what is a case study in criminal justice

• Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

bok_logo_2-02_-_harvard_left.png

Crime, Justice, and the American Legal System: Case Study Preparation

Throughout the term students prepared three case studies in order to engage with information on the american legal system..

Up to two of the case studies could be replaced by multimedia projects.  The case studies were discussed in lectures and sections, and the multimedia projects are presented in the final lecture, allowing for students to regularly showcase their hard work. For both projects, students had to complete the course reading in order to propose a topic that engaged course scholarship and themes. 

There is a detailed handout describing how to create case studies.  In short, a case study examines a real life situation and includes three components:  (1) Part A--a detailed factual background section that raises (but does not resolve) several significant questions/dilemmas in the case; (2) Part B--a follow up factual section explaining what subsequently occurred and how the questions/dilemmas were actually addressed; and (3) Part C--a final analytical section contextualizing the case study in light of course themes and theories, while substantively engaging and citing course readings.  Multimedia projects are unstructured and open ended, but must be approved in advance by the course staff.  Examples are shown to students early in the term.

Prior to the first submission deadline, the instructor presented an earlier student case study in lecture so students understood the structure and pedagogical objectives of the case studies.  Part A was distributed to students to read in class (much as is done at the Business School, for example).  After reading Part A, students debated the dilemma presented and how they feel the protagonist should proceed.  Part B is then distributed in class and it describes what decision(s) the protagonist actually made and the ramifications of that/those decisions.  Students then discuss and debate what occurred, and how it connects to course theories and themes.  With respect to multimedia projects, many are video documentaries and are shown in class followed by a structured discussion by the course instructor.

With respect to case studies, students are given a word processing template so that all output is uniform (similar to case studies produced by the business, law and government professional schools).  Students often prepare the case studies with a combination of text, photos and graphs/charts.  Prior examples were both discussed in class and made available online for students to use as a reference.  For multimedia projects, most students created videos that incorporated person-to-person interviews with correctional officials, police officers, business owners, fellow students, community organizers, public defenders, etc--and these interviews were edited along with voice-overs and other video clips and still images to create compelling presentations.  Other students presented their multimedia presentations live, some utilizing powerpoints and even one student performing in class an anti-death penalty song (that she wrote) in the form of a traditional protest folk ballad.  Other students have created fictitious television programs and even a children's book harnessing course themes.  All multimedia projects must be accompanied by a short essay contextualizing the project, citing course scholarship and themes.

For case studies, students researched unique topics (students must write on different topics from one another), some of which are publicly known and others that are known only from the student's own personal experience.  Students must not only find compelling cases to analyze, but they must engage in the pedagogical exercise of finding a strong "dilemma" or "decision point" in the story that could be debatable in class.  This is more difficult than it appears, as the break between Part A and Part B cannot simply be a break in the action; the break must present a compelling and controversial dilemma that is likely to create an excellent and robust class discussion.  The best case studies are chosen by the instructor and then distributed in class (anonymously), and discussed--both in terms of the criminological questions raised, but also the pedagogical strength of the case study's construction.  With respect to multimedia projects, at least 5 minutes of every project is presented in class (either "live" by the student or through video), and then the instructor provides constructive feedback for the students.  In past years students have also provided constructive feedback both in class and on iSite (online).

The goal of the case studies is for students to (1) research a relevant, real life case that illustrates course themes and theories; (2) analyze a real life fact scenario not only for course themes, but also for classroom pedagogical potential in terms of the dilemma and issues presented for discussion/debate; and (3) to analyze (in Part C of the case study) the case selected by substantively engaging course scholarship, forcing students to move beyond merely descriptive assignments and to develop their own opinions and views, contextualized by course themes and readings.  For the multimedia projects, students are encouraged to explore their passions and think "outside the box" in exploring a criminological topic in a media format that speaks to them.  While most students use video format for interviewing key stakeholders, others have created songs, children's books, advocacy pieces, fictitious television episodes, fictitious magazines/tabloid front pages, and even music videos.  The over-arching goal of these projects is to illustrate how the course themes can be intensely (and engagingly) relevant to students--and our society.

More activities like this

• Business Case Development Practice
• Learning through Case Construction
• Civil War Curiosity Cabinet
• Mashed Potatoes Metaphor
• Final Project Video Presentations

Further Filter By

Activity type.

