Survival analysis of criminal recidivism of boot camp graduates using elements from general and developmental explanatory models

This is a 5-year follow-up study of recidivism among 601 male graduates of a boot camp for adults in a southern state. Cox's proportional hazard analysis is used to determine the hazard rate of recidivism (arrest or parole violation) of several elements of general and developmental models. Analyses are conducted according to age of onset of unlawful behavior (10 years old or younger and older than 10 years). Findings indicate that caregiving factors have inverse relations with the hazard of recidivism, whereas low self-control, deficits in social skills, peer association with criminals, gang membership, drug use and sales, and carrying weapons have positive relationships with this hazard. These findings are observed irrespective of the age when persons begin committing offenses. Implications of the findings for theoretical models is discussed.     

Public attitudes towards the death penalty

Responses to a general question regarding the use of the death penalty were compared with the sentences that respondents chose in a set of scenarios describing homicide cases. The percentage of respondents who assigned the death sentence in one or more of the following scenarios was higher than those who favored the death penalty in the abstract question, but there were inconsistencies in the answers. A majority assigned the death penalty only for the most heinous offender described, and the figures were lower for other crimes, even clear cases of first degree murder. At the same time, a manipulation involving information about methods of execution did not affect answers. These results strongly suggest that the abstract questions typically used in public opinion polls do not accurately reflect the public's feelings about use of the death penalty in specific cases. More generally, research on public opinion regarding criminal justice policies should survey a variety of specific circumstances.     

Organizational Process,Rulemaking Pace,and the Shadow of Judicial Review

Scholars have long understood that structuring internal work processes into more hierarchical or team‐based arrangements has consequences for organizational outputs. Building on this insight, this research examines the relationship between how agencies organize their rulemaking routines and the resulting rules. Tracking the job functions of rule contacts for economically significant rules proposed over a four‐year period, the analysis demonstrates that expanding the breadth of personnel types closely involved in a rulemaking is associated with a reduction in the time it takes to promulgate the rule. However, increasing the pace at which rules are finalized is not without cost, as those completed faster appear more likely to be overturned when challenged in court. The article not only adds another dimension to empirical scholarship studying rulemaking, which has largely focused on how forces originating outside the agency affect rules, but also suggests the importance of considering competing priorities in designing rulemaking processes.     

Morality analysis: Reducing moral backlash to public policy

Widely used policy development processes rarely systematically consider differing moral values, which can lead to overlooked risks, ineffective communications and suboptimal policy design. This article introduces morality analysis, a policy tool that draws on moral foundations theory to optimize policy and program design, build public support for policies and present key advice to decision-makers. Morality analysis is used to examine the case of a controversial vaccination incentive program introduced by the Government of Alberta in late 2021 and identify policy options that would likely have prompted less public backlash. This article suggests that morality analysis should supplement the policy analysis toolkit.     

Lies Matter

Law and Philosophy -