The things a man once saw (and was): an appreciation of Richard Quinney

Richard Quinney ranks among the noted criminologists of the twentieth century, especially among progressives. He is also a photographer of note, drawing on scenes from his native Wisconsin to reflect his deep inner life. Things once seen, published in 2009 by Borderland Books, is a 40‐year retrospective of his photographic work. It is a deeply religious work that celebrates the requirements of life lived by a “radical realism”. In June 2009 Doctor Quinney was presented with the Sullivan–Tifft Vanguard Award at the annual meeting of the Justice Studies Association.     

Risk,reconviction rates and pro-offending attitudes for child molesters in a complete geographical area of London

Abstract

The study reports on all convicted child molesters in an inner city area over seven years, half of whom received a community treatment package. The average time at risk in the community was three years. There were 17 ‘failures’: subjects who were either breached for non-compliance, or reconvicted for general, violent or sexual offences. Historical, rather than cognitive variables appeared to be associated with failure. Key factors were a history of being sexually victimised and previous sexual/violent convictions.     

Offenders have higher delay‐discounting rates than non‐offenders after controlling for differences in drug and alcohol abuse

Purpose. Do criminal offenders discount future rewards more rapidly than non‐offenders? Theories of criminality assume that impulsivity is a key predictor of offending and suggest an affirmative answer, but there are no prior relevant studies with adult offenders and the only previous study with juveniles failed to find that offenders discounted delayed rewards more steeply than controls ( Wilson & Daly, 2006 ). Method. We measured rates of delay discounting for adult offenders incarcerated in two medium‐security facilities in New Zealand (n= 63) and non‐offender controls (n= 70) using a questionnaire which asked participants to nominate an indifference point – an amount of money to be received after a delay that was equal in value to an immediate amount – for immediate rewards varying from $500 to $4,000. Indifference points were converted to annual discounting rates. Self‐reported measures of alcohol and drug abuse were also obtained. Results. Offenders discounted future rewards substantially more than non‐offenders, and rates varied systematically with amount and delay for both groups, consistent with previous research. The difference in delay discounting between offenders and controls remained significant after controlling for self‐reported drug and alcohol use. There were no significant gender differences. Conclusions. These results suggest that offenders have a deficit in delay discounting, likely appearing in late adolescence or early adulthood, which may lead them to make suboptimal choices.     

Congressional apportionment and the fourteenth amendment

This paper examines state interest in the nine bases of congressional seat apportionment considered for the House of Representatives as part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. We ask, what if voters preferred apportionments that delivered larger vote shares to their state? We then show that among all states, one basis of apportionment was a weak Condorcet winner, while the others were in a vote cycle. In both chambers of Congress, however, pure majority voting created orderings of the nine bases and a different Condorcet winner. Ironically, Congress did not select either Condorcet winner. Instead, a population-based apportionment was reported out of committee and passed both chambers as a consequence of agenda control and lack of pairwise voting. Our analysis provides an example of how agenda setting with incomplete information unintentionally can produce undesirable outcomes for a legislature.

     

Investigating the Functional Form of the Self-control–Delinquency Relationship in a Sample of Serious Young Offenders

Objective

This work further examines the functional form of the self-control–delinquency relationship as an extension of recent work by Mears et al. (J Quant Criminol, 2013). Given the importance of the authors’ conclusions regarding the nonlinear relationship between these two variables and the recognition that there are some potential limitations in the sample and assumptions required for the analytic methods used, we apply both similar and alternative techniques with a data set comprised of serious youthful offenders to determine whether key findings can be replicated.

Methods

Data from the Pathways to Desistance study, which comprise extensive individual and social history interviews with 1,354 offenders over multiple waves spread out over 84 months, is utilized in this analysis. These data are well-suited to investigating the questions of interest as the target population comprises youth with offending histories that are more extensive than those likely to be found in general surveys of adolescents. The analyses consider the self-control–delinquency relationship in an alternative sample with the previously used Generalized Propensity Score (GPS) procedure, which requires strong assumptions, as well as nonparametric regression which requires far weaker assumptions to consider the functional form of the self-control–delinquency relationship.

Results

The results generally show that the identified functional form of the self-control–delinquency relationship seems to be at least partly dependent on aspects of the modeling of dose–response associated with GPS procedures. When nonparametric general additive models are used with the same data, the relationship between self-control and delinquency seems to be approximately linear.

Conclusions

Identifying functional form relationships has importance for many criminological theories, but it is a task that requires that the balance of model assumptions to exploratory data analysis falls toward the latter. Nonparametric approaches to such questions may be a necessary first step in learning about the nature of mechanisms presumed to be at work in important explanations for crime and criminality.     

Managing Pluralism: The European Case

This article begins by clarifying the meanings attributed to pluralism; it then places the European case in a global context. The body of the article looks at the management of religious pluralism in Europe in terms of commonality and difference. At one and the same time, Europe is becoming increasingly secular and religiously plural—both trends are important if we are to understand the issues at stake. A close examination of four individual cases (Britain, France, the Netherlands and Greece) reveals, however, that it is important not to jump to conclusions regarding outcomes. Each country must be considered on its own terms. The final section introduces a rather different feature: the European Court of Human Rights, noting its place in the management of religious pluralism. A growing jurisprudence emanating from the Court is becoming increasingly influential.     

Access to expensive anti-cancer drugs

Expensive anti-cancer drugs expose controversy underlying the process for resource allocation decisions, and intermittently result in marked publicity, emotive discussions about access to novel and expensive treatments, and political involvement which may override existing processes. This column outlines the methods of determining whether or not a treatment is considered appropriate to fund, and focuses upon the evidence of patient and doctor wishes. The existing research illustrates the complexity of patient and oncologist decision-making when these drugs are to be considered. Past litigation to obtain access to expensive treatments is discussed, along with the interactions between patients, pharmaceutical companies, health services and oncologists. This evolving field is being transformed by developments in molecular biology enabling targeted drugs, and amply demonstrates the complexity of funding decisions and how expensive treatments are considered by a range of stakeholders.