The “Tough on Crime” Competition: a Network Approach to Understanding the Social Mechanisms Leading to Federal Crime Control Legislation in the United States from 1973–2014

The increase in punitive sentiment in America over the last four decades is frequently attributed to changes in criminal justice policies and programs. While scholars have studied the impact of legislation and policy on justice system outcomes, less attention has focused on the role of political actors in legislative bodies who are largely responsible for enacting criminal justice legislation. The current study addresses this gap by examining the social organization of federal crime control policy in the U.S. Congress over a forty-two year period (1973–2014). Drawing from research on social network mechanisms, we examine whether crime control legislation was more politically attractive relative to other legislative topics, and whether Democrats and Republicans pursue these policies by working together or competing against each other. Our results provide novel insight into the mechanisms that contributed to the punitive movement at the federal level.     

Criminal justice policy and the psychology of peacemaking

Psychology which once was a primary influence on the development of criminal justice policy has, in recent decades, lost much of its ability to inform how laws and policies are made that concern punishment and social control. The reason for psychology's loss of inluence can be traced to the war on crime political rhetoric adopted by politicians and criminal justice administrators. This paper argues that an emerging peacemaking perspective in the criminal justice system allows the discipline of psychology to once again inform the discourse on criminal justice policy. Issues such as drug abuse, gun control, and capital punishment are appropriate subjects for a psychological perspective in the national debate on criminal justice policy.     

Why Do the Finns Trust the Police?

Ideological trends in the criminal policy of the Nordic countries since the 1960s are analysed. Although criminal policy in these countries is not unified, one can argue for the existence of a 'Scandinavian criminal policy' characterized by several common features concerning historical tradition, intensive cooperation and a similar approach to crime prevention and control. The following trends and characteristics are examined in some detail: the cycle from criticism of the treatment ideology to a reappraisal of the role of the criminal justice system and the function of penal sanctions; the differentiation of criminal policy strategies (e.g. social and situational crime prevention, cost-benefit thinking, criminal law policy, sanctions policy). Discernible tendencies towards more unified or, at least, more harmonized criminal policies on the international and European level are also examined. Active participation in this developmental process is encouraged to ensure that the fundamental principles of Scandinavian criminal policy are properly utilized.     

论宽严相济刑事政策的定位

宽严相济的刑事政策是惩办与宽大相结合刑事政策的继承和发展。刑事政策根据其指导功能的不同,可分为刑事立法政策、刑事司法政策、刑事执行政策。宽严相济对司法领域而言,可以说是刑事司法政策;但它也指导刑事立法、刑事执行,因而也是刑事立法政策、刑事执行政策。刑事政策根据其所处层次的不同,可分为基本刑事政策和具体刑事政策。宽严相济是基本刑事政策,"严打"、"少杀、慎杀"等是具体刑事政策,后者都是前者的组成部分。说宽严相济是刑事司法政策,并不否定宽严相济是基本刑事政策。     

Procedural Justice and Dutch Victim Policy

This paper opens with a brief discussion of the traditional role of the victim in the criminal justice system and the changes which have been made in the Netherlands in order to improve the position of victims of crime. In addition, the author discusses the arguments put forward by policymakers and examines the implementation of victim policy. Next, procedural justice is introduced as a theory from which one could consider the possible impact of victims' experiences in the criminal justice system on their relationship with the justice system. The author goes on to present research which examines the impact of procedural justice on victims' attitudes towards legal authorities. The paper closes with a discussion of the importance of procedural justice issues for criminal justice policymakers and legal practitioners.     

Criminal Justice Statistics—An Evolution

The origins of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and criminal justice statistics in general go back 150 years, but the U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1967, along with subsequent panels and commissions, added urgency and specificity to the work to be done to improve our understanding of the operation of the criminal justice system and of crime. Criminal justice statistics have the potential to be used to shape and evaluate specific policies and programs when the statistics are timely, accurate, and relevant to the decisions being made for policy formulation or evaluation. The full development of effective criminal justice statistics on crime and the administration of the justice system can provide for informed decision making and more insightful resource allocation. In this article, I summarize the historical progressions and evolution of criminal justice statistics in light of the changes affecting the justice environment and propose future work.     

Restructuring Justice in Russia: A New Era of Challenges

This paper reviews the criminal justice system in Russia from historical and contemporary perspectives. The realities of greater liberalization and the dissolution of the Central Soviet Government will have a significant impact of the future criminal justice program. Based on a criminal justice delegation including meetings with Soviet criminal justice participants, it is argued that the Soviet will likely lean toward incorporating a more continental crime reduction ideology instead of a Western-style Common Law that emphasizes legal process rather than crime reduction.     