• Discussion (102) Apply Discussion filter
• Research (79) Apply Research filter
• Presentation (55) Apply Presentation filter
• Role Play (54) Apply Role Play filter
• Homework (44) Apply Homework filter
• Pair and Share (42) Apply Pair and Share filter
• Case Study (31) Apply Case Study filter
• Do Now (31) Apply Do Now filter
• Lab (30) Apply Lab filter
• Game (29) Apply Game filter
• Debate (24) Apply Debate filter
• Peer Instruction (23) Apply Peer Instruction filter
• Quick Write (23) Apply Quick Write filter
• Field Trip (21) Apply Field Trip filter
• Lecture (20) Apply Lecture filter
• Jigsaw (18) Apply Jigsaw filter
• Concept Map (14) Apply Concept Map filter
• Sequence Reconstruction (8) Apply Sequence Reconstruction filter
• Speed Dating (3) Apply Speed Dating filter
• Statement Correction (1) Apply Statement Correction filter
• General Education (44) Apply General Education filter
• Government (38) Apply Government filter
• Physics (20) Apply Physics filter
• English (13) Apply English filter
• Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (13) Apply Organismic and Evolutionary Biology filter
• Sociology (12) Apply Sociology filter
• Statistics (12) Apply Statistics filter
• Expository Writing (10) Apply Expository Writing filter
• Romance Languages and Literatures (10) Apply Romance Languages and Literatures filter
• Germanic Languages and Literatures (9) Apply Germanic Languages and Literatures filter
• History (9) Apply History filter
• Humanities (9) Apply Humanities filter
• Music (9) Apply Music filter
• Mathematics (8) Apply Mathematics filter
• Molecular and Cellular Biology (8) Apply Molecular and Cellular Biology filter
• Economics (7) Apply Economics filter
• Freshman Seminars (6) Apply Freshman Seminars filter
• Social Studies (6) Apply Social Studies filter
• Astronomy (5) Apply Astronomy filter
• Chemistry and Chemical Biology (5) Apply Chemistry and Chemical Biology filter
• Psychology (5) Apply Psychology filter
• Computer Science (4) Apply Computer Science filter
• East Asian Languages and Civilizations (4) Apply East Asian Languages and Civilizations filter
• History of Science (4) Apply History of Science filter
• Linguistics (4) Apply Linguistics filter
• Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology (4) Apply Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology filter
• Comparative Literature (3) Apply Comparative Literature filter
• History and Literature (3) Apply History and Literature filter
• African and African American Studies (2) Apply African and African American Studies filter
• Classics (2) Apply Classics filter
• Earth and Planetary Science (2) Apply Earth and Planetary Science filter
• Education (2) Apply Education filter
• History of Art and Architecture (2) Apply History of Art and Architecture filter
• Public Health (2) Apply Public Health filter
• Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality (2) Apply Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality filter
• Systems Biology (2) Apply Systems Biology filter
• Anthropology (1) Apply Anthropology filter
• Biomedical Engineering (1) Apply Biomedical Engineering filter
• Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (1) Apply Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations filter
• Psychiatry (1) Apply Psychiatry filter
• Visual and Environmental Studies (1) Apply Visual and Environmental Studies filter

Learning Objective

• Collaborate (107) Apply Collaborate filter
• Develop Subject Specific Intuitions (101) Apply Develop Subject Specific Intuitions filter
• Make Real World Connections to Course Material (101) Apply Make Real World Connections to Course Material filter
• Interpret Primary Sources to Propose a Model or Argument (95) Apply Interpret Primary Sources to Propose a Model or Argument filter
• Learn Foundational Knowledge (82) Apply Learn Foundational Knowledge filter
• Develop Communication Skills (73) Apply Develop Communication Skills filter
• Defend a Position in a Model or Argument (55) Apply Defend a Position in a Model or Argument filter
• Evaluate and Critique a Model or Argument (45) Apply Evaluate and Critique a Model or Argument filter
• Reflect on the Learning Process (Metacognition) (44) Apply Reflect on the Learning Process (Metacognition) filter
• Compare the Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Methods (23) Apply Compare the Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Methods filter

Length of Activity

• Full Class (142) Apply Full Class filter
• 10 to 30 minutes (49) Apply 10 to 30 minutes filter
• Multiple Classes (31) Apply Multiple Classes filter
• up to 10 minutes (22) Apply up to 10 minutes filter
• Full Semester (19) Apply Full Semester filter

Filter by Post Type

• Announcements
• OnPolicing Blog
• Press Releases
• Publications

Crime Analysis Case Studies

Publication Date

Greg Jones and Mary Malina

Research Design

Non-experimental

Research Methods

Recommended citation.

Strategic Priority Area(s)

Topic area(s).

