One of the broadest and most interdisciplinary areas of research concerns victimization and its developmental consequences. Although a wealth of literature has been produced, it remains siloed across multiple fields, including criminology, sociology, psychology, education, social work, and public health, with such work rarely crossing disciplinary boundaries. The fragmentation of scholarship along disciplinary lines makes it difficult to recognize common findings or to solve shared theoretical, methodological, or policy problems. To remedy these issues, the multidisciplinary research on the sources and consequences of victimization should be synthesized through the lens of the life-course paradigm and couched within a developmental ecological framework. Across early life, childhood, adolescence, emerging adulthood, adulthood to midlife, and old age, the sources and consequences of victimization are multilevel and complex. Some stages of the life course are more understudied than others, and the literature is not immune from measurement issues, concerns of spuriousness and selection, and unexplained variation. And while conceptual and methodological challenges remain, theory and policy can be enhanced through embracing life-course victimology. Research can advance by unifying opportunity and vulnerability perspectives on victimization through a context-contingent approach, emphasizing age-graded changes in autonomy over the life span and placing more focus on heterogeneity in the sources and consequences of victimization across individuals, life stages, and generational cohorts.
{"title":"Victimization and Its Consequences over the Life Course","authors":"J. Turanovic","doi":"10.1086/727029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/727029","url":null,"abstract":"One of the broadest and most interdisciplinary areas of research concerns victimization and its developmental consequences. Although a wealth of literature has been produced, it remains siloed across multiple fields, including criminology, sociology, psychology, education, social work, and public health, with such work rarely crossing disciplinary boundaries. The fragmentation of scholarship along disciplinary lines makes it difficult to recognize common findings or to solve shared theoretical, methodological, or policy problems. To remedy these issues, the multidisciplinary research on the sources and consequences of victimization should be synthesized through the lens of the life-course paradigm and couched within a developmental ecological framework. Across early life, childhood, adolescence, emerging adulthood, adulthood to midlife, and old age, the sources and consequences of victimization are multilevel and complex. Some stages of the life course are more understudied than others, and the literature is not immune from measurement issues, concerns of spuriousness and selection, and unexplained variation. And while conceptual and methodological challenges remain, theory and policy can be enhanced through embracing life-course victimology. Research can advance by unifying opportunity and vulnerability perspectives on victimization through a context-contingent approach, emphasizing age-graded changes in autonomy over the life span and placing more focus on heterogeneity in the sources and consequences of victimization across individuals, life stages, and generational cohorts.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45022841","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Some individuals resort to crime; others refrain. Why is that? Different answers to this question have been proposed within criminology while paying surprisingly little attention to the concept of personality. On closer inspection, though, concepts akin to personality (e.g., criminal character, criminal propensity, self-control) run like a unifying thread through the field of criminology, including in its most prominent theories, to account for the apparent individual differences in crime. Nonetheless, there is considerable conceptual and empirical heterogeneity relating to these individual differences, and efforts to integrate different perspectives are currently lacking. I argue that the different approaches can usefully be integrated under the umbrella of the personality concept and that the field of criminology would benefit from more explicitly and systematically incorporating personality into its theories and research. Studies linking personality traits to crime, in turn, show that diverse findings can be boiled down to three key criminogenic characteristics—low morality, shortsightedness, and negative affectivity—that provide a parsimonious account of individual differences in crime. Future research should draw on the concept of personality to foster theoretical and empirical integration and eventually solve the puzzle of who engages in crime and why.
