Pub Date : 2018-05-24DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2018.1478234
Jay S. Albanese
Abstract Dramatic moves have occurred in countering transnational crime since the turn of the twenty-first century. Binding international agreements, such as the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, and the Convention against Corruption, are examples of nearly universally adopted principles and mandates that were difficult to foresee a generation ago. What is less clear is the extent to which these moves indicate true progress, versus actions and efforts that will ultimately be ineffective. This paper assesses significant changes over the last 20 years in responding to transnational organized crime, corruption and global injustice, and points to several efforts to evaluate their effectiveness. Specific content areas are identified in which ongoing evaluation is needed at the intersection between the urge to take action and the patience to evaluate.
{"title":"Countering Transnational Crime and Corruption: The Urge to Action Versus the Patience to Evaluate","authors":"Jay S. Albanese","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2018.1478234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2018.1478234","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Dramatic moves have occurred in countering transnational crime since the turn of the twenty-first century. Binding international agreements, such as the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, and the Convention against Corruption, are examples of nearly universally adopted principles and mandates that were difficult to foresee a generation ago. What is less clear is the extent to which these moves indicate true progress, versus actions and efforts that will ultimately be ineffective. This paper assesses significant changes over the last 20 years in responding to transnational organized crime, corruption and global injustice, and points to several efforts to evaluate their effectiveness. Specific content areas are identified in which ongoing evaluation is needed at the intersection between the urge to take action and the patience to evaluate.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"87 1","pages":"82 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83797951","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 : 2018-05-24DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2018.1477525
N. Rodriguez
Abstract Establishing a fair and equitable justice system through criminal justice reform has been a central element of the national conversation on the administration of justice. Issues like the relationship between police departments and communities, mass incarceration, gun violence, and immigrations are at the forefront of U.S. policy and practice. In the current era of reform, there is a legitimate need for research and guidance on how best to advance the justice system and create sustainable reform. In this essay, I explain how my research in the areas of juvenile justice and the impact of mass incarceration on children and families has led to social change. I also draw from my experience as chief scientist within the Department of Justice to share observations about the role of science in informing policy and offer suggestions for improving how researchers can be more effective in the translation of crime and justice research.
{"title":"Expanding the Evidence Base in Criminology and Criminal Justice: Barriers and Opportunities to Bridging Research and Practice","authors":"N. Rodriguez","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2018.1477525","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2018.1477525","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Establishing a fair and equitable justice system through criminal justice reform has been a central element of the national conversation on the administration of justice. Issues like the relationship between police departments and communities, mass incarceration, gun violence, and immigrations are at the forefront of U.S. policy and practice. In the current era of reform, there is a legitimate need for research and guidance on how best to advance the justice system and create sustainable reform. In this essay, I explain how my research in the areas of juvenile justice and the impact of mass incarceration on children and families has led to social change. I also draw from my experience as chief scientist within the Department of Justice to share observations about the role of science in informing policy and offer suggestions for improving how researchers can be more effective in the translation of crime and justice research.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"1 - 14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90490066","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 : 2018-05-24DOI: 10.1080/24751979.2018.1478443
S. Matthews, Vincent N. Schiraldi, Lael E. H. Chester
Abstract There is a growing awareness, in the United States and Europe, that emerging adults – those ages 18–25 – are a developmentally distinct group worth special treatment at the hands of the justice system. Four US states have proposed raising the age of their juvenile courts’ jurisdiction beyond age 18 within the last year, while four out of five European countries have special laws affecting emerging adults. Three European nations – Croatia, Germany, and the Netherlands – allow youth over age 18 to be sanctioned in the same manner as younger youth in the juvenile justice system, including the possibility of being housed in juvenile facilities. In March 2018, the Columbia University Justice Lab sponsored an educational delegation of 20 elected and appointed officials, legal system stakeholders, service providers, and advocates to Germany to learn more about the German approach to emerging adults. In advance of that delegation, the authors in this article examined the law and practice regarding court-involved emerging adults in Croatia, Germany, and the Netherlands to glean potential lessons for US policy-makers considering a developmentally distinct approach to emerging adults in their justice systems.
{"title":"Youth Justice in Europe: Experience of Germany, the Netherlands, and Croatia in Providing Developmentally Appropriate Responses to Emerging Adults in the Criminal Justice System","authors":"S. Matthews, Vincent N. Schiraldi, Lael E. H. Chester","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2018.1478443","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2018.1478443","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There is a growing awareness, in the United States and Europe, that emerging adults – those ages 18–25 – are a developmentally distinct group worth special treatment at the hands of the justice system. Four US states have proposed raising the age of their juvenile courts’ jurisdiction beyond age 18 within the last year, while four out of five European countries have special laws affecting emerging adults. Three European nations – Croatia, Germany, and the Netherlands – allow youth over age 18 to be sanctioned in the same manner as younger youth in the juvenile justice system, including the possibility of being housed in juvenile facilities. In March 2018, the Columbia University Justice Lab sponsored an educational delegation of 20 elected and appointed officials, legal system stakeholders, service providers, and advocates to Germany to learn more about the German approach to emerging adults. In advance of that delegation, the authors in this article examined the law and practice regarding court-involved emerging adults in Croatia, Germany, and the Netherlands to glean potential lessons for US policy-makers considering a developmentally distinct approach to emerging adults in their justice systems.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"37 1","pages":"59 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2018-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77261394","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}
Andrew Wheeler, Sarah J. Mclean, Kelly Becker, Robert L. Worden
Abstract The group-based violence intervention model is predicated on the assumption that individuals who hear credible messages of consequences for further violence will deliver the message to other group members. Using social network analysis, we develop an algorithm of who should receive the message to maximize the spread of the message among the remaining group members. Using a sample of gangs in four different cities we show how the reach of actual call-ins were suboptimal compared to our suggested algorithm. Using simulations, we further show that typically only around a third of the group needs to be delivered the message to achieve complete coverage of the network. We find that even when limiting possible invitees to those under supervision large proportions of groups can be reached if the invitee list is data driven.
{"title":"Choosing Representatives to Deliver the Message in a Group Violence Intervention","authors":"Andrew Wheeler, Sarah J. Mclean, Kelly Becker, Robert L. Worden","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2934325","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2934325","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The group-based violence intervention model is predicated on the assumption that individuals who hear credible messages of consequences for further violence will deliver the message to other group members. Using social network analysis, we develop an algorithm of who should receive the message to maximize the spread of the message among the remaining group members. Using a sample of gangs in four different cities we show how the reach of actual call-ins were suboptimal compared to our suggested algorithm. Using simulations, we further show that typically only around a third of the group needs to be delivered the message to achieve complete coverage of the network. We find that even when limiting possible invitees to those under supervision large proportions of groups can be reached if the invitee list is data driven.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"43 1","pages":"117 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2017-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85483724","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：