Criminology & Public Policy最新文献

Research Summary

This study offers a localized test of the bifurcation hypothesis, which suggests that jurisdictions adopting decarceral policies for lower-level offenses often do so at the expense of increased punitiveness toward more serious offenses. Relying on fresh data from Florida, we examine how adopting a new diversion program targeting low-level traffic offenses affects overall prosecutorial diversion decisions. The new program is associated with an estimated 8% decrease in the odds of diversion to existing programs. Analyses of marginal effects suggest that the new program reduced diversion for more serious offenses by up to 43%. Although having a prior record disadvantaged defendants overall, defendants with more prior arrests experienced less of a diversion penalty after the new program; but defendants with more prior prison sentences were treated even more punitively after program implementation.

Policy Implications

In support of the bifurcation hypothesis, the effects of a new prosecutor-led diversion program for low-level offenses were attenuated by decreased diversion usage for other programs targeting more serious offenses. New diversion policies should focus on the adoption of programs that expand the pool of divertible cases rather than focusing only on minor offenses. Prosecutors should also critically examine prior record considerations in diversion offers, which disqualify defendants from many diversion programs.

New York State's nonfatal shooting initiative provided support to police departments and district attorney's offices in two cities, Newburgh and Utica, NY: two investigators and a crime analyst dedicated to nonfatal shooting investigations, training and technical assistance, and timely forensic laboratory analysis of evidence. Evaluation findings show that the initiative positively affected the processes and outcomes of nonfatal shooting investigations. The immediate effect of the initiative was dramatic in Newburgh and less pronounced but noteworthy in Utica. In both sites, however, clearance rates declined over time, as caseloads grew. The initiative consisted of several components: a commitment to evidence-based prosecutions; investigative personnel dedicated to nonfatal shooting cases; collaboration between investigative and prosecutorial actors. The immediate effects of the initiative suggest how successful nonfatal shooting investigations can be when they are better resourced, while the decay in the impacts over time illustrate the need to ensure that the resources are commensurate with the caseload.

Research summary

We investigated the degree to which legislatively mandated firearm restrictions for domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) have been implemented in North Carolina. We used a representative sample of n = 406 DVPO hearings (2016–17) and found that defendant access to firearms was seldom discussed (23.81%). Among granted orders (n = 303), 69.5% prohibited defendant firearm possession (n = 238) but only 38.61% ordered firearm surrender (n = 143). There were higher odds of restrictions when the defendant had threatened to kill the plaintiff (OR for prohibited possession: 2.25, CI: 1.02, 4.97; OR for firearm surrender: 1.93, CI: 1.09, 3.40); no other lethality indicators were significant. Judges verbally announced firearm restrictions only in one out of three cases (30.87% of DVPOs granted with prohibited possession; 33.02% of firearm surrender cases).

Policy implications

Protocol to assess firearm access, implement firearm restrictions, and communicate these provisions to litigants must be more clearly and consistently applied in the courtroom.

Research Summary

Much debate exists regarding the use of police inside schools and their impacts on students. Some argue that the use of School Resource Officers (SROs) could foster positive perceptions of police. However, no research exists examining whether SROs affect perceptions of police later in life. Further, research has not evaluated how differing SRO roles impacts lasting perceptions of police. Using a regression analysis on a sample of 328 college students, this study investigated whether there is a relationship between SRO presence during the middle- or high-school years and current perceptions of local law enforcement in terms of procedural justice (neutrality, voice, trust, respect). Additionally, we compared the impacts of various SRO roles including an enforcement only approach, a mixed approach (i.e., law enforcement and an additional activity such as teaching) and a full triad approach (i.e., law enforcement, teaching, and mentoring) on these perceptions. The results reveal differential impacts on perceptions depending on whether the SRO was used in middle versus high school as well as the role typology of the SRO. Though small, there were mostly negative relationships between SRO presence in middle school and lasting perceptions of procedural justice for local police, though the use of a full triad model mitigates this negative effect. In contrast, SRO usage in high school has small yet positive effects on longer term perceptions of police, but only when performing a mixed or full triad approach.

Policy Implications

Policy makers and school administrators should reconsider the use of SROs in middle schools as the exposure to these officers early on is associated with more negative lasting impressions of police. However, the use of SROs in high schools can be beneficial for fostering long-term perceptions of police so long as these officers are engaged in activities beyond pure law enforcement.

Research Summary

The increase in immigration enforcement during the past two decades has led to a larger number of immigrants being detained in the U.S. criminal justice system. Using data from the 2006–2018 Annual Survey of Jails, we examine the impact of immigrants being held for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the conditions in U.S. jails. We find that increases in the number of detainees held for ICE are related to higher noncitizen jailed populations that are not offset by reductions in their citizen counterparts, likely contributing to worse confinement conditions. This is reflected in the higher levels of overcrowding and understaffing, as well as in the longer stays in jail and more physical assaults associated with a larger number of ICE detainees. These findings prove robust to using data on two local interior immigration enforcement programs responsible for the growing number of immigrant detainees in local jails—287(g) agreements and Secure Communities—as instruments to address the endogeneity of the number of ICE detainees with respect to jail conditions. The results are driven by slightly over half of U.S. counties located either along the United States–Mexico border or in states with a large or fast-growing immigrant population.