{"title":"(Re)Considering Personality in Criminological Research","authors":"Isabel Thielmann","doi":"10.1086/726781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726781","url":null,"abstract":"Some individuals resort to crime; others refrain. Why is that? Different answers to this question have been proposed within criminology while paying surprisingly little attention to the concept of personality. On closer inspection, though, concepts akin to personality (e.g., criminal character, criminal propensity, self-control) run like a unifying thread through the field of criminology, including in its most prominent theories, to account for the apparent individual differences in crime. Nonetheless, there is considerable conceptual and empirical heterogeneity relating to these individual differences, and efforts to integrate different perspectives are currently lacking. I argue that the different approaches can usefully be integrated under the umbrella of the personality concept and that the field of criminology would benefit from more explicitly and systematically incorporating personality into its theories and research. Studies linking personality traits to crime, in turn, show that diverse findings can be boiled down to three key criminogenic characteristics—low morality, shortsightedness, and negative affectivity—that provide a parsimonious account of individual differences in crime. Future research should draw on the concept of personality to foster theoretical and empirical integration and eventually solve the puzzle of who engages in crime and why.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42848911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Whites have been afraid of Black people since “20 or so” were “purchased” in Jamestown, the first permanent British colony, in 1619. Southern Whites’ fears of racial insurrections and wars pervaded American politics through the Civil War. For nearly a century afterward, southern and many other Whites feared economic and social competition from Black people and believed they were inferior human beings. Since the 1960s, most Whites have ceased believing in inherent Black inferiority but have continued to oppose integration of schools and housing and exaggeratedly feared Black criminals. Two widespread earlier practices, vigilantism and lynching, although in retrospect reviled, have modern equivalents that target Black people. Police use of the “third degree,” curbside punishment, and brutal prisons were for long acceptable to fearful and angry White citizens, just as racial profiling, police violence, and extreme punishment disparities are in our time. Call that “delegated vigilantism.” White citizens no longer themselves capture and kill alleged wrongdoers but, not so different, majorities have for a half century supported policies that authorize or mandate routine use of unprecedentedly severe punishments that ruin lives. Call that “less-than-lethal lynching.”
{"title":"Delegated Vigilantism and Less-than-Lethal Lynching in Twenty-First-Century America","authors":"M. Tonry","doi":"10.1086/726880","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726880","url":null,"abstract":"Whites have been afraid of Black people since “20 or so” were “purchased” in Jamestown, the first permanent British colony, in 1619. Southern Whites’ fears of racial insurrections and wars pervaded American politics through the Civil War. For nearly a century afterward, southern and many other Whites feared economic and social competition from Black people and believed they were inferior human beings. Since the 1960s, most Whites have ceased believing in inherent Black inferiority but have continued to oppose integration of schools and housing and exaggeratedly feared Black criminals. Two widespread earlier practices, vigilantism and lynching, although in retrospect reviled, have modern equivalents that target Black people. Police use of the “third degree,” curbside punishment, and brutal prisons were for long acceptable to fearful and angry White citizens, just as racial profiling, police violence, and extreme punishment disparities are in our time. Call that “delegated vigilantism.” White citizens no longer themselves capture and kill alleged wrongdoers but, not so different, majorities have for a half century supported policies that authorize or mandate routine use of unprecedentedly severe punishments that ruin lives. Call that “less-than-lethal lynching.”","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43430043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Virtual reality (VR) technology offers unique and as yet largely untapped potential for criminology. It can address problems that have traditionally plagued the field, provide an ecologically valid alternative for conventional research methods, and create novel possibilities for theory testing, and it allows for the study of phenomena that are difficult to research in the real world for ethical, safety, or practical reasons. This essay reviews the budding research literature using VR in criminogenic contexts, as well as relevant research from other disciplines, and explains the technology’s basic features, current limitations, and ethical challenges. It concludes that within the foreseeable future, VR may become the criminological equivalent of the petri dish, offering the possibility to study the unfolding of highly complex behavioral processes in very detailed ways and help achieve step changes in our understanding of crime.
