Pub Date : 2021-07-26DOI: 10.1177/08874034211033328
Erica Jovanna Magaña, D. Perrone, Aili Malm
In 2016, San Francisco (SF) implemented the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, a harm reduction–based pre-booking diversion system for people who violate drug laws and/or are engaged in sex work. LEAD is set apart from existing diversion programs, as it uses police as point of entry. Prior LEAD studies indicate some success in reducing recidivism and improving life outcomes. However, less is known about program implementation, including barriers and facilitators. Relying on policy documents, interviews, and focus groups, this study describes the LEAD SF’s development, operations, adaptations, and challenges. It also identifies the unique context of LEAD SF that led to implementation barriers and facilitators. Results show that SF experienced success in collaboration, relationship building, and client connections to services but experienced challenges in securing and maintaining police officer buy-in and keeping clear and open lines of communication regarding LEAD goals, objectives, policies, and procedures. This led to the termination of LEAD SF in 2020.
{"title":"A Process Evaluation of San Francisco’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program","authors":"Erica Jovanna Magaña, D. Perrone, Aili Malm","doi":"10.1177/08874034211033328","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211033328","url":null,"abstract":"In 2016, San Francisco (SF) implemented the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, a harm reduction–based pre-booking diversion system for people who violate drug laws and/or are engaged in sex work. LEAD is set apart from existing diversion programs, as it uses police as point of entry. Prior LEAD studies indicate some success in reducing recidivism and improving life outcomes. However, less is known about program implementation, including barriers and facilitators. Relying on policy documents, interviews, and focus groups, this study describes the LEAD SF’s development, operations, adaptations, and challenges. It also identifies the unique context of LEAD SF that led to implementation barriers and facilitators. Results show that SF experienced success in collaboration, relationship building, and client connections to services but experienced challenges in securing and maintaining police officer buy-in and keeping clear and open lines of communication regarding LEAD goals, objectives, policies, and procedures. This led to the termination of LEAD SF in 2020.","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"148 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211033328","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42905374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-08DOI: 10.1177/08874034211030555
Esther Nir, Siyu Liu
Mandatory minimums limit judicial discretion in many jurisdictions in the United States, often compelling judges to impose harsh incarcerative terms. Using qualitative interviews with 41 criminal term judges presiding in a state in the United States, we explore how mandatory minimums influence the judicial sentencing function. We find that judges vary in their approaches to sentencing and that their approaches correspond with their perceptions of mandatory minimum statutes. While our respondents consider case-level, systemic, and pragmatic factors, the majority of judges are focused on the case level and perceive that mandatory minimums often strip away the flexibility they need to craft appropriate sentences in individual cases, leading to punishments that are unduly harsh, and sometimes preventing the imposition of promising alternatives to incarceration. Some judges experience moral dilemmas and guilt feelings during this process. In contrast, judges who highlight pragmatic factors (e.g., public perceptions) are more receptive to statutory restrictions.
{"title":"The Challenge of Imposing Just Sentences Under Mandatory Minimum Statutes: A Qualitative Study of Judicial Perceptions","authors":"Esther Nir, Siyu Liu","doi":"10.1177/08874034211030555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211030555","url":null,"abstract":"Mandatory minimums limit judicial discretion in many jurisdictions in the United States, often compelling judges to impose harsh incarcerative terms. Using qualitative interviews with 41 criminal term judges presiding in a state in the United States, we explore how mandatory minimums influence the judicial sentencing function. We find that judges vary in their approaches to sentencing and that their approaches correspond with their perceptions of mandatory minimum statutes. While our respondents consider case-level, systemic, and pragmatic factors, the majority of judges are focused on the case level and perceive that mandatory minimums often strip away the flexibility they need to craft appropriate sentences in individual cases, leading to punishments that are unduly harsh, and sometimes preventing the imposition of promising alternatives to incarceration. Some judges experience moral dilemmas and guilt feelings during this process. In contrast, judges who highlight pragmatic factors (e.g., public perceptions) are more receptive to statutory restrictions.","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"177 - 205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211030555","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49231715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1177/08874034211026366
Timothy Griffin, Joshua H. Williams, Colleen Kadleck
Prior research based on limited datasets has suggested AMBER Alerts do little to prevent harm to child abduction victims. However, to investigate the possibility of recent improvements in AMBER Alert performance, the authors examine a sample of 472 AMBER Alerts issued over a 3-year period from 2012 to 2015, using available media accounts to code for relevant case information. The findings are consistent with prior research questioning AMBER Alert effectiveness: The crucial variable predicting Alert outcomes is abductor relationship to the victim, not AMBER Alert “performance.” Furthermore, cases involving “successful” AMBER Alerts are comparable on measurable factors to AMBER Alert cases where the child was recovered safely but the Alert played no role, suggesting both categories of cases involved little real risk. Implications for interpreting the viability of the AMBER Alert concept, public discourse regarding its contribution to child safety, and larger implications for crime control policy are discussed.
