American Journal of Criminal Justice最新文献

To what extent do violent offenders cause harm to victims when they act independently versus when they collaborate with others? Currently, it remains unclear whether co-offending exacerbates the degree of violence, partly due to measurement considerations, i.e. how to account for varying degrees of crime severity. Using police records from Dorset, UK, we compare violent crimes committed by lone individuals to those committed by co-offending networks using a crime harm index. While lone offenders commit the majority of violent acts, those with multiple connections to other violent offenders yielded higher average and total harm scores. Moreover, the severity of offences is proportional to the scale of the criminal network, with larger violent networks linked to higher crime harm scores. Finally, the propensity for recidivism is greater among co-offender groups compared to lone offenders. The implications of the compounding effect of co-offending on violence are discussed.

Reentry programs represent an increasingly popular method to reduce recidivism for individuals exiting prison and jail systems throughout the United States. Most evaluations tend to focus on recidivism as the primary outcome of interest. Attrition, however, can function an important supplementary measure that complements recidivism outcomes. To demonstrate, we analyze a jail reentry program built around peer navigators serving as staff members that refer participants to necessary support services while also serving as a mentor to participants exiting jail. We use a combination of general linear models (GLMs), Mahalanobis distance matching (MDM), and panel regression to both predict attrition and compare recidivism outcomes between three attrition groups: program completers, program quitters, and matched controls. Participants that successfully completed the program did not avoid new convictions or reincarceration significantly more or less than matched controls. Participants that quit the program, however, saw significantly higher conviction and reincarceration rates compared to matched controls. The nuance added to our program evaluation by adding attrition as a differential factor is worth consideration by other reentry programs who may not be realizing the full picture of their results by presenting recidivism outcomes alone.

Recidivism, and its contributing factors, remains a primary concern among juvenile justice practitioners. The literature has identified numerous policies and practices that reduce reoffending. Among these is use of validated assessment tools to identify risk level and treatment needs of youth. Using six years of juvenile court processing data, the authors examine the predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), a structured professional judgement tool used to predict risk of violence and recidivism among youth aged 12 to 18. Findings support the use of the SAVRY to predict general recidivism, especially among males and highlights the importance of conducting gender-specific analyses. Analyses did not identify patterned race/ethnicity differences in risk. Our findings recommend the continued use of the SAVRY as an evidence-based instrument.

A substantial body of research has documented the consequences of rapid population growth for crime, but most of this literature focused on population growth in major cities during the first half of the twentieth century or on boomtown growth in rural areas since the 1970s. The findings of both literatures helped to identify important correlates and consequences of rapid population growth, but neither body of research engages with suburban areas in which approximately half of the United States population currently live. The current study examines the relationship of rapid population growth with levels of violent and property crime in one of the fastest growing suburban areas in the United States, Frisco Texas. The results indicate rapid population growth was not associated with changes in crime at the city level, but neighborhood level analyses suggest crime may became more concentrated in certain areas. Longitudinal regression analyses also reveal that many commonly assessed correlates of crime may operate differently in suburban areas than do in urban areas.

In this paper the role of a sociologist/criminologist as a mitigation expert in a case of double murder is examined. The defendant was a young black male defendant. The victims were his 8-month pregnant girlfriend and their unborn child. The defendant was born into terrible social circumstances; including five generations of violence; sexual abuse; incarcerated; and neglect. The circumstances of his tragic life leading up to the murder is presented as mitigation. The author of this paper has worked as a sociologist/ mitigation expert for almost 30 years in over 300 sentencing hearings/penalty phases most of which were capital murder but have also included manslaughter, habitual offenders, Miller cases; and other cases of violent crimes where the sentence is plastic. The utility of sociology in criminal cases in general is discussed.