{"title":"Virtual Reality for Criminologists: A Road Map","authors":"Jean-Louis van Gelder","doi":"10.1086/726691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726691","url":null,"abstract":"Virtual reality (VR) technology offers unique and as yet largely untapped potential for criminology. It can address problems that have traditionally plagued the field, provide an ecologically valid alternative for conventional research methods, and create novel possibilities for theory testing, and it allows for the study of phenomena that are difficult to research in the real world for ethical, safety, or practical reasons. This essay reviews the budding research literature using VR in criminogenic contexts, as well as relevant research from other disciplines, and explains the technology’s basic features, current limitations, and ethical challenges. It concludes that within the foreseeable future, VR may become the criminological equivalent of the petri dish, offering the possibility to study the unfolding of highly complex behavioral processes in very detailed ways and help achieve step changes in our understanding of crime.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48521670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Guardianship, a key element of informal social control, is central to two influential theories in criminology and sociology: routine activity theory and collective efficacy. A variety of underlying mechanisms inform individual choices to serve as a guardian. Two distinct forms, reactive and proactive, should be distinguished. In reactive guardianship, an individual or a small group responds to an ongoing criminal incident or a potentially harmful situation. People balance prosocial motivation to help others against safety and social costs associated with intervening. The psychological literature on bystander intervention and prosociality, along with research on personal safety, physical prowess, and social and moral attitudes, can illuminate the complex decision-making processes underlying reactive guardianship. In proactive guardianship, community members come together to improve public safety, such as by organizing block watches. It requires ongoing participation rather than a one-shot reactive decision to intervene. A challenge is to overcome the “free rider” problem of individuals who benefit from improved public safety but do not contribute to it. Collective efficacy theory and the economics literature on public goods provide frameworks for identifying factors that influence individual choices to contribute. These include willingness to contribute, knowledge that others are contributing, and active social approval of contributors and disapproval of noncontributors.
{"title":"Collective Guardianship, Reactive and Proactive","authors":"D. Nagin, Shaina Herman, Tim Barnum","doi":"10.1086/726140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726140","url":null,"abstract":"Guardianship, a key element of informal social control, is central to two influential theories in criminology and sociology: routine activity theory and collective efficacy. A variety of underlying mechanisms inform individual choices to serve as a guardian. Two distinct forms, reactive and proactive, should be distinguished. In reactive guardianship, an individual or a small group responds to an ongoing criminal incident or a potentially harmful situation. People balance prosocial motivation to help others against safety and social costs associated with intervening. The psychological literature on bystander intervention and prosociality, along with research on personal safety, physical prowess, and social and moral attitudes, can illuminate the complex decision-making processes underlying reactive guardianship. In proactive guardianship, community members come together to improve public safety, such as by organizing block watches. It requires ongoing participation rather than a one-shot reactive decision to intervene. A challenge is to overcome the “free rider” problem of individuals who benefit from improved public safety but do not contribute to it. Collective efficacy theory and the economics literature on public goods provide frameworks for identifying factors that influence individual choices to contribute. These include willingness to contribute, knowledge that others are contributing, and active social approval of contributors and disapproval of noncontributors.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42228611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Prisons disproportionately confine people who have extensive histories of illicit drug use and tend to hold groups of people who continue using drugs, albeit in different forms and amounts. Prisoners’ desire or physical compulsion to use illicit drugs fundamentally structures almost all aspects of everyday prison life. This extends to individuals who do not use illicit drugs and is felt even in prisons in which drugs are not readily available. Architectural features of prisons and logistical regimes are designed in ways meant to curtail the drug trade. Nonetheless, prisoners persistently strategize about how to acquire, transport, and consume hard drugs such as opioids (heroin and fentanyl), methamphetamine, cocaine, and alcohol. Prisoners display considerable ingenuity in modifying the prison’s physical environment to advance their drug-related agendas.