“重重”：世界范围内教育刑主义的反动

面对严重危及社会生存与发展、民众安宁与秩序的一些严重犯罪,"重重"是世界范围内的一种刑事政策选择现实与趋势."重重"绝非一种重刑主义政策,其核心含义与要求是严密法网并严格责任.其基本的理论假定是:既然刑罚的矫治罪犯、回归犯罪人并预防犯罪的目的对有些犯罪与犯罪人难以达到,那么起码有一点能够做到,那就是,让刑罚发挥其能够起到的惩罚犯罪的作用,从而更好地保护社会.     

Race,Crime, and Criminal Justice

Fifty years ago, the U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson did not frequently mention race and ethnicity in its discussion of and recommendations for the criminal justice system, but it did have a lot to say about race and crime. Through the use of arrest rates to measure racial differentials in criminal involvement, the Commission concluded that Blacks commit more crime as a consequence of Black people living in greater numbers in criminogenic “slum” conditions. To address racial differences, the Commission favored the Great Society programs of Johnson's War on Poverty. Contemporary criminologists continue to debate the racial distribution of crime, the causes of crimes, and the best policies to reduce crime and racial differentials. The Commission did not anticipate the current debate among scholars regarding how much racial disproportionality exists in the criminal justice system and its causes and consequences. The policies that led to mass incarceration have been significant drivers of continued criminal justice racial disparity. Those policies are inconsistent with the recommendation in The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967), upending the pursuit of a more fair and just system.     

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.     

Community Safety and Social Policy

This article examines community safety policy. In many countries community safety has become a replacement discourse for situational crime prevention, although in some countries such as the UK, it too is threatened with replacement by the narrower concerns of crime reduction. Community safety represents the apparent merging of the concerns of criminal justice and social policy, specifically over questions of social inclusion and exclusion. Focusing in the main upon UK policy, but also drawing upon experience elsewhere, this article scrutinises the policy of community safety, arguing that while it offers an inclusionary vision of crime control, its practice may be something rather different. More specifically, and in common with the trajectory of much advanced liberal social policy, in practice community safety may have an exclusionary effect. Thus, while community safety may represent the convergence of social and criminal justice policies, it does so on neoliberal rather than welfare liberal terms. It also means that community safety has a closer connection to policies of punitive sovereignty – particularly sentencing policies of mass incarceration – than might often be assumed.     

State Politics and the Right to Counsel: A Comparative Analysis

One of the most significant recent developments in the study of crime and justice is the emergence of theoretical explanations for the dramatic changes in criminal justice policy over the past few decades. These theoretical accounts address not only highly visible developments, such as the meteoric rise in incarceration rates, but also less-conspicuous shifts in due process and civil liberties, and they do so by attributing more-repressive policies to the emergence of a political culture that has substantially redefined crime and justice. This article focuses on an important due process issue, the legal representation of indigent defendants in criminal courts. We describe the state of indigent defense policy, particularly structure and funding, across the states in 2002, and analyze variation on two dimensions where states may exercise discretion: the extent to which states assume responsibility for funding services (rather than relying on local governments), and the generosity with which these programs are funded overall. We test hypotheses that link funding for services with the ideology of state political leadership, public values about tolerance and race relations, and states' public welfare policy climates. We find little support for the prediction that a welfare climate shapes more progressive indigent defense policies. However, the results suggest that the racial threat hypothesis helps account for spending on indigent defense, and that Republican control of the statehouse results in the perpetuation of local responsibility for program funding. Normative literature on indigent defense suggests that the patterns we observe may have important consequences for the quality of indigent defense services across states. Further, the findings reported here suggest that the politics of the punitive turn, as it has played out across the states, may be responsible not only for shifts in crime control policy, but for due process policy as well.     

The use of simulation in criminal justice policy evaluation

The criminal justice system is administered at the local level by many independent agencies and departments, often without regard to each other's objectives and often at the expense of overall effectiveness. This study has attempted to relate the primary system goal of crime control to a set of policy alternatives distributed over each criminal justice sector. Specifically, a simulation model based on the techniques of “industrial dynamics” was developed to evaluate combinations of the following policies: speedy trial, no plea bargaining, and restricted bail. Data obtained from the District of Columbia's criminal justice agencies were used to validate the model. The results of the analysis indicate that the system is basically insensitive to small perturbations, but is susceptible to disruption from large changes in input and procedure. Under the given set of assumptions, continuation of current practices will lead to a gradual deterioration in performance that can only be stemmed by large expenditures on manpower and facilities.     