{"title":"AMBER Alert Effectiveness Reexamined","authors":"Timothy Griffin, Joshua H. Williams, Colleen Kadleck","doi":"10.1177/08874034211026366","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211026366","url":null,"abstract":"Prior research based on limited datasets has suggested AMBER Alerts do little to prevent harm to child abduction victims. However, to investigate the possibility of recent improvements in AMBER Alert performance, the authors examine a sample of 472 AMBER Alerts issued over a 3-year period from 2012 to 2015, using available media accounts to code for relevant case information. The findings are consistent with prior research questioning AMBER Alert effectiveness: The crucial variable predicting Alert outcomes is abductor relationship to the victim, not AMBER Alert “performance.” Furthermore, cases involving “successful” AMBER Alerts are comparable on measurable factors to AMBER Alert cases where the child was recovered safely but the Alert played no role, suggesting both categories of cases involved little real risk. Implications for interpreting the viability of the AMBER Alert concept, public discourse regarding its contribution to child safety, and larger implications for crime control policy are discussed.","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"23 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211026366","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48978436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-01DOI: 10.1177/08874034211028276
J. Sloan, B. Fisher
Debates over concealed carrying of guns on campus (CCOC) usually classify states as either “allowing” or “prohibiting” CCOC, thus ignoring research revealing state firearm regulatory frameworks are more nuanced. This study examined whether such subtleties existed in state CCOC regulatory frameworks by analyzing states’ 2018 CCOC regulatory provisions. Results showed that states used a multi-categorical restrictiveness-by-institutional discretion framework to regulate CCOC. In addition, indicators of intrastate contexts of influence (firearms, political, and religious) on regulatory policy differed across categories of restrictiveness and institutional discretion. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed significant differences in indicators of states’ political contexts, and post hoc comparisons of paired marginal means revealed significant differences in political indicators between states prohibiting CCOC and those allowing or those with mixed restrictiveness, and between states according schools full discretion and those according schools no discretion. Implications of the results are discussed for state-level research on firearms regulation and the ongoing CCOC debate.
{"title":"Concealed Carrying on Campus in the Post–Virginia Tech Era: Dimensions of State Regulation and Differences in Contexts of Influence Within Them","authors":"J. Sloan, B. Fisher","doi":"10.1177/08874034211028276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211028276","url":null,"abstract":"Debates over concealed carrying of guns on campus (CCOC) usually classify states as either “allowing” or “prohibiting” CCOC, thus ignoring research revealing state firearm regulatory frameworks are more nuanced. This study examined whether such subtleties existed in state CCOC regulatory frameworks by analyzing states’ 2018 CCOC regulatory provisions. Results showed that states used a multi-categorical restrictiveness-by-institutional discretion framework to regulate CCOC. In addition, indicators of intrastate contexts of influence (firearms, political, and religious) on regulatory policy differed across categories of restrictiveness and institutional discretion. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed significant differences in indicators of states’ political contexts, and post hoc comparisons of paired marginal means revealed significant differences in political indicators between states prohibiting CCOC and those allowing or those with mixed restrictiveness, and between states according schools full discretion and those according schools no discretion. Implications of the results are discussed for state-level research on firearms regulation and the ongoing CCOC debate.","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"45 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211028276","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48748894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-30DOI: 10.1177/08874034211028273
Jessica M. Craig, H. Zettler, Chad R. Trulson
In response to critiques of traditional juvenile justice processing and waiver to adult court, several states have adopted blended sentencing. These sentences fall in between these two approaches as they offer the benefits of the more rehabilitative-oriented juvenile system, with the option to deploy more punitive adult criminal sanctions. While previous research has indicated violent offenders were more likely to receive a blended sentence, it has not distinguished between those who were eligible for a blended sentence but did not receive this sanction. The current study seeks to address this gap and examine legal and extralegal predictors of receiving a blended sentence among those eligible. The analyses indicated that while those adjudicated for homicide and aggravated robbery were most likely to be given a blended sentence, other predictors such as prior probation failure and previous violence toward the family were associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving this sentence.