By January 2024, the COVID-19 pandemic claimed more than 1.1 million deaths in the United States (U.S.). People in prison are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 as they have no ability to socially distance, secure masks, disinfect their environment or have as much access to tests or vaccinations as is available in the community. In addition, many of these individuals reside in crowded conditions with little ventilation, which makes the spread of the virus more likely. In this paper, we used data from two projects, including the UCLA Law COVID Behind Bars Data Project and the COVID Prison Project, and supplemented these with publicly available data to examine the number of deaths and infection rates caused by COVID-19 among people in prison and prison staff in the U.S., as reported by the population of those facilities. We found that the incidence of infections and death rates in prisons were affected by crowding, prison security type (maximum, medium, minimum, or mixed) and level of prison (state or federal). People in prison who were less likely to have as much human contact (e.g., maximum-security prisons) were also less likely to be afflicted with COVID-19. People in prison were twice as likely to be infected by COVID-19 but had a similar death rate compared to the general public. Prison overcrowding increased the infection rate. The most effective state health policy was to quarantine people who had close contact with confirmed, positive cases. Further, state prisons demonstrated a higher death rate compared to federal prisons. Greater efforts to ameliorate COVID-19 and similar pathogens should be directed at state prisons with lower-level security and prisons with closer contact with the community. Quarantining close-contacts and restricting movements were the most effective state-level responses to reduce infections in prisons during April 2020 to April 2022.

The purpose of this research is to investigate Veterans Treatment Courts’ (VTCs) operation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since March of 2020, there have been efforts to transition to a virtual world to guarantee criminal defendants their rights in court during this public health crisis. While many courts had to adapt to the changing conditions due to COVID-19, little is known about what these changes looked like for VTCs, if they varied from court to court, and whether these changes were successful. Through a nationwide survey of VTC courtroom actors such as judges, program coordinators, and Veterans Justice Outreach Specialists, we examine how VTCs’ day-to-day operations changed during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as program retention and participants’ success in the treatment program during a public health emergency. We discuss VTCs’ lessons learned to inform other VTCs and specialty courts about best practices for continuing operations.

Studies examining citizenship, ethnicity, and victimization risk have offered mixed findings. Despite this, works have largely focused upon direct-contact victimization, and do not offer insights into how this risk may vary across these dimensions for other crimes not characterized by direct contact, such as identity theft. This lack of understanding undermines abilities to tailor policies to effectively support vulnerable persons, and may potentially elevate risk of this costly crime among marginalized groups. Given this, the study aims to examine the associations between citizenship status, ethnicity and identity theft risk. Using a sample from the 2018 National Crime Victimization Survey’s Identity Theft Supplement (n = 71,984), logistic regression analyses examined the odds of identity theft. Lacking citizenship was associated with decreased odds of identity theft victimization, as was Hispanic ethnicity. However, Hispanic noncitizens faced higher relative risk than either noncitizens or Hispanic persons individually. Noncitizens’ decreased relative risk may stem from avoidance behaviors which reduce their suitability or exposure through a lifestyle-routine activities perspective. Hispanic noncitizens’ increased risk relative to others may stem from their doubly marginalized status. Future work is needed considering avoidance behaviors and citizenship status, to more clearly understand how these factors influence relative risk of victimization.

In the current paper, we examine departmental and court decision-making in criminal cases against police officers. The study has two objectives: 1) to examine variables that impact departmental decisions in criminal cases against police officers, and 2) to examine factors that affect case disposition/conviction decisions by the courts. To achieve these objectives, we analyzed nationally representative arrest data using multiple statistical approaches. The results obtained revealed important patterns that are critical to our understanding of how the courts and police departments decide matters relating to police criminality. For instance, victim characteristics significantly influenced decision-making by both the police agency and the court. Also, officer characteristics and crime types were important indicators of how offending officers were punished by both the courts and the agencies that employed them. Specifically, officers whose cases involved child victims and officers who were not familiar with their victims had greater odds of being convicted. The implications of our findings for policy and research in policing, especially research on police misconduct, are discussed.

Research examining the effects of COVID-19 on the criminal legal system—including the demand for police services—is accumulating. However, few empirical inquiries have sought to examine the pandemic’s effect on mental health and wellbeing by analyzing calls for service (CFS) involving emotionally disturbed persons (EDP). This study examines CFS received pre- and post-pandemic by Houston’s crisis intervention team (CIT). By examining visual trends and using interrupted time-series analysis (ITSA), we analyze COVID-19’s immediate and long-term effects. In the current study we examine three distinct call types: (1) Risk to others; (2) Risk to self; and (3) Welfare calls. Findings demonstrate significant increases in the overall CFS after the implementation of the initial stay-at-home order in Houston, with some differences in trends based on call type. These findings further our understanding of COVID-19’s impact on mental health and wellbeing during the pandemic through the lens of the increased demand for police services. Specific implications for the study site department are discussed, and to the extent possible, general implications for other departments with CIT programs.