SELECTIVE APPREHENSION: A POLICE STRATEGY FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS*

This study examines the effectiveness of the Repeat Offender Project (ROP), a specialized police unit in Washington, D.C. It documents how the ROP unit operated, what it cost, and how well it achieved its goal of “selecting, apprehending, and contributing to” the conviction of persons believed to be committing jive or more Part I offenses per week. A controlled experiment showed that the ROP substantially increased the likelihood of arrest for the persons it targeted. Quasi-experimental data indicated that ROP arrestees had longer and more serious histories of prior arrests than a comparison sample of arrestees of officers in other police units. The former arrestees were also more likely to be prosecuted and convicted on felony charges and more likely to be incarcerated. ROP officers’arrest productivity was cut in half; but this cost appears to have been offset by the greater seriousness of the current and prior offenses of its arrestees. The study concludes that the creation of selective apprehension units provides a promising new strategy for major urban police departments.     

THE IMPACT OF THE ETHNICITY AND GENDER OF DEFENDANTS ON THE DECISION TO REJECT OR DISMISS FELONY CHARGES*

While social scientists have long been interested in the issue of racial and sexual discrimination within the criminal justice system, they have concentrated on the decisions to convict and sentence and have paid relatively little attention to the decision to prosecute. This study examines the issue of pretrial discrimination by focusing on the prosecutor's decision to reject or dismiss charges against black, Anglo, and Hispanic male and female defendants in Los Angeles. The data reveal a pattern of discrimination in favor of female defendants and against black and Hispanic defendants. Hispanic males are most likely to be prosecuted fully, followed by black males, Anglo males, and females of all ethnic groups.     

ON THE USE OF NARRATIVES FOR ASSESSING DEVELOPMENT POLICY

The paper discusses the extent to which narratives enrich human development policy assessment beyond statistical data. Our arguments are divided in three parts. First, after introducing the capability approach, we examine the theoretical rationale for assessing policy beyond statistics and the relevance of narratives in policy assessment. Second, we review one major exception in policy assessment, the European Union (EU) Community Infrastructure measure. The paper theorizes interpretive approaches and the use of narratives in policy assessment. It suggests that in order for the capability approach to make a significant contribution to policy research we should explore the absolute presuppositions underpinning policy-making, and recognize that there is no intelligible distinction between quantitative and qualitative research: both acquire meaning in terms of the social plot in which they are mobilized. Consequently, we argue that future understanding of human wellbeing must be conceptualized within a meta-theoretic framework.