For general inquiries, please contact us at [email protected]

For general inquiries, please contact us at [email protected]

• Strategic Priorities
• Board of Directors
• Business Strategies Advisory Group
• Partnerships
• Data Science Blog
• Community Partnerships
• Preventing Crime & Violence
• Innovations & Technology
• Policing Strategies & Operations
• Personnel & Staffing
• Police Administration & Organizations
• I am a: Community Member
• I am a: Law Enforcement Professional
• I am a: Business/Corporation
• Past Honorees
• Patrick V. Murphy Award
• Hubert Williams Award

8 Chapter 8: Putting It All Together: Understanding and Assessing Criminal Justice Research

Case study: developing a valid racial profiling benchmark.

Research Study

Testing for Racial Profiling in Traffic Stops from Behind a Veil of Darkness 1

Research Question

Can a valid benchmark for racial profiling be established?

Methodology

As part of an effort to address public concerns about racial profiling, many police departments collect data on the traffic stops that their officers make. For each traffic stop made, the officer documents the race of the driver. The department can then determine what percentage of traffic stops involves white drivers and what percentage involves black drivers. The key problem in testing for racial profiling in traffic stops is identifying a valid benchmark against which to compare the race distribution of the stopped drivers. Departments know the racial breakdown of traffic stops, but what do they compare the numbers to in an effort to assess racial disparities in traffic stops?

A benchmark should approximate the racial composition of the population that could be legitimately stopped by the police, given their patrol deployment patterns and race neutrality in stopping vehicles. 2 Currently, there are two common benchmarks used in racial profiling analysis. First, many studies use residential population data as the benchmark. It is widely recognized that residential population data, obtained through the U.S. Census, provide poor estimates of the population at risk of a traffic stop. In other words, residential population data is not a valid benchmark with which to compare traffic stop data. The residential population includes people who do not drive, and the driving population in many places includes people who are not residents. Second, some police departments have commissioned traffic surveys that then serve as the benchmark to which the agency compares its traffic stop data. Traffic surveys involve hiring trained observers that tally the race distribution of drivers at certain locations within the city. Traffic surveys also have limitations and are costly to carry out. It is estimated that a traffic survey costs $30,000 at a minimum, which few departments can afford. 3

In this study, the researchers propose a new benchmark to test for racial profiling. The approach makes use of what the researchers call the “veil of darkness” hypothesis. This hypothesis asserts that police are less likely to know the race of a motorist before making a stop after dark than they are during daylight. If we assume that racial differences in traffic patterns, driving behavior, and exposure to law enforcement do not vary between daylight and darkness, then we can test for racial profiling by comparing the race distribution of stops made during daylight to the race distribution of stops made after dark. Basically, the racial distribution of traffic stops at night serves as the benchmark that we then compare to the racial distribution of traffic stops during the day. Evidence of racial profiling exists, for example, if black motorists are more likely to be stopped during the day than at night.

The location for this study was Oakland, California. The Oakland Police Department (OPD) had received several complaints by motorists and advocates that OPD officers engaged in racial profiling, discriminating in particular against black drivers. The data provided to substantiate the allegations involved the use of residential population data as the benchmark; 56% of the drivers stopped by the OPD were black, whereas blacks comprised only 35% of the city’s residential population. The OPD entered into a legal settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice requiring that they collect traffic stop data on an ongoing basis and regularly monitor the data to detect racial profiling.

The data analyzed included all reported vehicle stops carried out by OPD officers between June 15 and December 30, 2003, amounting to a total of 7,607 stops. The data included the race of the stopped driver and the time of the stop. The authors defined daylight as extending from sunrise to sunset. The remaining times were considered dark. Of the 7,607 stops in the database, the authors omitted 329 that were made pursuant to a criminal investigation, where the use of race as an identifying factor is explicitly allowed by law. Another 549 stops were lacking race or time information, so they were excluded as well.

Overall, 45% of the drivers stopped were white and 55% were black. When divided by time of day, 51% of the drivers stopped during daylight were white while 49% were black. During dark hours, 35% of the stopped drivers were white while 65% were black. Recall that the racial distribution of traffic stops at night serves as the benchmark that we then compare to the racial distribution of traffic stops during the day. Evidence of racial profiling exists if black motorists are more likely to be stopped during the day than at night. This study found the direct opposite. Black drivers were more likely to be stopped at night (65% of the stops involved black drivers) than during the day (49% of the stops involved black drivers). If anything, the numbers and comparison discussed previously suggest reverse profiling, because it shows that white drivers are disproportionately stopped during daylight when visibility is high.

