Detection of Cutting Agents in Drug‐Positive Seized Exhibits within the United States

The following report summarizes a study performed on seized drug exhibits collected in two U.S. states to evaluate the presence and identification of cutting agents. Aliquots of seized drug materials from Kentucky (n = 200) and Vermont (n = 315) were prepared using a dilute‐and‐shoot procedure. Initial analysis was performed using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC‐MS) followed by analysis using liquid chromatography quadrupole time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry (LC‐QTOF). Active compounds detected overall included caffeine (31.0%), quinine/quinidine (24.7%), levamisole (11.6%), acetaminophen, (8.2%) and procaine (8.2%). These compounds were found with several drugs of abuse, such as heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine. This novel information about cutting agents used to dilute or alter drugs of abuse is important to criminal investigations and in the management of acute intoxications at health centers. However, common methodologies for analysis and standard reporting practices frequently do not include cutting agents, resulting in lacking or inadequate information regarding prevalence of these substances.     

Punitive Restoration and Restorative Justice

Criminal justice policy faces the twin challenges of improving our crime reduction efforts while increasing public confidence. These challenges are exacerbated by the fact that at least some measures popular with the public are counterproductive to greater crime reduction. How to achieve greater crime reduction without sacrificing public confidence? While restorative justice approaches offer a promising alternative to traditional sentencing with the potential to achieve these goals, they suffer from several serious obstacles, not least their relatively limited applicability, flexibility, and public support. Punitive restoration is a new and distinctive idea about restorative justice modeled on an important principle of stakeholding, which states that those who have a stake in penal outcomes should have a say about them. Punitive restoration is restorative insofar as it aims to achieve the restoration of rights infringed or threatened by criminal offences. Punitive restoration is punitive insofar as the available options for this agreement are more punitive than found in most restorative justice approaches, such as the option of some form of hard treatment. Punitive restoration sheds new light on how we may meet the twin challenges of improving our efforts to reduce reoffending without sacrificing public confidence, demonstrating how restorative practices can be embedded deeper within the criminal justice system.     

Politics,Fiscal Necessity,or Both? Factors Driving the Enactment of Defined Contribution Accounts for Public Employees

Recent conflicts over public sector defined benefit pension funding have inspired polarized debates about the need for reform, including the utility of replacing pensions with defined contribution accounts, which are popular throughout the private sector. Between 1996 and 2011, 15 American states enacted legislation to implement either mandatory or optional defined contribution accounts for certain public employees. What drove this process? This article investigates the role of political, budgetary, and contagion influences on the diffusion of defined contribution accounts for general state employees. Empirical results suggest that enactments were influenced by Republican legislative, but not executive, partisanship. Gains in state indebtedness also increased the likelihood of enactment independent of political and other factors. There is no evidence of policy learning based on neighboring state activity and no influence from two measures of organized labor power. Both quantitative and qualitative robustness checks largely reinforce these findings.