What do prosecutors maximize? An analysis of the federalization of drug crimes

Recent legislation has expanded the jurisdiction of the federalgovernment over crimes that were traditionally prohibited onlyby state law. We model the decision-making process of stateand federal prosecutors, and the determinants of prosecutors'decisions to allocate drug cases to the state versus the federalsystems. Using 1991 surveys of state and federal inmates incarceratedfor drug crimes, we find that individuals who hire private attorneysand who are high-human-capital and successful in the legitimatesector are more likely to end up in the federal system. Thisis consistent with the model in which prosecutors maximize boththe payoffs from eliminating crime and their private human capital.     

Obama Is No Better Than Bush

President Barack Obama has extended the hand of engagement to the Muslim and Arab world, while warning Israel against new settlements in occupied Palestine and hedging his bets with remote drone strikes against Al-Qaida and the Taliban in Pakistan. The new CIA director, a military historian and the Somali-born feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali assess his strategy.     

Do drug courts reduce the use of incarceration?: A meta-analysis

Purpose

The objective of this research was to synthesize the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of adult drug courts to serve as an alternative to incarceration, and to investigate which features of drug courts predict successful diversion.

Methods

We performed a series of meta-analyses of different incarceration outcomes, and performed meta-regression analyses investigating which features of drug courts predict successful diversion.

Results

Drug courts significantly reduced the incidence of incarceration on the precipitating offense, corresponding to a reduction in confinement from 50% to 42% for jail and 38% for prison incarceration. However, drug courts did not significantly reduce the average amount of time offenders spent behind bars, suggesting that any benefits realized from a lower incarceration rate are offset by the long sentences imposed on participants when they fail the program. Meta-regression results indicated that certain drug courts features (i.e., program intensity, in-program sanctions, risk profile of participants) are related to incarceration outcomes.

Conclusions

The evidence concerning drug courts impact on incarceration is mixed. Drug courts eliminate the experience of incarceration for many drug-involved offenders, but they also do not appear to reduce the aggregate, near-term burden placed upon correctional resources. More research is required to confirm these findings.     

Patterns of substance involvement and criminal behavior: a gender-based cluster analysis of Pennsylvania arrestees

Recent drug-crime scholarship has underscored the importance of conducting disaggregated research that focuses on the consistencies and variations between subcategories of drug misuse and criminal activity and, further, how these associations may vary across sociodemographic and cultural boundaries. The research presented in this article used cluster analysis to independently classify male and female arrestees based on their arrest charges and substance-specific indicators of initiation, use, dependence, and treatment need. The data come from Pennsylvania's Substance Abuse and Need for Treatment Among Arrestees study conducted as part of the State Treatment Needs Assessment Program. Five groups were identified in both the male and female cluster analyses. The results reveal both important differences and strong similarities in the drug-crime typologies of male and female arrestees. Given these findings, implications are discussed for developing and targeting responsive treatment services that match the particular risks and needs of drug-involved offenders.     

Assessing the Effects of Medical Marijuana Laws on Marijuana Use: The Devil is in the Details

This paper sheds light on previous inconsistencies identified in the literature regarding the relationship between medical marijuana laws (MMLs) and recreational marijuana use by closely examining the importance of policy dimensions (registration requirements, home cultivation, dispensaries) and the timing of when particular policy dimensions are enacted. Using data from our own legal analysis of state MMLs, we evaluate which features are associated with adult and youth recreational and heavy use by linking these policy variables to data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) and National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97). We employ differences‐in‐differences techniques, controlling for state and year fixed effects, allowing us to exploit within‐state policy changes. We find that while simple dichotomous indicators of MML laws are not positively associated with marijuana use or abuse, such measures hide the positive influence legal dispensaries have on adult and youth use, particularly heavy use. Sensitivity analyses that help address issues of policy endogeneity and actual implementation of dispensaries support our main conclusion that not all MML laws are the same. Dimensions of these policies, in particular legal protection of dispensaries, can lead to greater recreational marijuana use and abuse among adults and those under the legal age of 21 relative to MMLs without this supply source.