However, the researchers assumed that racial differences in travel patterns, driving behavior, and exposure to law enforcement do not vary between daylight and darkness, but these assumptions may not be true. The assumption that travel patterns are similar in the day and the night may be inaccurate, because the time of employment is known to vary by race. 4 To deal with this issue, the researchers made use of the natural variation in hours of daylight over the year. In the winter, it is dark by early evening, whereas in the summer it stays light much later. Recall that the data used in this study were from June 15 through December 30, 2003. Limiting the analysis to stops occurring during the intertwilight period (i.e., between roughly 5 and 9 PM), the researchers could test for differences in the racial distribution of traffic stops between night and day, while controlling for racial variation in travel patterns by time of day.

The second analysis done by researchers was of traffic stops that occurred between 5 and 9 PM, which we will refer to as the intertwilight sample. Depending on the date of the stop, some of the stops were made during daylight and some during dark. Using the intertwilight sample, the authors found that 52% of the drivers stopped during daylight hours were black while 57% of the drivers stopped when it was dark were black. Recall that evidence of racial profiling exists if black motorists are more likely to be stopped during the day than at night. Once again, this analysis provides little evidence of racial profiling in the OPD.

Limitations with the Study Procedure

Although the previous results suggest there is no racial profiling in traffic stops in the OPD, those results hinge on the assumptions that racial differences in travel patterns, driving behavior, and exposure to law enforcement do not vary between daylight and darkness. As noted previously, the assumptions may not be true. The researchers were able to control for differences in travel patterns between daylight and darkness by limiting their analysis to only those traffic stops that occurred between 5 PM and 9 PM (i.e., intertwilight sample). However, the researchers were unable to control for any racial differences in driving behavior and exposure to law enforcement between daylight and darkness. If the assumptions are not true, then the results can be questioned.

Despite the terms of the court settlement that require data collection on every traffic stop conducted by the OPD, there is evidence of a substantial non-reporting problem in the data. An audit of the traffic stop reports led the OPD’s Independent Monitoring Team to estimate that as many as 70% of all motor vehicle stops were not reported in the early phases of this study. Court-ordered oversight and increased officer sanctions for noncompliance raised the number of completed stop forms, especially in October, November, and December. Therefore, the data are not a reflection of all traffic stops but just those that were documented by the officer who made the stop. The extent to which there were racial disparities in reporting (i.e., officers were more likely to not provide documentation on stops of black drivers), then the results can be questioned.

FIGURE 8.1 | Jurisdictions Currently Collecting Traffic Stop Data–2012

In order to validate the proposed benchmark, replication is required. No one study can by itself establish a sufficient base of knowledge to validate this benchmark. As of the middle of 2012, only four studies utilizing this methodology have been done, so we have a long way to go in validating the veil of darkness as a benchmark in racial profiling research. 5

Impact on Criminal Justice

Police agencies throughout the country collect information on the race of drivers stopped by police (see Figure 8.1). As of 2012, 25 states had enacted legislation requiring racial profiling data collection by law enforcement agencies in the state. 6 Another 21 states and the District of Columbia have some police agencies that voluntarily collect data on traffic stops for racial profiling analysis. Only the states of Hawaii, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Vermont do not have any known police agencies that collect traffic stop information for racial profiling assessment purposes. 7

There is plenty of data collection on racial profiling happening throughout the country. This data is then analyzed by the police agency or researchers to determine if racial profiling is occurring within the agency. As is clear from the preceding research article, the problem is there is no valid benchmark for racial profiling assessments. Without a valid benchmark, the traffic stop data cannot be used to make a determination if a police agency is engaging in racial profiling.

The veil of darkness method described in this article might be the right approach. There is still plenty of work that needs to be done to demonstrate that the veil of darkness method is a valid benchmark for racial profiling analysis, but this approach is currently the most useful, cost-effective benchmark yet devised. 8

In This Chapter You Will Learn

The steps in the research process

The structure of research articles and reports

What questions to ask and answer about each section of a research article

About external indicators of research quality

How to assess the internal indicators of research quality

How to critique a research article

Introduction

We hope your adventure through research methods has been an enjoyable one. It is now time to put the material you have learned into practice. In this chapter, we will revisit the steps in the research process covered in Chapter 1. Since the past several chapters have focused on specific research tools, it is important to once again see the big picture of research methods, so we will review the steps in the research process once again. After this, we will discuss the structure of research articles and reports so you will be prepared to read research articles. Understanding the structure of these documents will greatly assist you as you move forward as an educated consumer of research. Along with an overview of the structure of research articles and reports, a set of questions that you should ask as you read each section of a research article will be presented. The questions will serve as a helpful guide as you move forward in evaluating research documents and putting what you have learned in this book and in your class into practice.

