首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 156 毫秒
1.
This paper asks whether undertaking a cost-benefit analysis provides additional information to policy makers as compared to an analysis solely of the effect of an intervention. A literature review identified 106 evaluations of criminal justice interventions that reported both an effect size and measures of net benefit. Data on net benefit and effect size were extracted from these studies. We found that effect size is only weakly related to net benefits. The rank order of net benefits and effect size are minimally correlated. Furthermore, we found that the two analytic methods would yield opposing policy recommendations for more than one in four interventions. These bi-variate findings are supported by the results of multivariate models. However, further research is needed to verify the accuracy of the standard errors on net benefit estimates, so these models must be interpreted with caution.
Kevin MarshEmail:

Kevin Marsh   is head of Economics at The Matrix Knowledge Group (TMKG). His research interests include the economic evaluation of criminal justice and public health interventions. He completed his PhD in Economics at the University of Bath, specialising in monetary technique for valuing environmental resources. Following a year at the Social Disadvantage Research Centre, Oxford University, Marsh joined TMKG in 2003. At Matrix he is responsible for maintaining the quality of economic and statistical methods, advising on a range of projects across the crime and justice and health sectors. He has recently undertaken research in a number of areas of public policy, including: prisons, promoting physical activity, drug trafficking, reducing drug use among both adult and juvenile populations, human trafficking, reducing health inequalities, reducing social exclusion, and area-based regeneration. Aaron Chalfin   is a Research Associate in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, where his research focuses on evaluations of criminal justice programs, cost-benefit analysis and the economic and social determinants of criminal activity. He has used statistical methods to evaluate programs designed to reduce recidivism and improve labor market outcomes and has developed full-information economic models to estimate social costs and benefits. His current research includes studies of individual and neighborhood characteristics that predict fear of crime and methodological issues in cost-benefit analysis. John Roman   is a Senior Research Associate at the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute where his research focuses on evaluations of innovative crime control policies and programs. Roman is directing studies of the demand for community-based interventions with drug-involved arrestees, the use of DNA in burglary investigations, the reclaiming futures initiative and the cost of the death penalty. His prior research includes studies of specialized courts, the age of juvenile jurisdiction, prisoner reentry and cost-benefit methodology. He is the co-editor of Juvenile Drug Courts and Teen Substance Abuse and a forthcoming volume on Cost-Benefit Analysis and Crime Control Policies.  相似文献   

2.
Most prison systems use quantitative instruments to classify and assign inmates to prison security levels commensurate to their level of risk. Bench and Allen (The Prison Journal 83(4):367-382, 2003) offer evidence that the assignment to higher security prisons produces elevated levels of misconduct independent of the individual’s propensity to commit misconduct. Chen and Shapiro (American Law and Economics Review, 2007) demonstrate that assignment to higher security level among inmates with the same classification scores increases post-release recidivism. Underlying both of these claims is the idea that the prison social environment is criminogenic. In this paper we examine the theoretical premises for this claim and present data from the only experiment that has been conducted that randomly assigns inmates to prison security levels and evaluates both prison misconduct and post-release recidivism. The experiment’s results show that inmates with a level III security classification who were randomly assigned to a security level III prison in the California prison system had a hazard rate of returning to prison that was 31% higher than that of their randomly selected counterparts who were assigned to a level I prison. Thus, the offenders’ classification assignments at admission determined their likelihood of returning to prison. There were no differences in the institutional serious misconduct rates of these same prisoners. These results are contradictory to a specific deterrence prediction and more consistent with peer influence and environmental strain theories. These results also raise important policy implications that challenge the way correctional administrators will have to think about the costs and benefits of separating inmates into homogeneous pools based on classification scores.
Scott D. CampEmail:

Gerald G. Gaes   is a criminal justice consultant and Visiting Faculty at Florida State University in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in the USA. He was a Visiting Scientist for the National Institute of Justice, where he was senior advisor on criminal justice research, funded by that agency. He was also Director of Research for the Federal Bureau of Prisons and retired from government service in 2002. His current research interests include prison sexual victimization, spatial data analysis of crime, cost benefit analysis of inmate programs, the impact of prison security assignment on post-release outcomes, prison privatization, evaluation methodology, inmate gangs, simulating criminal justice processes, prison crowding, prison violence, electronic monitoring of community supervision cases, and the effectiveness of prison program interventions on post-release outcomes. Scott D. Camp   is a Senior Social Science Analyst at the Federal Bureau of Prisons in the USA. He joined the office in 1992 after completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at The Pennsylvania State University, USA. Much of his current research focuses on performance measurement and program evaluations. He also publishes on prison privatization, diversity issues, and inmate misconduct.  相似文献   

3.
Two studies investigated people’s perceptions of the acceptability of restorative justice procedures for handling crimes that differ in severity. Results from Study 1 supported our hypothesis that as crimes increase in seriousness, people require a restorative justice procedure that also has a possible retributive component (i.e. a prison sentence). Study 1 also demonstrated that individuals assigned lower prison sentences for offenders who successfully completed a restorative procedure as compared to a traditional court procedure. The results from Study 2 replicated those from Study 1, as well as demonstrating that offenders who failed to successfully complete the restorative procedure received no reduction in prison sentence. These findings suggest that in order for citizens to view a restorative justice procedure as an acceptable alternative to the traditional court system for serious crimes, the procedure must allow for the option of some retributive measures.
Dena M. GrometEmail:
  相似文献   

4.
The National Research Council (NRC) report on Improving Evaluation of Anticrime Programs presents and discusses a wide array of techniques of evaluation. Although recognising the very high internal validity of randomised experiments, it considers, under certain conditions, quasi-experiments and observational studies as equally valid approaches. This conclusion is critically reviewed from a European perspective, where only a few randomised trials have been realised so far. It is argued that many critiques routinely addressed to randomised experiments, such as ethical concerns or low acceptance among practitioners, are either unfounded or can be adequately dealt with through imaginative adjustments. On the other hand, randomised controlled trials need to take the challenge of broadening the perspective, especially by looking at long-term effects that no other method can consider with comparable internal validity. Other recommendations include using innovative measures of re-offending, considering dynamic rather than static criteria of re-offending, and looking, beyond re-offending, at rehabilitation in other areas of life. Particular challenges are the possible placebo effects that evaluators in criminal justice have not yet found appropriate ways to deal with.
Martin KilliasEmail:
  相似文献   

5.
This paper describes an experiment in which 465 felony arrest cases in Kings County, NY, USA, were, randomly, either filed in court and prosecuted or sent to a dispute resolution center for adjudication. The cases all involved persons who were acquainted, and nearly half were either intimate partners or in other immediate family relationships. The results indicated that the mediation process was perceived more positively by complainants than was prosecution and that going through mediation enhances complainants’ perceptions of their relationships with defendants to a greater degree than going through the court process. However, there was no evidence that mediation was no more effective than prosecution in preventing recidivism. Not surprisingly, in cases involving intimate partners or immediate family members, the offenders were most likely to experience continuing problems whether they were sent to mediation or were prosecuted. One of the values of this study is that, in the late 1970s, when this research was conducted, mediation was considered by many to be a legitimate alternative to prosecution in family violence cases, including cases arising from intimate partner violence. The data that we collected would be difficult to replicate in today’s political climate. While our study did not find that mediation reduced the odds of recidivism in these cases, neither did we find that mediation made victims less safe. Thus, it partially supports the sentiments of researchers such as Braithwaite and Strang (Restorative justice and family violence. In Strang H, Braithwaite J (eds) Restorative justices and family violence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 1−22; 2002), who argue that—given the evidence for success of restorative justice in reducing re-offending in cases other than family violence—it is worth testing whether similar beneficial effects could be found in applying restorative justice approaches to family violence cases.
Robert C. DavisEmail:

Rob Davis   is Senior Research Analyst for the Rand Corporation. He has directed more than 35 projects on victimization, domestic violence, policing, crime prevention, immigrations, courts, prosecution, and parole reentry for federal and state governments, and private foundations. A distinguishing feature of his career is that he has conducted 11 randomized experiments on criminal justice interventions from batterer intervention programs to prisoner reentry initiatives. His current work includes projects on reducing repeat victimization, victims’ rights, measuring police performance, and the role of police in peacekeeping operations. He is the author of two books on crime prevention, editor of five books on crime prevention and victimization, and author of more than 100 journal articles and book chapters.  相似文献   

6.
This article examines the gap between Dutch judges and the public in terms of preferred severity of sentences. It focuses on one particular explanation usually given for the gap: the lack of case-specific, detailed information on the part of the general public. Findings from three studies are reported and combined: (a) a survey among a sample from the Dutch population (N = 2,127), (b) a sentencing experiment with judges in Dutch criminal courts (N = 180), and (c) a sentencing experiment, using the same case materials as with judges, but now with a sample from the Dutch population (N = 917). Results show that providing the public with detailed case information indeed reduces severity of sentences preferred. Moreover, those members of the public who were given short and unbalanced newspaper reports preferred much harsher sentences than did those who were given the full case files. However, despite such a reduction in punitiveness as a result of information, the public’s preferred sentences remain much more punitive than judges’ sentences pertaining to exactly the same case files.
Jan W. de KeijserEmail:

Jan W. de Keijser   (1968) is senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, in Leiden, the Netherlands. He graduated in political science and obtained his Ph.D. at Leiden University, examining judges’ sentencing decisions in relation to the functions and goals of punishment. Much of his recent research has been focused on the psychology of judicial decision making, factors influencing legitimacy of the criminal justice system, and public opinion on the justice system. Peter J. van Koppen   (1953) is senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR) at Leiden, the Netherlands, and is professor of Law and Psychology at the departments of Law of Maastricht University and the Free University, Amsterdam. He is a psychologist. van Koppen is co-editor of Psychology, Crime, and Law and serves as President of the European Association of Psychology and Law. His research includes negotiation behaviour of attorneys in civil cases, recovered memories, geographic profiling of criminal behaviour, execution of court decisions, lie detection, judicial decision making and sentencing, police interrogations and false confessions, and value of forensic evidence. Henk Elffers   (1948) is senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement and professor of Psychology and Law at Antwerp University, Belgium. He graduated in mathematical statistics at the University of Amsterdam and obtained his Ph.D. in Psychology of Law at Erasmus University, Rotterdam, on a thesis on income tax evasion. Before his current position, he held various research appointments in Amsterdam (mathematics), Utrecht (geography), and Rotterdam (law and psychology). His research interests include spatial aspects of crime, rational choice theory of rule compliance, statistics in the courtroom, and relationship between judges and the general public.  相似文献   

7.
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.
Bin LiangEmail:
  相似文献   

8.
The longstanding connection between criminological theory, research and the design and delivery of criminal justice policy has been challenged in the last 3 decades by a variety of constraints such as the rise of neoconservative attitudes, symbolic public discourses about crime, and the proliferation of capture, monitor, and detect strategies brought about by technological innovation. Building on Kevin Haggerty’s (2004. Displaced expertise: three constraints on the policy-relevance of criminological thought. Theoretical Criminology, 8(2), 211–231.) exploration of the external factors that challenge the transition from criminological theory to criminal justice policy and practice, this paper considers internal challenges that may also be relevant. By examining two recent critical criminological orientating strategies, namely left realism and constitutive criminology, the paper concludes by suggesting that an integrated perspective which draws strengths from each of these approaches could assist critical criminologists to better influence policy in the future.
Johannes WheeldonEmail:
  相似文献   

