The use of simulation in criminal justice policy evaluation

The criminal justice system is administered at the local level by many independent agencies and departments, often without regard to each other's objectives and often at the expense of overall effectiveness. This study has attempted to relate the primary system goal of crime control to a set of policy alternatives distributed over each criminal justice sector. Specifically, a simulation model based on the techniques of “industrial dynamics” was developed to evaluate combinations of the following policies: speedy trial, no plea bargaining, and restricted bail. Data obtained from the District of Columbia's criminal justice agencies were used to validate the model. The results of the analysis indicate that the system is basically insensitive to small perturbations, but is susceptible to disruption from large changes in input and procedure. Under the given set of assumptions, continuation of current practices will lead to a gradual deterioration in performance that can only be stemmed by large expenditures on manpower and facilities.     

The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability

The concepts of transparency and accountability are closely linked: transparency is supposed to generate accountability. This article questions this widely held assumption. Transparency mobilises the power of shame, yet the shameless may not be vulnerable to public exposure. Truth often fails to lead to justice. After exploring different definitions and dimensions of the two ideas, the more relevant question turns out to be: what kinds of transparency lead to what kinds of accountability, and under what conditions? The article concludes by proposing that the concept can be unpacked in terms of two distinct variants. Transparency can be either ‘clear’ or ‘opaque’, while accountability can be either ‘soft’ or ‘hard’.