Diverting and Abdicating Judicial Discretion: Cultural, Political, and Procedural Dynamics in California Juvenile Justice

Although tensions between substantive and formal rationality in the adult criminal justice system have received a great deal of attention, the existence of these tensions in the juvenile justice system has received little scholarly consideration. I seek to remedy this gap by exploring how punitive policies associated with the war on crime impact the formal and informal process of justice, the court community and work group, and the exercise of discretion in the juvenile courts. Drawing on qualitative data collected in three juvenile courts in Southern California, I identify the mechanisms by which prosecutors divert judicial discretion from the traditional rehabilitation-oriented bench officers to bench officers who are more accepting of the criminalization of juveniles. In addition, I investigate how and why rehabilitation-oriented bench officers at times abdicate their decisionmaking authority and make rulings that contradict their own assessments. My findings suggest that as the war on crime is extended to youth, the juvenile courts increasingly share the criminal courts' emphasis on offense rather than offender, enhanced prosecutorial power, and adversarial relationships within the court.     

刑事政策的精神:惩治犯罪与促进社会发展的统一

惩治犯罪与促进社会发展的统一是刑事政策的精神。新中国成立以来,随着情势变迁,刑事政策审时而变。新中国的基本刑事政策经历了由"镇压与宽大相结合"至"惩办与宽大相结合",再至"宽严相济"的演进历程。镇压与宽大相结合刑事政策,主要针对反革命分子适用,其精神内涵是:镇压反革命,巩固新政权;恢复国民经济,保障三大改造。惩办与宽大相结合刑事政策则适用于所有的犯罪分子,并成为新中国第一部刑法典的立法指针,其精神内涵是:惩治各类犯罪,保障改革开放。在构建"和谐社会"的语境下,宽严相济的刑事政策应运而生,其精神内涵是:打击犯罪与保障人权相统一;以宽济严,构建和谐社会。三种基本刑事政策,不仅仅是在时间上的接续,而且就具体精神内涵而言,后者都是对前者的传承与超越,但总体精神都是惩治犯罪与促进社会发展相统一。     

Spatial justice and criminal victimization

Spatial variation in crime rates generally has been attributed to differences in culture, economic status, and the social organization of communities. Rarely have policies and practices of criminal justice professionals been examined as causes of this variation. If these policies and practices do place citizens at a higher risk of victimization, a sense of fairness requires that all communities in a region share equally in this increase. This article examines the spatial justice resulting from sentencing practices in Pennsylvania. It demonstrates that certain locations in Philadelphia bear an unequal burden because of these practices. The relatively high crime rates of these areas are due partly to decisions made by criminal justice professionals.     

A feminist analysis of the American criminal justice system’s response to human trafficking

While criminological and criminal justice scholars have made important contributions to human trafficking literature, to date, such scholarship has been devoid of a feminist analysis of the topic as scholars have spent little time reflecting on how patriarchy impacts the criminal justice system’s response to human trafficking. Such examination is necessary to understand how the issue of patriarchy impacts criminal justice system approaches to the crime as well as the outcomes of such anti-human trafficking efforts. It is argued the influence of patriarchy on criminal justice system policy development and practice undermines the system’s anti-human trafficking efforts.     

犯罪被害人的经济救济

在打击犯罪和保障人权的双重要求下,犯罪人成为传统刑事政策关注的重点,对犯罪被害人的救济尤其是经济方面的救济被忽略。随着现代刑事政策的发展,人们意识到犯罪被害人地位的提高、权利范围的扩展等也应相应的纳入到刑事政策的视野中,加强对犯罪被害人的经济救济就是其核心内容。以现代刑事政策为出发点,应着力提倡三种主要的犯罪被害人救济方式:犯罪人赔偿、国家补偿以及恢复性司法模式下对犯罪被害人的经济救济,说明对犯罪被害人实行有效的经济救济是一种理想和有效的刑事政策。     

需罚性在犯罪论体系中的功能与定位

作为对我国近年来发生争议的热点案件的一个理论回应,需罚性在犯罪论体系中的功能与定位被提出。我国目前的犯罪论体系均是以应罚性为中心展开的,缺乏对需罚性的判断,从而带来严重的理论与实践困境。犯罪论体系须认真对待刑法体系内的应罚性与刑法体系外的需罚性。从理论上,需罚性就是从刑事政策或宪法上判断有无刑罚处罚的必要性,是以预防的必要性为理论根据架设起刑事政策或宪法与刑法体系之间的桥梁,具有兼顾体系正义与个案正义的合目的性。同时,将需罚性导入我国犯罪论体系具有立法与司法基础,与我国实定法之间具有融贯性。我国应当建构应罚性与需罚性并重的犯罪论体系。