9.
Commentators have contested the role of resulting harm in criminal law since the time of Plato. Unfortunately, they have neglected what may be not only the best discussion of the issue, but also the first—namely, Plato’s one-paragraph discussion in the Laws. Plato’s discussion succeeds in reconciling two, seemingly irreconcilable viewpoints that till now have been in stalemate. Thus, Plato reconciles the view, that an offender’s desert is solely a function of his subjective willingness to act in disregard of the legitimate interests of others, with the view that criminal sentences can appropriately be made to depend upon how indignant, angry, and upset society is at an offender based upon the results of his culpable conduct. In doing so, Plato casts light on retributive theories of punishment by suggesting that an adjudicator can be committed to retribution and yet rightly believe that it is inappropriate to give an offender the full punishment he deserves. He also lays a basis for the view that causation, rather being predicates for the just punishment of offenders toward whom the public is intuitively angry for harm, is the consequence of the public’s being intuitively angry at offenders for harm.
Peter WestenEmail:
  相似文献   

10.
This article discusses the importance of the military model throughout police reform, and how it has coexisted with, rather than been supplanted by, the professional model. Early reformers chose the military upon which to structure their concept of the urban police. That concept was refashioned into the professional model as the background of the reformers changed. This new model then replaced the military model in criminal justice literature, public vernacular, and police self-image, although the military model continued to exist under the radar. Today the “militarization of the police” is a major criminal justice topic, but its recent visibility is actually an ongoing part of the original reform ideal.
Ellen C. LeichtmanEmail:
  相似文献   

11.
Criminologists bemoan their lack of influence on U.S. crime policy, believing that the justice system would be improved if their research findings were more central in decision making. I had an opportunity to test that notion as I participated in California’s historic attempt to reform its prisons over the past 4 years. I became an embedded criminologist, where I was able to observe and contribute to the inner workings of state government. This article reports on my accomplishments with respect to fostering research activities and shifting the department’s focus towards prisoner reintegration. It discusses some of the lessons I learned, including the personal toll that such work entails, the importance of the timing of policy initiatives, and the power of rigorous methodology and clear communication. I conclude by recommending that other policy-oriented criminologists seek out similar experiences, as I believe our academic skills are uniquely suited and ultimately necessary to create a justice system that does less harm.
Joan PetersiliaEmail:
  相似文献   

12.
This paper examines various approaches to studying the mean length of stay in prison. The literature contains a wide range of estimates of this quantity. The discrepancies that appear in these estimates and in the conclusions reached from them have been the subject of several reviews. We build upon that work, using the life table as the gold standard, to demonstrate the inaccuracy of common measures such as the ratio of the population size to the annual number of entrances or the mean length of time served by those exiting in a particular period. This demonstration is conducted in two parts. One part uses model populations with constant growth rates; the second part relies upon simulated prison populations with time-varying rates of entrance and exit. In addition, we introduce two new indirect measures that are more accurate than several existing indirect measures and that are relatively easy to use. The new measures are based on the entrance rate or the exit rate and adjust for the growth rate of the prison population.
Evelyn J. PattersonEmail:
  相似文献   

13.
Despite the immense popularity of offender profiling as both a topic of fascination for the general public as well as an academic field of study, concerns have been raised about the development of this area of scientific inquiry. The present study provides a preliminary step towards moving the field forward as it reviews the type and quality of studies dealing with offender profiling over the past 31 years. Based on a content analysis of 132 published articles, the review indicates that researchers investigating this phenomenon rarely publish multiple articles, and they are generally reported across many different journals, thereby making knowledge synthesis and knowledge transfer problematic. In addition, the majority of papers published in the area are discussion pieces (e.g., discussing what profiling is, how profiles are constructed, and when profiling is useful), despite the fact that the processes underlying offender profiling are still not well understood. Finally, although peer-reviewed articles exploring this topic have steadily increased, the statistical sophistication of these studies is sorely lacking, with most including no statistics or formal analyses of data. Suggestions for future research and recommendations to streamline efforts in this field are provided based on the results of this review.
Craig BennellEmail:
  相似文献   