The next two sections of this chapter will discuss how to determine the quality of a research article. In other words, how do you know if a research article is “good” and how do you go about assessing the specific details provided in research articles? This section is the culmination of your efforts throughout this semester. Now that you have the knowledge necessary to be an educated consumer of research, this section will provide you the specific tools necessary to know what questions to ask and what documentation to look for as you review and assess research articles. The sections are divided into two categories: external indictors of quality research and internal indicators of quality research. Finally, the last section of this chapter will provide an example of a research article critique. Using experimental design as the template, we will ask and answer a set of questions regarding the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (also covered in Chapter 5). The questions and answers will allow you to make an educated decision regarding the quality of the research. This will serve as a practical example of what you can do in the future as you put your knowledge of research methods into practice in both your academic and professional careers and your personal life.

The Research Process

Although this section was previously covered in Chapter 1, it is important to, once again, review the steps in the research process. Over the past several chapters, we have reviewed several specific research tools, designs, and methods. As you studied the specifics of research methods in each separate chapter, you may have lost focus of the “big picture” and how these different pieces fit together to form a comprehensive understanding of research methods. At the beginning of this chapter, it is important once again to look at the “big picture” to see how all these different tools, designs, and methods come together in the research process. When you read this information the first time in Chapter 1, you were in your first week of class and still may have been quite anxious about understanding this material. Now that you have almost completed the course, the steps should be easy to understand. What was once possibly a foggy understanding of the steps in the research process in Chapter 1 should now be crystal clear.

One of the nice things about studying research methods is it is about learning a process. Research methods can be seen as a sequential process with the first step being followed by the second step, and so on. There are certainly times when the order of the steps may be modified, but researchers typically follow the same process for each research study they complete regardless of the research topic. Very simply, a research problem or question is identified, and a methodology is selected, developed, and implemented to answer the research question. This sequential process is one of the advantages of understanding research methods, because once you understand the process, you can apply that process to any research question that interests you. In addition, research methods are the same across disciplines. So, sampling is the same in business as it is in health education as it is in criminal justice. Certainly the use of a particular method will be more common in one discipline in comparison to another, but the protocol for implementing the method to complete the research study is the same. For example, field research (discussed in Chapter 6) is used much more frequently in anthropology than in criminal justice. However, the research protocol to implement field research is the same whether you are studying an indigenous Indian tribe in South America in anthropology or a group of heroin users in St. Louis in criminal justice.

Some authors have presented the research process as a wheel or circle, with no specific beginning or end. Typically, the research process begins with the selection of a research problem and the development of research questions or hypotheses (discussed in Chapter 2). It is common for the results of previous research to generate new research questions and hypotheses for the researcher. This suggests that research is cyclical, a vibrant and continuous process. When a research study answers one question, the result is often the generation of additional questions, which plunges the researcher right back into the research process to complete additional research to answer these new questions.

In this section, a brief overview of the research process will be presented. Although you will probably not be expected to conduct a research study on your own, it is important for an educated consumer of research to understand the steps in the research process. The steps are presented in chronological order and appear neatly presented. In practice, the researcher can go back and forth between the steps in the research process.

Step 1: Select a Topic and Conduct a Literature Review

The first step in the research process is typically the identification of a problem or topic that the researcher is interested in studying. Research topics can arise from a wide variety of sources, including the findings of a current study, a question that a criminal justice agency needs to have answered, or the result of intellectual curiosity. Once the researcher has identified a particular problem or topic, the researcher assesses the current state of the literature related to the problem or topic. The researcher will often spend a considerable amount of time in determining what the existing literature has to say about the topic. Has the topic already been studied to the point that the questions in which the researcher is interested have been sufficiently answered? If so, can the researcher approach the subject from a previously unexamined perspective? Many times, research topics have been previously explored but not brought to completion. If this is the case, it is certainly reasonable to examine the topic again. It is even appropriate to replicate a previous study to determine whether the findings reported in the prior research continue to be true in different settings with different participants. This step in the research process was discussed in Chapter 2.

Step 2: Develop a Research Question

After a topic has been identified and a comprehensive literature review has been completed on the topic, the next step is the development of a research question or questions. The research question marks the beginning of your research study and is critical to the remaining steps in the research process. The research question determines the research plan and methodology that will be employed in the study, the data that will be collected, and the data analysis that will be performed. Basically, the remaining steps in the process are completed in order to answer the research question or questions established in this step. The development of research questions was discussed in Chapter 2.