Policy Implications

As immigrant detention becomes more entrenched in the U.S. criminal justice system, understanding the connection between intensified immigration enforcement, immigrant detention, and the conditions of U.S. jails is well warranted. Our findings suggest that for jails already operating at or above capacity, immigrant detention may pose significant concerns for the safety and well-being of all incarcerated individuals. Furthermore, our results have implications for the criminalization of unauthorized entry into the United States. Making immigration violations a criminal offense has resulted in the development of an inhumane immigration detention system motivated by profit.

Research Summary

We explored the extent to which the implementation of a pretrial risk assessment instrument (PRAI) corresponded to changes in the pretrial processing of defendants using multiple administrative data sources from a large county in the southeastern United States. Our findings revealed little evidence of reductions in detention lengths or increases in the use of nonfinancial forms of release following the tool's adoption. This was largely attributable to the exercise of judicial discretion, as judges frequently departed from the tool's recommendation using alternatives that were more punitive and often included financial conditions—particularly for Black and Latino defendants. Furthermore, the exercise of discretion was linked to increased rates of pretrial failure.

Policy Implications

PRAIs were adopted on a massive scale with the understanding that they are evidence-based and geared toward efficiently and equitably reducing pretrial populations; however, we are lacking the evaluative work to determine their impacts. Our findings suggest that PRAIs may not only undermine reform efforts, but may worsen disparities, if communities fail to complete the up-front work of discussing their expectations for pretrial decision making, including the conditions under which financial constraints may be justifiable.

Research Summary

This study uses agent-based models (ABMs) to compare the impacts of three different types of interventions targeting recruitment to terrorism—community workers at community centers; community-oriented policing; and an employment program for high-risk agents. The first two programs are social interventions that focus on de-radicalization and changing the dispositions of agents in the model, whereas the employment program focuses on “deflection” and represents a situational/opportunity reducing approach to prevention. The results show significant impacts of the community worker and community policing interventions on radicalization but no significant impact on recruitment. In contrast, the employment intervention had a strong and significant impact on recruitment, but little impact on radicalization.

Policy Implications

Our ABM simulations challenge the reliance of existing programs to reduce recruitment to terrorism on counter and de-radicalization approaches. Instead they suggest that policy makers should focus more attention on deflection and opportunity reduction. At the same time, our ABMs point to the salience of social interventions focusing on risk and protective factors for reducing radicalization in society.

Research Summary

This study assesses whether racial and ethnic disparities exist in prison industry employment and whether seemingly race- and ethnicity-neutral eligibility requirements contribute to any such disparities. We examine whether there are racial/ethnic disparities in industrial prison work, the extent to which disparities are explained by administrative policies, and the conditions under which disparities are most pronounced. Using 10 years of prison administrative data from Ohio, this study employs multilevel and mediation analyses to examine the effects of race and ethnicity on the odds of working an industrial prison job. Results suggest that Black and Hispanic incarcerated persons (IPs) are less likely to work industry jobs than White IPs. The majority of this disparity stems from program requirements; however, some disparities maintain even when accounting for requirements. Black IPs who do not meet program requirements are less likely to work than White IPs who do not meet program requirements. Racial disparities are smaller in facilities with greater racial heterogeneity among correctional staff.

Policy Implications

In our discussion, we underscore how prison policies can contribute to racially and ethnically disparate incarceration experiences. The results suggest the importance of evaluating prison and other correctional policies that utilize selection criteria that appear race neutral but are likely to be disparate in their consequences. Moreover, policies aimed at diversifying staff may contribute to more equitable prison experiences for non-White incarcerated people, although doing so does not directly address underlying policy problems that lead to inequalities.

Research Summary

Police are often criticized for doing “too much” or “too little” policing in various situations. These criticisms amount to testable hypotheses about whether “less” force, or intensity, or enforcement would have been enough, or whether “more” was needed. The rise of evidence-based policing provides a starting point for public dialogues about those hypotheses, in ways that could help to build police legitimacy. Such dialogues can be focused on the questions posed by the three “Ts”: (1) Is police action targeted in a way that is proportionate to the harm that it can prevent? (2) Has the action been tested and found effective with the kinds of targets, and their levels of harm, where it is being used? (3) Is police action tracked to ensure it is delivered in the way that has been tested, and in compliance with relevant legal requirements? In this lecture, I frame the issue as follows: Can more widespread use of better research evidence on targeting, testing, and tracking police actions, shared more clearly among the public and police, help reduce the wide range of oscillation between over-policing and under-policing?

Policy Implications

The use of these questions in public dialogue would be especially relevant to the three biggest threats to police legitimacy in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder: (A) police killing people, (B) police stopping people, and (C) police under-patrolling high-crime hot spots (while over-patrolling low-crime areas). One result of applying the three-Ts questions to these threats, for example, could be the end of the vast overuse of stop and search in low-violence areas. At the same time, this approach could also lead to reductions in homicide by increasing stops in highest violence hot spots. Such changes could demonstrate how the “Goldilocks principle” for the three Ts could get policing closer to “just right” for each place and person being policed.