{"title":"What Predicts the Use of Blended Sentences Among Eligible Juveniles? A State-Wide Examination","authors":"Jessica M. Craig, H. Zettler, Chad R. Trulson","doi":"10.1177/08874034211028273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211028273","url":null,"abstract":"In response to critiques of traditional juvenile justice processing and waiver to adult court, several states have adopted blended sentencing. These sentences fall in between these two approaches as they offer the benefits of the more rehabilitative-oriented juvenile system, with the option to deploy more punitive adult criminal sanctions. While previous research has indicated violent offenders were more likely to receive a blended sentence, it has not distinguished between those who were eligible for a blended sentence but did not receive this sanction. The current study seeks to address this gap and examine legal and extralegal predictors of receiving a blended sentence among those eligible. The analyses indicated that while those adjudicated for homicide and aggravated robbery were most likely to be given a blended sentence, other predictors such as prior probation failure and previous violence toward the family were associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving this sentence.","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"99 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211028273","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49339411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-11DOI: 10.1177/08874034211021894
Victoria A. Sytsma, Eric L. Piza, Vijay F. Chillar, Leigh S. Grossman
This study capitalizes on a successful researcher–practitioner partnership to conduct a systematic social observation (SSO) of police body-worn camera (BWC) footage in Newark, NJ. To demonstrate the utility of BWCs as performance monitoring tools, we measure officer adherence to procedural justice standards throughout use of force events as mandated in the Newark Police Division’s updated policies pursuant to an ongoing federal consent decree. Overall, a slim majority of use of force events are procedurally just. However, results indicate several instances of policy noncompliance. Results are discussed, and policy recommendations related to procedural justice policy violations and BWCs for performance monitoring are provided.
{"title":"Measuring Procedural Justice Policy Adherence During Use of Force Events: The Body-Worn Camera as a Performance Monitoring Tool","authors":"Victoria A. Sytsma, Eric L. Piza, Vijay F. Chillar, Leigh S. Grossman","doi":"10.1177/08874034211021894","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211021894","url":null,"abstract":"This study capitalizes on a successful researcher–practitioner partnership to conduct a systematic social observation (SSO) of police body-worn camera (BWC) footage in Newark, NJ. To demonstrate the utility of BWCs as performance monitoring tools, we measure officer adherence to procedural justice standards throughout use of force events as mandated in the Newark Police Division’s updated policies pursuant to an ongoing federal consent decree. Overall, a slim majority of use of force events are procedurally just. However, results indicate several instances of policy noncompliance. Results are discussed, and policy recommendations related to procedural justice policy violations and BWCs for performance monitoring are provided.","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"938 - 959"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211021894","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41657910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-10DOI: 10.1177/08874034211021899
Bryan Holmes, Christopher D’amato, S. Holmes
Prior sentencing research has identified leniency afforded to females (compared with males) and those with familial responsibility (compared with those without). Studies have also found that the effect of defendant gender, familial responsibility, and their intersections depend on the type of offense examined. What remains unclear is the situations in which these factors matter more or less. The purpose of this study is to disaggregate extralegal effects by understanding how gender, familial responsibility, and their intersections influence federal sentencing outcomes across various offense types. Findings from this study suggest that gender, familial responsibility, and their combinations exert different influences depending on the (a) dependent variable and (b) offense type examined.