Step 3: Develop a Hypothesis

After the research questions have been established, the next step is the formulation of hypotheses, which are statements about the expected relationship between two variables. For example, a hypothesis may state that there is no relationship between heavy metal music preference and violent delinquency. The two variables stated in the hypothesis are music preference and violent delinquency. Hypothesis development was discussed in Chapter 2.

Step 4: Operationalize Concepts

Operationalization involves the process of giving the concepts in your study a working definition and determining how each concept in your study will be measured. For example, in Step 3, the variables were music preference and violent delinquency. The process of operationalization involves determining how music preference and violent delinquency will be measured. Operationalization was discussed in Chapter 2.

Step 5: Develop the Research Plan and Methodology

The next step is to develop the methodology that will be employed to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses. The research methodology is the blueprint for the study, which outlines how the research is to be conducted. The research questions will determine the appropriate methodology for the study. The research design selected should be driven by the research questions asked. In other words, the research questions dictate the methods used to answer them. The methodology is basically a research plan on how the research questions will be answered and will detail:

1. What group, subjects, or population will be studied and selected? Sampling was discussed in Chapter 3.

2. What research design will be used to collect data to answer the research questions? Various research designs were covered in Chapters 4–7.

You need to have familiarity with all research designs so that you can become an educated consumer of research. A survey cannot answer all research questions, so knowing a lot about surveys but not other research designs will not serve you well as you assess research studies. There are several common designs used in criminal justice and criminology research, and brief descriptions of some of them are presented next. At this point in the semester, you should be completely familiar with each of these designs since they have been detailed in prior chapters.

Survey Research is one of the most common research designs employed in criminal justice research. It obtains data directly from research participants by asking them questions and is often conducted through self-administered questionnaires and personal interviews. For example, a professor might have her students complete a survey during class to understand the relationship between drug use and self-esteem. Survey research was discussed in Chapter 4.

Experimental Design s are used when researchers are interested in determining whether a program, policy, practice, or intervention is effective. For example, a researcher may use an experimental design to determine if boot camps are effective at reducing juvenile delinquency. Experimental designs were discussed in Chapter 5.

Field Research involves researchers studying individuals or groups of individuals in their natural environment. The researcher is observing closely or acting as part of the group under study and is able to describe in depth not only the subject’s behaviors, but also consider the motivations that drive their behaviors. For example, if a researcher wanted to learn more about gangs and their activities, he may “hang out” with a gang in order to observe their behavior. Field research was discussed in Chapter 6.

Case Studies A case study is an in-depth analysis of one or a few illustrative cases. This design allows the story behind an individual, a particular offender, to be told, and then information from cases studied can be extrapolated to a larger group. Often these studies require the review and analysis of documents such as police reports and court records and interviews with the offender and others. For example, a researcher may explore the life history of a serial killer to try and understand why the offender killed. Case studies were discussed in Chapter 6.

Secondary Data Analysis occurs when researchers obtain and reanalyze data that was originally collected for a different purpose. This can include reanalyzing data collected from a prior research study, using criminal justice agency records to answer a research question, or conducting historical research. For example, a researcher using secondary data analysis may analyze inmate files from a nearby prison to understand the relationship between custody level assignment and disciplinary violations inside prison. Secondary data analysis was discussed in Chapter 7.

Content Analysis requires the assessment of content contained in mass communication outlets such as newspapers, television, magazines, and the like. In this research design, documents, publications, or presentations are reviewed and analyzed. For example, a researcher utilizing content analysis might review true crime books involving murder to see how the characteristics of the offender and victim in the true crime books match reality as depicted in the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports. Content analysis was discussed in Chapter 7.

Despite the options these designs offer, other research designs are available and were discussed in previous chapters. Ultimately, the design used will depend on the nature of the study and the research questions asked.

RESEARCH IN THE NEWS

Road Rage Common Among Commuters 9

A recent survey found that almost 60% of the respondents who drive to work said they experience road rage at times while traveling to and from the office. These findings are similar to the results found in 2006, which was the last time the study was conducted. Nearly one in ten (9%) workers who drive to work have gotten into a fight with another commuter. While incidents of road rage are more prevalent among those with long commutes, workers with short trips to their jobs are not immune. Of workers with commutes of less than 5 minutes, 37% said they experience road rage from time to time. The same goes for 54% of workers with commutes of less than 10 minutes.

