Criminologists,duct tape,and Indigenous peoples: quantifying the use of silencing research methods

A recent quantitative evaluation of mainstream criminological research found that there is a dearth of research on “Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice context” conducted in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States and published in elite criminology journals while these nations continue to incarcerate Indigenous peoples at markedly disproportionate rates. Although the silence prohibits public attention to this social issue, counter-colonial critics have mostly focused on criminologists who deliberately marginalize Indigenous peoples through use of inappropriate research methods. This study is a first attempt to quantify the use of “silencing research methods” in contemporary mainstream criminology. It involves a comprehensive review of research published in elite criminology journals over the past decade (2001–2010). The findings reveal that although mainstream criminologists generally prefer non-silencing research tools, they primarily employ silencing research methods when studying Indigenous peoples. Also, studies that focus on Native American peoples use silencing research tools more often than studies on other disproportionately incarcerated social groups, i.e., African and Hispanic Americans. The study concludes that by using “silencing research methods,” elite mainstream criminology has contributed to the marginalization of Indigenous peoples to varying degrees in all four countries over the past decade.     

Putting risk factors in their place: an evolutionary-developmental approach to understanding risk

ABSTRACT

The assessment of criminal risk plays a prominent role in the criminal justice systems of many different countries and risk assessment is employed in a number of different domains. Given the importance of risk assessment tools in forensic contexts, and the amount of research devoted to evaluating their accuracy in predicting re-offending, it might be expected that risk assessment tools are grounded in our best theoretical understanding of the causal processes that give rise to criminal actions. However, it is not at all clear that this is the case. In this article, I will argue that one important area of neglect is the failure to fully engage with the literature in developmental and life-course criminology which also has directed an enormous amount of effort in to identifying risk factors for offending. At the heart of this neglect, I will claim, is the failure to fully recognise the key distinction between predicting offending and predicting re-offending. I will further argue that an evolutionary developmental perspective provides the theoretical resources to provide fully explanatory accounts of offending and re-offending, and in which risk factors can be appropriately located. I conclude by briefly considering some implications for theory, research, and practice.     

Advances in research on illicit networks

This paper introduces the contributions included in the special issue of ‘Advances in Research on Illicit Networks’. It situates the collection of papers in the growing trend of studies applying network methods to illicit networks.     

《唐律疏议》与犯罪学

《唐律疏议》是唐朝的一部主要法典，也是我国现存第一部内容完整的法典。它与犯罪学关系密切，含有关于犯罪行为、犯罪原因、犯罪类型、犯罪对策等理论。与现代犯罪学理论相比，《唐律疏议》又有明显的差异，突出表现在它具有一些现代犯罪学中所没有的特权、等级关系、相隐、刑讯等内容。     

Living in Partner-violent Families: Developmental Links to Antisocial Behavior and Relationship Violence

Links between living in a partner-violent home and subsequent aggressive and antisocial behavior are suggested by the “cycle of violence” hypothesis derived from social learning theory. Although there is some empirical support, to date, findings have been generally limited to cross-sectional studies predominantly of young children, or retrospective studies of adults. We address this issue with prospective data from the Rochester Youth Development Study (RYDS), an ongoing longitudinal investigation of the development of antisocial behavior in a community sample of 1,000 urban youth followed from age 14 to adulthood. The original panel included 68% African American, 17% Hispanic, and 15% White participants, and was 72.9% male, and 27.1% female. Measures come from a combination of sources including interviews with parents, interviews with youth, and official records. We test the general hypothesis that there is a relationship between living in partner-violent homes during adolescence, and later antisocial behavior and relationship violence. Employing logistic regression and controlling for related covariates, including child physical abuse, we find a significant relationship between exposure to parental violence and adolescent conduct problems. The relationship between exposure to parental violence and measures of antisocial behavior and relationship aggression dissipates in early adulthood, however, exposure to severe parental violence is significantly related to early adulthood violent crime, and intimate partner violence. Our results suggest that exposure to severe parental violence during adolescence is indeed consequential for violent interactions in adulthood.

Regulation and governance versus criminology: Disciplinary divides,intersections, and opportunities

This paper seeks to bridge the disciplinary gap between regulation and governance studies, and criminology. Based on a review of theoretical and empirical work on corporate crime, this paper argues that divergent approaches to questions of individual agency, localized variety, and political context, have drawn these two disciplines in different directions. Regulatory governance scholarship has thrived as a discipline, but has also narrowed its focus around these issues. Corporate criminology offers a means of broadening this focus by drawing attention to the normative theorizing behind the regulatory project. At the same time, however, insights drawn from regulatory governance scholarship can prompt corporate criminology to innovate by broadening the scope of its engagement beyond the sphere of traditional criminal justice. The paper argues for the development of a research agenda to sit at their intersection, to engage with the challenges that exist at the interface between criminal and regulatory law.     

Institutional anomie and cross-national differences in incarceration†

Messner and Rosenfeld's (2007) institutional anomie theory (IAT) has mainly been applied by criminologists to explain crime rates at various aggregate levels. However, Messner and Rosenfeld also suggest that the same social and cultural forces that lead to high crime may explain differences in punishment, although this latter proposition has yet to be subject to empirical testing. Using a variety of data sources for 41 countries measuring various structural and cultural configurations, in this study we assess the extent to which IAT can explain cross-national differences in incarceration. Our results indicate that the strength of the economic institution and the extent of institutional imbalance reflecting a dominant economic institution are positively associated with incarceration rates when the national culture is characterized by individualism, a competitive achievement orientation, or both. A national culture characterized by both collectivism and a cooperative achievement orientation, however, serves as a buffer against the punitive effects of an institutional imbalance that favors the economy. Our results are discussed in the context of the extant IAT literature and future research on cross-national incarceration.     

生态犯罪学论纲

生态环境是人类赖以生存和发展的基本条件。随着全球近50年、我国近20年来生态环境的恶化,人们的环保意识逐渐有所觉醒和提高,认识到破坏生态环境的行为是战略性犯罪或曰"原罪"。因此,在犯罪学学科建设中有必要把对"生态犯罪学"的研究提上日程,并就什么是生态犯罪,其研究对象、目的、范围、必要性和特点,以及解决生态问题的基本出路等问题进行深入探讨。     

生物安全--犯罪学研究的新领域

科学是一把无情的双刃剑,转基因技术在为人类带来福音的同时,也会制造出一系列潜在的社会、生态和经济危险.一系列以转基因技术为中心的生物安全问题,正越来越受到人们的关注,在当代犯罪学正继续将犯罪的领域扩展到经济、环境污染、危险控制、政府和全球化之时,生物安全带来的潜在关注无疑会为犯罪学的理论与实践开拓新的肥沃疆土.     

How you can tell if the simulations in computational criminology are any good

Computational criminology applies computer simulations to study topics of interest for criminologists. Just as for all computer modelling in science, the validity of the simulations ultimately depends on whether they are able to reproduce empirical phenomena with sufficient accuracy. The only way in which this can be determined is by comparing model output to real observations. This paper provides an overview of how such model evaluations can be undertaken.