{"title":"The Offense-Specific Nature of Gender and Familial Responsibility in United States Federal Sentencing, 2010–2016","authors":"Bryan Holmes, Christopher D’amato, S. Holmes","doi":"10.1177/08874034211021899","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211021899","url":null,"abstract":"Prior sentencing research has identified leniency afforded to females (compared with males) and those with familial responsibility (compared with those without). Studies have also found that the effect of defendant gender, familial responsibility, and their intersections depend on the type of offense examined. What remains unclear is the situations in which these factors matter more or less. The purpose of this study is to disaggregate extralegal effects by understanding how gender, familial responsibility, and their intersections influence federal sentencing outcomes across various offense types. Findings from this study suggest that gender, familial responsibility, and their combinations exert different influences depending on the (a) dependent variable and (b) offense type examined.","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"399 - 428"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211021899","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45368173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-10DOI: 10.1177/08874034211021893
Katherine A. Durante
This article examines the relationship between race, ethnicity, county-level contextual variables, and sentence lengths for Black, Latinx, and White individuals sentenced to prison. Hierarchical linear modeling is used to examine the focal concerns perspective, the racial/ethnic threat thesis, socioeconomic inequality across racial/ethnic groups, political climate, and individual-level factors and sentence lengths. Data come from the National Corrections Reporting Program and other sources to examine sentences for over 500,000 individuals admitted to U.S. prisons between 2015 and 2017, from 751 counties. Results indicate that Black and Latinx individuals receive longer sentences than their White counterparts, even after controlling for relevant variables. The racial/ethnic threat thesis is not supported. Black individuals are sentenced longer than their White counterparts in counties with larger shares of Republican voters. Findings indicate that race and ethnicity continue to be salient predictors of punishment, with Black and Latinx individuals facing harsher outcomes than their White counterparts.
{"title":"County-Level Context and Sentence Lengths for Black, Latinx, and White Individuals Sentenced to Prison: A Multi-Level Assessment","authors":"Katherine A. Durante","doi":"10.1177/08874034211021893","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211021893","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the relationship between race, ethnicity, county-level contextual variables, and sentence lengths for Black, Latinx, and White individuals sentenced to prison. Hierarchical linear modeling is used to examine the focal concerns perspective, the racial/ethnic threat thesis, socioeconomic inequality across racial/ethnic groups, political climate, and individual-level factors and sentence lengths. Data come from the National Corrections Reporting Program and other sources to examine sentences for over 500,000 individuals admitted to U.S. prisons between 2015 and 2017, from 751 counties. Results indicate that Black and Latinx individuals receive longer sentences than their White counterparts, even after controlling for relevant variables. The racial/ethnic threat thesis is not supported. Black individuals are sentenced longer than their White counterparts in counties with larger shares of Republican voters. Findings indicate that race and ethnicity continue to be salient predictors of punishment, with Black and Latinx individuals facing harsher outcomes than their White counterparts.","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"915 - 937"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211021893","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44560105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1177/08874034211023572
Michael S. Klein, Melissa A. Kowalski, Youngki Woo, Courtney Solis, Maria Mendoza, Mary K. Stohr, Craig Hemmens
Coronavirus has had a significant impact on daily life. Prisons are not exempt from the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Prisons are particularly at risk due to their secure environment and vulnerable inmate populations. We examine steps taken by the 50 state departments of correction and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to mitigate COVID-19 as reported on their websites. While states vary in their response to the virus, those responses do not appear to be related to regional or political differences. Few are testing or quarantining all inmates, and there are more proactive responses devoted to staff than inmates in their facilities. Findings demonstrate that prison systems’ policies regarding COVID-19 testing, quarantining, and provision of personal protective equipment for inmates do not fully align with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. As a result, the steps prison systems are taking to mitigate the effect of COVID-19 may be more reactionary than proactive, which may be less effective overall.
{"title":"The Novel Coronavirus and Enforcement of the New Separate System in Prisons","authors":"Michael S. Klein, Melissa A. Kowalski, Youngki Woo, Courtney Solis, Maria Mendoza, Mary K. Stohr, Craig Hemmens","doi":"10.1177/08874034211023572","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211023572","url":null,"abstract":"Coronavirus has had a significant impact on daily life. Prisons are not exempt from the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Prisons are particularly at risk due to their secure environment and vulnerable inmate populations. We examine steps taken by the 50 state departments of correction and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to mitigate COVID-19 as reported on their websites. While states vary in their response to the virus, those responses do not appear to be related to regional or political differences. Few are testing or quarantining all inmates, and there are more proactive responses devoted to staff than inmates in their facilities. Findings demonstrate that prison systems’ policies regarding COVID-19 testing, quarantining, and provision of personal protective equipment for inmates do not fully align with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. As a result, the steps prison systems are taking to mitigate the effect of COVID-19 may be more reactionary than proactive, which may be less effective overall.","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"206 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211023572","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41689943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1177/08874034211021904
Emily K. Pelletier
{"title":"Book Review: Pushout: The Criminalization of Black Girls in Schools","authors":"Emily K. Pelletier","doi":"10.1177/08874034211021904","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211021904","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"344 - 346"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211021904","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46761749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：