{"title":"The Everyday Life of Drugs in Prison","authors":"Sandra M. Bucerius, Kevin D. Haggerty, L. Berardi","doi":"10.1086/726139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726139","url":null,"abstract":"Prisons disproportionately confine people who have extensive histories of illicit drug use and tend to hold groups of people who continue using drugs, albeit in different forms and amounts. Prisoners’ desire or physical compulsion to use illicit drugs fundamentally structures almost all aspects of everyday prison life. This extends to individuals who do not use illicit drugs and is felt even in prisons in which drugs are not readily available. Architectural features of prisons and logistical regimes are designed in ways meant to curtail the drug trade. Nonetheless, prisoners persistently strategize about how to acquire, transport, and consume hard drugs such as opioids (heroin and fentanyl), methamphetamine, cocaine, and alcohol. Prisoners display considerable ingenuity in modifying the prison’s physical environment to advance their drug-related agendas.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44424170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Collateral consequences of criminal convictions such as occupational restrictions, ineligibility for welfare benefits, and disenfranchisement from voting have drastic and long-lasting effects. They hinder successful reintegration into society of people with criminal records and undermine efforts to reduce recidivism. In recent years, awareness that they are counterproductive and often undermine public safety has increased. There is growing recognition of their detrimental effects on individuals, families, communities, and the economy. Non- and bipartisan efforts are underway to change these laws and policies, mostly at the state level, but many changes so far have been limited in ambition and scope. More, bolder, and more comprehensive changes are needed. Reforms should not only reduce the sheer number of collateral restrictions and eliminate or mitigate their adverse effects but also incorporate awareness of their existence and knowledge of their effects into the day-to-day operations of the criminal justice system.
{"title":"Collateral Consequences and Criminal Justice Reform: Successes and Challenges","authors":"A. Corda","doi":"10.1086/725720","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725720","url":null,"abstract":"Collateral consequences of criminal convictions such as occupational restrictions, ineligibility for welfare benefits, and disenfranchisement from voting have drastic and long-lasting effects. They hinder successful reintegration into society of people with criminal records and undermine efforts to reduce recidivism. In recent years, awareness that they are counterproductive and often undermine public safety has increased. There is growing recognition of their detrimental effects on individuals, families, communities, and the economy. Non- and bipartisan efforts are underway to change these laws and policies, mostly at the state level, but many changes so far have been limited in ambition and scope. More, bolder, and more comprehensive changes are needed. Reforms should not only reduce the sheer number of collateral restrictions and eliminate or mitigate their adverse effects but also incorporate awareness of their existence and knowledge of their effects into the day-to-day operations of the criminal justice system.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48188531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Members of racial, ethnic, and Indigenous minorities have long accounted for disproportionate percentages of prison admissions in Western nations and of prison populations. The minorities affected vary between countries. Discriminatory or differential treatment by criminal justice officials from policing through to parole is part of the problem. Much media and professional attention focuses on sentencing, where the decision-making is most public. An emerging body of research identifies sentencing as a cause—or, at the very least, an amplifier—of minority overincarceration. Solutions aiming to reduce it have been implemented, with varying but modest degrees of success, in the United States, England and Wales, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand. Progress toward reducing minority overincarceration has been slow. Most US sentencing commissions have failed to determine the extent to which their guidelines contribute to the problem. The Sentencing Council of England and Wales has taken the limited step of warning judges about racial disparities, without suggesting remedial steps to be taken. Courts in Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand have taken more activist approaches, mitigating sentences when offenders adduce evidence of discrimination or abuse by criminal justice officials.
