Are Female Offenders Underreported Compared to Male Offenders? A German-Greek Comparison of Crime Reporting,Rating of Offence Seriousness and Personal Experiences of Victimisation

The difference in official crime statistics between women and men is a constant fact in criminology, but has yet to be explained in a satisfactory way. There are few studies addressing the issue of why this gender gap is larger in registered crime than it is in self-report studies. The study at hand comprises a survey among Greek and German students to examine whether this gap could be attributed to a gender-specific reporting of crime. Participants’ self-reported experiences of victimisation and their rating of the seriousness of offences depicted in case vignettes were used to gain insight into varying tendencies to report a crime depending on the offender’s gender. The act of reporting a crime did not vary gender-specifically.     

The Ecological Distribution of Community Advantage and Disadvantage: Power Structures,Political Economy,Communities, and Green-State Crime and Justice

Certain forms of criminology such as social disorganization theory examine how community characteristics influence crime. That approach, however glosses over the fact that the distribution of community advantages and disadvantages (CAD) has structural origins, and that the distribution of CAD is also an indicator of the kinds of social, economic and ecological injustice communities face. Building on observations recently made by Moloney and Chambliss concerning the integration of state and green criminological research, this article explores the structural origins of CAD, how taking a political economic view of CAD relates to the distribution of crime and injustice in communities, and how a CAD approach promotes the integration of state crime, radical criminological and green criminological research.     

Risky Business: Behavioral Profiles of Sexually-Impulsive Adults in the United States

The goal of the present study is to clarify the heterogeneity of risky behaviors (such as substance use, gambling, and crime) and psychiatric disorders among a large sample of 5304 nationally representative adults who acknowledge engaging in sexually-impulsive behaviors. Participants were selected from more than 43,000 respondents of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups of sexually-impulsive individuals and then multinomial regression was used to identify the relative risk for comorbidity with related impulsive behaviors or psychiatric disorders. Results showed that a four class solution provided the best fit and revealed higher odds of experiencing specific comorbid risky behaviors or psychiatric disorders based on class membership. Results challenge the widely held notion that self-regulatory behaviors are impacted globally, and instead suggest that certain self-regulatory behaviors are more likely to be impacted when other underlying conditions are present in sexually-impulsive individuals. Implications of this heterogeneity and recommendations for health care providers are discussed.     

An investigation into the risk perceptions held by maximum security correctional officers

Maximum security correctional officers play a crucial role in the establishment of order within their respective institutions of employment, yet they are also exposed to numerous occupational dangers that can threaten their general welfare. When they perceive high levels of injurious risk from workplace hazards, this cannot only jeopardize their job performance but lead to a poorly managed prison institution. Currently though, few studies have explored correctional officer perceptions of workplace dangers and risks, and even fewer have explored the factors that influence officer perceived risk of injury. Questionnaire data from a statewide population of maximum security correctional officers (N?=?649) were gathered in order to examine officer perceived risk of injury from workplace dangers, and the antecedents to this judgment. Results illustrated how officers perceived a high degree of injurious risk from their work, and that their risk perceptions were largely a product of psychological features of dangers. Theoretical and policy implications are discussed.     

Compensation for nuclear damage: a comparison among the international regime,Japan and China

Following the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, how the compensation system for nuclear damage should be improved has obtained broad attention. The compensation system, including liability rules, insurance and government involvement, does not only concern to what extent the victims can be sufficiently compensated, but is also relevant to create incentives for the nuclear industry to enhance safety. International compensation regimes for nuclear damage started to emerge since 1960s, but still fail to engage some (potentially) big “nuclear power” ones. The Japanese and Chinese systems are such ones which received less attention until recently. This paper will, on the one hand, engage in a positive study by giving a comparison between the international regime, the Japanese and the Chinese system; on the other hand, provide a normative analysis by using economic criteria to examine the efficiency of the systems and formulate suggestions for reform.     

Convenient and Inconvenient Truths in Family Law: Preventing Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in the Use of Social Science Research for Public Policy

This is the second of two articles on the risks of advocacy bias in the reporting of research findings when boundaries are blurred between social science research and advocacy in the pursuit of public policy. In the first article we identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence. The first article discusses the difference between truth in social science and truth in law and identifies a range of scholar‐advocacy strategies that bias research evidence, illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. In this second article we show how biased research evidence by scholar advocates results in increased confusion and controversy that diminishes the credibility of all parties and stalemates progress in the field, using a case illustration of intimate partner violence in family court. We also show how adherence to scientific methods prevents the misuse of research and suggest a number of collaborative, integrative measures that can help transcend the adversarial stalemate. In a look to the future we consider some unbiased, standardized ways of assessing the strength and generalizability of research evidence.     

The State of the Art of Child Hearings in Germany. Results of a Nationwide Representative Study in German Courts

According to German family law, in family court proceedings that deal with custody or access rights, family judges are obligated to personally hear the child if the feelings, ties, or will of the child are significant for the decision. In a research study commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Justice, a nationwide representative survey of all judges compiled their personal information and their attitudes and expectations as well as various parameters regarding the concrete practice of hearing children. Also, with a very complex methodological design, over 50 children and their parents were studied one week in advance of the hearing, directly before and after the hearing, and four weeks following the hearing. The results of the study are presented, particularly those pertaining to the burden and relief for the children and the expectations of judges. The practical experiences of family judges in personally hearing children are included as well.