A Longitudinal Exploration of the Effect of Official Processing and Sanctioning on the Academic and Criminal Careers of College Students

This study examines the effect of official processing and sanctioning on the academic and criminal careers of a sample of college students from a large university in a southeastern college town. Using a series of OLS and logistic regression models, the results indicated that offense frequency and severity are risk factors for dropping out/or being dismissed from college, whereas membership in a sorority or fraternity is a protective factor. Additional analyses demonstrated that the severity of punishment as well as the type of punishment (e.g., judicial affairs punishment, criminal justice system punishment) also had a significant effect on future offending. Study limitations and policy implications are also discussed.     

Merging content analysis and the policy sciences: A system to discern policy-specific trends from news media reports

In this article we set out to bridge a surprising methodological gap between two time-honored research traditions – news media content analysis and the policy sciences analytic framework. Lasswell, a recognized pioneer of both the method and the framework, discussed the mutual benefits of each decades ago. But few researchers, if any, have formally linked the two. To that end, in this article we (1) make the case for using news media content analysis to inform research studies using the policy sciences analytic framework; (2) introduce an original content analysis categorical system for that purpose; (3) demonstrate that system with a study of 90 national news articles about the stratospheric ozone hole; and (4) compare our system to others used to examine news content. We report that our system, used by human coders, is well geared to describing and mapping trends in the social process surrounding the development of the Montreal Protocol ozone treaty during the intelligence gathering and promotion phases encompassed by our data sample. We argue that other content analysis systems fall short – in structure and purpose – of meeting the promise ours holds to the policy scientist.     

Police interrogation practice in Slovenia

Interrogation techniques are well explored, but in Slovenia it has remained unknown what interrogation techniques are used and what the basic characteristics of suspect interrogations are. The Slovenian interrogation manual proposes some coercive interrogation techniques and neglects their weaknesses. The aim of the current study was to examine Slovenian police officers’ beliefs as to the basic characteristics of their interrogations and whether techniques proposed by the manual are used in practice to begin to provide some insight into what actually happens in such interrogations. A survey instrument was used to obtain self-report data from a sample of criminal investigators. From 86 completed questionnaires it was found that a typical interrogation of a suspect lasts around 90 minutes and is not recorded. Interviewers typically use three interrogation techniques namely (i) conducting interrogations in isolation; (ii) identifying contradictions in the suspect's story; and (iii) confronting the suspect with evidence. Findings suggest that some coercive interrogation techniques are used in practice (e.g. offering moral justifications, alluding to have evidence of guilt, good cop/bad cop routine, and minimization). The study is the first insight into the practices of Slovenian investigators when questioning suspects. Differences among general, white-collar and organized crime investigators are also discussed.     

The nature of the beast: are citizens’ juries deliberative or pluralist?

Citizens’ juries are a form of “minipublics,” small-scale experiments with citizen participation in public decision-making. The article presents a theoretical argument that improves understanding relating to the design of the citizens’ jury. We develop the claim that two discourses on democracy can be discerned: the deliberative and the pluralist. By looking at the design features of citizens’ juries we conclude that they are based on pluralist reasoning to a far greater extent than most authors seem to realize, and that the association with deliberative democracy is therefore one-sided. Based on empirical findings, we attempt to shed further light on the actual operation of citizens’ juries. Observations of two recent Dutch juries suggest on the one hand that a learning process and a positive effect on the sense of political involvement occurred. On the other hand, we saw a certain level of groupthink in one of the citizens’ juries, and found that the juries are not greatly representative in terms of political preferences. Our findings point firstly to a need for greater awareness among the organizers of juries of the two democratic discourses. This would lead to more consistent jury design. Secondly, our research emphasizes the need for more hands-on critical research of minipublics.

Reducing Homelessness or Re‐ordering the Deckchairs?

The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 has come into force trumpeting nothing less than the need for a ‘culture change’ among local housing authorities implementing it. Although it aims to reduce homelessness, it is more likely to hide long‐term systemic issues in the housing system. It is argued that the 2017 Act's significant alterations are likely to result in a re‐ordering of the deckchairs on the Titanic of housing policy. Following a biography and critique of the homelessness legislation as being out of time and place, as well as a discussion of the 2017 Act itself, three central points are made: the 2017 Act has ushered in a form of neo‐liberal government of the homeless; the understanding of the household seeking assistance has fundamentally altered, from passive applicant to active citizen; the private rented market provides the sole mechanism for performing the duties but remains problematic.