14.
Specifying the Relationship Between Crime and Prisons   总被引:1,自引:1,他引:0  
There is no scholarly consensus as to the proper functional form of the crime equation, particularly with regard to one critical, explanatory variable—prison population. The critical questions are whether crime and prison rates must be differenced, whether they are cointegrated, and whether they are simultaneously determined—whether crime and prison cause one another. To determine the proper specification, different researchers have applied unit-root, cointegration, and Granger tests to very similar data sets and obtained very different results. This has led to very different specifications and predictably different implications for public policy. These differences are more likely to be due to the methods used, rather than to real differences among the data sets. When the best available methods are used to identify the proper specification for a panel of U.S. states, results are fairly clear. Crime rates and prison populations are close to unit-root; crime and prison are not cointegrated; crime clearly affects subsequent prison populations. Thus the best specification of the crime equation must rely on differenced data and instrumental variables. Alternative specifications run a substantial risk of spurious results.
William SpelmanEmail:
  相似文献   

15.
This paper reports the outcome of a 17-month follow-up of structured, community-based, offence-focused, intervention programmes designed to reduce rates of re-conviction amongst adjudicated offenders under probation supervision. Three separate programmes were examined, all derived from a cognitive social learning model of risk factors for repeated involvement in crime. Using a quasi-experimental design, the study compared male offenders who had completed programmes (n = 215) with a non-completion group (n = 181), a group allocated to programmes but who had not commenced them (n = 339), and a control sample (n = 194) not allocated to the programmes. Outcome data analysis employed (a) an “intent to treat” between-group comparison, (b) “treatment received” methodology. In order to take account of selection bias, data were further analysed using instrumental variables and propensity scores; results suggested a possible treatment effect for moderate and higher-risk cases. Factors influencing different interpretations of these findings were considered.
James McGuireEmail:

James McGuire   is Professor of Forensic Clinical Psychology and Director of the Doctor of Clinical Psychology programme at the University of Liverpool, UK. He also holds an honorary post as consultant clinical psychologist in Mersey Care NHS Trust. He has conducted research in probation services, prisons, and other settings on aspects of psychosocial interventions with offenders; and has written or edited 14 books and numerous other publications on this and related issues. He worked for some years in a high-security hospital and has carried out psycho-legal work involving assessment of offenders for courts, for hearings of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the Parole Board, and for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. In addition he has been involved in a range of consultative work with criminal justice agencies in the UK, Sweden, Romania, Canada, Australia and Hong Kong. Charlotte Bilby   is a Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Leicester. Her research interests include the role and politics of evaluation in UK criminal justice policy making, offenders’ experiences of probation and the processes of offender rehabilitation, reform and management. Ruth Hatcher   is a Lecturer in Forensic Psychology at the University of Leicester. Her research interests include the evaluation of offending behaviour programmes within community and custodial settings, the investigation of predictors and correlates of attrition from community offending behaviour programmes, bullying behaviour within custodial settings, and the psychological impact of working with forensic populations. Clive R. Hollin   is Professor of Criminological Psychology in the School of Psychology at The University of Leicester, UK. He wrote the best-selling textbook Psychology and Crime: An Introduction to Criminological Psychology (1989, Routledge). His most recent book, edited with Emma Palmer, is Offending Behaviour Programmes: Development, Application, and Controversies (2006, John Wiley & Sons). He is co-editor of the journal Psychology, Crime, & Law. Alongside his various university appointments, he has worked as a psychologist in prisons, special hospitals, and regional secure units. In 1998 he received The Senior Award for Distinguished Contribution to the Field of Legal, Criminological and Forensic Psychology from The British Psychological Society. Juliet Hounsome   graduated with a B.Sc. in Applied Psychology from John Moores University, Liverpool, in 1997 and obtained an M.Sc. in Psychological Research Methods from Lancaster University in 1999. She subsequently worked at the Centre for Public Health, John Moores University, conducting research on the trends of drug misuse in Merseyside over a 10-year period. From 2002 until 2005 she held research posts, first at Liverpool and then as a Fellow at Leicester University, working on a large-scale re-conviction study funded by the Home Office that aimed to evaluate the National Probation Directorate Pathfinder programmes. Her current post is as a systematic reviewer with the Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, conducting assessments for the Health Technology Assessment Programme and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Emma J. Palmer   is a Reader in Forensic Psychology at the University of Leicester. Her research interests include the roles of parenting and social cognition (including moral reasoning) in the development of offending, assessment of offender risk and need, the design and evaluation of interventions for offenders, and interpersonal violence among prisoners. She has recently co-edited a book with Clive Hollin titled Offending Behaviour Programmes: Development, Applications, and Controversies (2006, Wiley).  相似文献   