{"title":"Sentencing Members of Minority Groups: Problems and Prospects for Improvement in Four Countries","authors":"Julian V. Roberts, Gabrielle Watson, Rhys Hester","doi":"10.1086/725721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725721","url":null,"abstract":"Members of racial, ethnic, and Indigenous minorities have long accounted for disproportionate percentages of prison admissions in Western nations and of prison populations. The minorities affected vary between countries. Discriminatory or differential treatment by criminal justice officials from policing through to parole is part of the problem. Much media and professional attention focuses on sentencing, where the decision-making is most public. An emerging body of research identifies sentencing as a cause—or, at the very least, an amplifier—of minority overincarceration. Solutions aiming to reduce it have been implemented, with varying but modest degrees of success, in the United States, England and Wales, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand. Progress toward reducing minority overincarceration has been slow. Most US sentencing commissions have failed to determine the extent to which their guidelines contribute to the problem. The Sentencing Council of England and Wales has taken the limited step of warning judges about racial disparities, without suggesting remedial steps to be taken. Courts in Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand have taken more activist approaches, mitigating sentences when offenders adduce evidence of discrimination or abuse by criminal justice officials.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45274735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the discovery of the “jail disease,” probably typhus, in the eighteenth century, health experts have recognized that the prison is a near perfect incubator of contagious disease. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore, public health authorities and human rights groups advocated immediate and sustained decarceration of overcrowded prisons to save lives and stop the spread of the virus. Yet, decarceration efforts globally were uneven and largely failed to live up to expectations. Instead, prison systems typically sought to control the spread of COVID-19 by imposing strict “lockdowns” on prisoner movement that bordered on long-term solitary confinement in many jurisdictions. The consequences of these severe conditions on prisoners’ mental and physical health are only just emerging. The ramifications for future prison reform efforts may be more profound. If a deadly pandemic is not enough to instigate a reimagining of the role of prison in society, it is unclear what could.
{"title":"The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Future of the Prison","authors":"Shadd Maruna, Gillian Mcnaull, N. O’Neill","doi":"10.1086/722434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722434","url":null,"abstract":"Since the discovery of the “jail disease,” probably typhus, in the eighteenth century, health experts have recognized that the prison is a near perfect incubator of contagious disease. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore, public health authorities and human rights groups advocated immediate and sustained decarceration of overcrowded prisons to save lives and stop the spread of the virus. Yet, decarceration efforts globally were uneven and largely failed to live up to expectations. Instead, prison systems typically sought to control the spread of COVID-19 by imposing strict “lockdowns” on prisoner movement that bordered on long-term solitary confinement in many jurisdictions. The consequences of these severe conditions on prisoners’ mental and physical health are only just emerging. The ramifications for future prison reform efforts may be more profound. If a deadly pandemic is not enough to instigate a reimagining of the role of prison in society, it is unclear what could.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"59 - 103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43564723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Imprisonment has deleterious effects on prisoners’ mental, physical, social, and economic well-being. These harms are long lasting and affect prisoners’ partners and children. In the United States and elsewhere, imprisonment disproportionately inflicts these harms on people of color and people living in poverty. Although imprisonment is regarded as a reasonable and effective means of protecting the public, it is not, when compared with nonconfinement alternatives, an effective way to achieve public safety. Two broad sets of policy reforms would be better: retroactive and prospective sentencing reforms that reduce reliance on confinement for all types of offenses, including violent crimes, and broad initiatives that reduce reliance on prison and jails while also investing in housing, education, treatment, health, and communities. Researchers and policy analysts need to engage in problem-solving research that examines not only incarceration’s effects but alternative ongoing efforts to achieve public safety and justice.
{"title":"The Effects of Imprisonment in a Time of Mass Incarceration","authors":"K. Beckett, Allison Goldberg","doi":"10.1086/721018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721018","url":null,"abstract":"Imprisonment has deleterious effects on prisoners’ mental, physical, social, and economic well-being. These harms are long lasting and affect prisoners’ partners and children. In the United States and elsewhere, imprisonment disproportionately inflicts these harms on people of color and people living in poverty. Although imprisonment is regarded as a reasonable and effective means of protecting the public, it is not, when compared with nonconfinement alternatives, an effective way to achieve public safety. Two broad sets of policy reforms would be better: retroactive and prospective sentencing reforms that reduce reliance on confinement for all types of offenses, including violent crimes, and broad initiatives that reduce reliance on prison and jails while also investing in housing, education, treatment, health, and communities. Researchers and policy analysts need to engage in problem-solving research that examines not only incarceration’s effects but alternative ongoing efforts to achieve public safety and justice.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"349 - 398"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49560619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：