of social benefits for crime in the form of love, respect, and security were particularly salient in distinguishing between black and white inmates.

Conclusions

It is speculated that an interaction of motivational (high achievement motivation), structural (blocked economic opportunities), and cultural (peer reinforcement) factors may be responsible for black-white differences in crime with important implications for theory, research, and clinical practice.     

Criminal justice plannimg: Case for a comprehensive approach

All too often the task accomplishment of one actor in the criminal justice system is frustrated by the actions of other components of the system. Decisions within the components of the criminal justice system often are not made from a stystemic perspective, therefore frustrating the objective of reducing crime. While there may be an abundance of people concerned with a plethora of small problems and roles, what is lacking is a group of officials viewing the system in its totality. By failing to develop a holistic approach within which to analyze the problems each component of the criminal justice has, these problems will not be successfully resolved.The use of comprehensive planning as a mechanism which will coordinate all of the diverse activities within the criminal justice system and direct these activities to clearly articulated systemic goals has the potential to overcome the problems each component of the criminal system generates internal to the system itself. This paper seeks to explain and evaluate the potential of comprehensive planning.     

A critical review of past studies on China’s corrections and recidivism

This article reviews studies of China’s correctional system and recidivism in approximately the last two decades. Studies on the Chinese correctional system may be grouped into two subfields, one on studies of the correctional system itself (e.g., the composition and the function of the system), and the other on studies of prison inmates in other related topics (e.g., their criminal behavior). Studies on China’s recidivism showed a very low recidivism rate, and China’s crime prevention strategies were closely related to its societal structure and social control. Future studies in these two areas need to focus on the most recent changes in the Chinese criminal justice system, and gain more access to Chinese prisons to do empirical testing.

---

Is restorative justice for sexual crime compatible with various criminal justice systems?

In addition to the more conventional approaches of the criminal justice system, this article suggests that there is a need for restorative justice as another method of addressing sexual crime. In support of this view, the present article explores the possibility of a hybrid justice system based on a complementary relationship between restorative justice and the criminal justice system. An analysis of the limits of the criminal justice system and the need for restorative justice in the contentious area of sexual crime will be followed by a detailed examination of key justice considerations when trying to marry both criminal justice and restorative justice perspectives. Such considerations include: the meaning of justice; legislation; sentencing principles; due process; victims’ rights; and the location of restorative justice within/alongside/outside the criminal justice system. The aim of this article is to determine whether it is possible to reconcile two seemingly juxtaposed methods of justice delivery in the context of sexual crime in order to create a hybrid system of justice that best protects and responds to the rights and needs of victims and offenders.     

Current and Promising Pharmacotherapies for Substance Use Disorders among Justice-Involved Populations

Growing recognition of the biological underpinnings of substance use disorders (SUDs) has led to increased acceptance of pharmacotherapy-based treatments for general populations and, more recently, for individuals under criminal justice supervision, including those in correctional settings. This paper focuses on pharmacotherapies that have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of alcohol use disorder and opioid use disorder. For alcohol use disorder, these medications are disulfiram, naltrexone, and acamprosate; for opioid use disorder, these are methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. Promising pharmacotherapies for stimulant use disorder are also briefly summarized. The paper concludes with three “lessons learned,” specifically: (1) treatment and policy should reflect the fact that substance misuse and addiction is a medical disorder, (2) interventions for SUDs should be integrated into primary care, and (3) reductions in substance use among pharmacotherapy-treated patients do not necessarily lead to concomitant reductions in crime (nor should this be the primary rationale for providing such treatment).     

危险驾驶罪的立法与司法省思

随着《刑法修正案（八）》的生效,刑法对危险驾驶行为的规制迈出了重要一步.一般认为,危险驾驶罪是为了应对风险社会的交通状况而增设的新罪名,具有历史的必然性.但由于危险驾驶罪的设置与刑法规范体系之间缺乏协调性,导致了在罪状和法定刑等方面存在诸多问题,这也致使司法人员对危险驾驶犯罪的适用上仍存在较大分歧.对《刑法修正案（八）》生效以来的危险驾驶罪司法实践进行反思,会发现现存的诸多问题仍然需要从立法的角度予以展开和诠释.在调整立法之前,目前的当务之急则是对危险驾驶罪的罪状加以精确确定,自然就需要将其与行政法和刑法中其他犯罪进行协调.