16.
The current study describes the everyday life of Israeli prisoners and analyzes the actions they perform and the language they use as a reflection of their constraints, distresses, worldviews, beliefs, and attitudes. Data were subjected to a content analysis, and the salience of the values, norms and argot terms were assessed using two measures, attention and intensity. The inmates’ values and norms and the argot expressions were divided into categories with reference to different aspects of prison experience: prisoners’ adherence to the code, inmates’ interpersonal loyalty, sexual behavior in prison, drugs, violence and miscellaneous.
April WallEmail:
  相似文献   

17.
Statistical inference and meta-analysis   总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1  
Statistical inference is a common feature of meta-analysis. Statistical inference depends on a formal model that accurately characterizes certain key features of how the studies to be summarized were generated. The implications of this requirement are discussed and questions are raised about the credibility of confidence intervals and hypothesis tests routinely reported.
Richard BerkEmail:

Richard Berk   is a professor in the Departments of Criminology and Statistics at the University of Pennsylvania. He is an elected fellow of the American Statistical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Academy of Experimental Criminology. His research interests include statistical learning procedures and applied statistics more generally. He has published extensively in program evaluation, criminal justice, environmental research, and applied statistics. Professor Berk’s most recent book is Regression Analysis: A Constructive Critique (Sage Publications, 2003).  相似文献   

18.
The aim of this study is to present a construction of the history of the prison system in Taiwan in the context of the intertwined structures of penal discourses and the governmentality of the state. The prison system in Taiwan has been subject to different ruling political regimes, ranging from colonised, authoritarian to liberal-democratic systems between 1895 and the present. The history of imprisonment can be divided into six stages, each of which consists of distinct governmental strategies that shape prominent penal discourses. My purpose was to uncover the exercising power of governmentality, further shaping, guiding and affecting the penal discourses via rationalities and technologies upon which prison administration depends.
Hua-Fu HsuEmail: Fax: +886-5-2720053
  相似文献   

19.
20.
Computer simulation models have changed the ways in which researchers are able to observe and study social phenomena such as crime. The ability of researchers to replicate the work of others is fundamental to a cumulative science, yet this rarely occurs in computer simulations. In this paper, we argue that, for computer simulations to be seen as a legitimate methodology in social science, and for new knowledge to be generated, serious consideration needs to be given to how simulations could or should be replicated. We develop the concept of systematic replication, a method for developing simulation experiments that move towards a generalisable inference that is directed, explicit, and incorporates complexity incrementally. Finally, we outline how the discrete parts of this process might be carried out in practice, using a simple simulation model.
Daniel J. BirksEmail:

Michael Townsley   is a lecturer in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University. Before this he was a Senior Research Fellow at the University College London (UCL) Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College London. He trained as a statistician, and his research has focused on crime analysis, problem-orientated policing and quantitative methods in a criminal justice setting, all with a view to preventing crime. His current research projects include the spatial and temporal modelling of crime and the analysis of large novel data sets. Daniel Birks   is a Research Fellow at the UCL Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science. He has worked on a number of crime prevention research projects in conjunction with the Home Office and several police forces in the UK. His research interests include the development of innovative crime analysis and decision support techniques and tools, prospective models of crime, the application of simulation techniques within criminology, the study of offender predation patterns, and the use of data mining in crime analysis.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号