Women are more apt to feel road rage; 61% compared to 56% of men. In terms of age groups, workers ages 25 to 34 were the most likely to experience road rage at 68%, while workers 55 and older were the least likely to experience road rage at 47%. The survey was completed online by 3,892 U.S. workers who were employed full-time. Workers who were self-employed or worked for the government were excluded from the survey. The survey was completed by workers 18 years of age and older and was conducted between May 14 and June 4, 2012.

Step 6: Execute the Research Plan and Collect Data

The next step in the research process is the collection of the data based on the research design developed. For example, if a survey is developed to study the relationship between gang membership and violent delinquency, the distribution and collection of surveys from a group of high school students would occur in this step. Data collection was discussed in several chapters throughout this text.

Step 7: Analyze Data

After the data have been collected, the next phase in the research process involves analyzing the data through various and appropriate statistical techniques. The most common means for data analysis today is through the use of a computer and statistically oriented software. Data analysis and statistics are discussed in Chapter 9.

Step 8: Report Findings, Results, and Limitations

Reporting and interpreting the results of the study are the final steps in the research process. The findings and results of the study can be communicated through reports, journals, or books. At this step, the results are reported and the research questions are answered. In addition, an assessment is made regarding the support or lack of support for the hypotheses tested. It is also at this stage that the researcher can pose additional research questions that may now need to be answered as a result of the research study. In addition, the limitations of the study will be described by the researcher as well as the impact the limitations may have on the results of the study. All research has limitations, so it is incumbent on the researcher to identify those limitations for the reader.

Structure of Research Articles and Reports

As noted in the prior section, research methods can be seen as a sequential process as depicted in the steps in the research process. The question then becomes, what do researchers do with all the data and information they collect in their research projects? The answer is they write journal articles, research reports, and books. One of the advantages of reading research articles is their structures are usually very similar. It is helpful as an educated consumer of research to understand the common structure of research articles and reports. You will be able to easily identify these sections as you review research articles and reports in the future.

Before we discuss the structure of research articles and reports, it is necessary to mention the three main publication outlets for research articles. First, a common outlet for a researcher’s study and results is a journal article. Journal articles appear in thousands of journals covering the gamut of academic disciplines from accounting to zoology. Researchers write manuscripts based on their research projects and then submit them to journals for publication. Later in this section, we will discuss how to assess the quality of a journal. For now, it is important to recognize that journals are a critical outlet for research articles. Second, another place to find research is in reports that are published by government agencies, private companies, and businesses. For our specific purposes, this includes government documents produced by state and federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Justice and local, state, and federal criminal justice agencies. Thousands of documents each year are published as reports with many available online. Reports are similar in structure to journal articles; however, reports are usually more detailed than journal articles, which have limited space for details such as the research methods used in the study and the results. Furthermore, reports typically do not include a literature review. Due to these similarities, reports can be evaluated in much the same way as journal articles. Third, books are sometimes used as a primary source to document a research study. Due to the magnitude of the study, a book-length manuscript is developed to document the research methodology and findings. University presses (e.g., Cornell University Press and University of Texas Press) commonly print research projects and their results as books.

Most published research follows a basic format, which will be reviewed in this section. Although the structure described next will vary slightly depending on the research methods utilized and will vary by discipline and the requirements of the publication outlet, most research reports that are published follow a similar format. Consumers of research grow accustomed to seeing the same basic information in each published research article. By knowing the structure of a research article and the general information that is included in each of the sections, research consumers can be less anxious about reading published research. This format also provides a structure for researchers to follow when writing up their research. This format includes a title, abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, discussion, conclusion, and references. Each will be described next along with questions that an educated consumer of research should ask regarding each part of a research article.

Titles help research consumers quickly identify if the journal, article, or book may be of interest to them. The title should provide the research consumer with a general idea of the article topic and perhaps the main variables assessed in the study. Some evaluative questions to ask regarding the title of a research article include:

1. Is the title concise and specific?

2. Are the main variables and research subjects included in the title?

3. Is the title free of jargon and acronyms that may not be generally recognized by research consumers? 10

The abstract is typically limited to 150–200 words, depending on the publication outlet. The abstract gives a short synopsis of the article, including the topic covered, the methodology, and the major findings of the research. The abstract provides a quick way for the research consumer to get an overview of the research study to see if more in-depth exploration is warranted. Some evaluative questions to ask regarding the abstract of a research article include:

1. Is the purpose of the study clearly stated in the abstract?

2. Does the abstract include the main points of the methodology used?

3. Does the abstract include the main findings? 11

In the introduction, the researcher should establish for the reader the importance of the research topic, the historical background of the problem, and the need for research in the area. For example, several strategies have been developed to reduce recidivism among convicted sex offenders (e.g., sex offender registration, community notification, residency restrictions, and civil commitment). This is obviously an important topic, and researchers want to find out which strategy works best at reducing recidivism. After the researcher has introduced the topic and its significance, the introduction should be narrowed down to the specific research project discussed in the article. Some evaluative questions to ask about the introduction include:

1. Does the researcher identify a specific problem area in the introduction?

2. Does the researcher establish the importance of the problem area?

3. Does the introduction start broadly and then narrow down to the specific research topic?

Literature Review

The literature review section provides a framework for the research by assessing the prior studies that have already been conducted on the topic. Basically, the literature review includes the pertinent prior studies that have addressed the topic of your research and have answered your research questions. The literature review provides a compilation of what is currently known about the topic under study. The literature review should also be critical and note the limitations in the prior research and identify the gaps in the literature where adequate research has not been conducted. The literature review should contain the most recent research studies on the topic as well. However, the literature review should not dismiss history, but instead should discuss the seminal studies on the topic. For example, if you are conducting a study on the factors that impact the decisions of police officers to arrest juvenile offenders, you would definitely want to include the article, discussed later in this chapter, by Piliavin and Briar: the seminal work on police discretion and juveniles.

The review of the literature may also include a description of the theoretical framework that was used for the study. The theoretical framework can put the development of the researchers’ hypotheses into context. To demonstrate the link between the theoretical framework and hypothesis construction, some publications will place the hypotheses at the end of the literature review instead of at the beginning of the methodology section. Some evaluative questions to ask about the literature review include:

1. Does the literature review include current as well as seminal citations?

2. Is the literature review critical of the prior literature by noting its limitations?

3. Have gaps in the current literature been identified in the literature review? 15

WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS: IMPACTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE OPERATIONS

Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders: Are the Right Offenders Identified and Public Safety Increased? 12

In response to a growing perceived need to protect the public from sexual offenses, numerous public policies have been developed to manage and track convicted sex offenders. Although the most widely known of these initiatives are sex offender registration and community notification laws, many states have recently also enacted sex offender civil management laws (also commonly referred to as civil confinement/commitment laws or sexually violent predator [SVP] laws). These civil management laws are designed to protect the public while offering treatment to the offender, by allowing the civil confinement of those sex offenders deemed to be at high risk for sexual recidivism after they have completed their criminal justice sentences for certain sexual crimes. Twenty-two jurisdictions (20 states, District of Columbia, and the federal government) have enacted such laws.

New York is one of these states. In 2007, the State of New York enacted its Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA) to civilly manage those sex offenders deemed to be at high risk for sexual recidivism. Specifically, SOMTA allows the state to civilly manage sex offenders about to be released from state supervision who have mental abnormalities that predispose them to engage in repeated sex offenses, by either:

a. placing the offenders in the community on strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST); or

b. civilly confining those offenders deemed to be dangerous (i.e., unable to control their sexual offending behavior).

The study sought to inform the SOMTA review process by answering the following research questions:

1. Which variables are most influential in the SOMTA review process? And

2. Is the sex offender civil management process in New York correctly identifying high-risk offenders (and, therefore, likely increasing public safety)?

To answer the first research question, the researchers obtained data on all offenders reviewed for possible civil management from April 13, 2007, to November 12, 2008 (N = 1,991). Since SOMTA had only been enacted a year and a half before the study, a sufficient length of time had not yet passed for the sexual recidivism rates of the 1,991 offenders screened under SOMTA to be adequately judged. To overcome this challenge, the researchers created a historical cohort of New York sex offenders before the enactment of SOMTA. Offenders in the historical cohort were matched (on variables found to be important to the SOMTA review process) to those offenders actually reviewed under SOMTA. In other words, the offenders used to answer the second research question (i.e., the recidivism analysis) were never reviewed under SOMTA but were matched on risk factors to SOMTA-reviewed offenders. A total of 1,546 offenders were included in the matched historical cohort.

To answer the first research question, the researchers identified the demographic, criminal history, and victim variables that contributed most significantly to being deemed high risk and receiving a psychiatric exam. The greatest increase in the odds of an offender receiving a psychiatric exam was associated with the offender’s Static-99 score. The Static-99 is the most widely used instrument to conduct male sex offender risk assessments and has been found to be reliable and valid. Three other variables that made the SOMTA review process likely were having a male victim, age of the offender (with older offenders more likely to be reviewed), and number of prior sexual convictions. To answer the second research question, the researchers used the matched historical cohort. The data analysis revealed an overall 5-year sexual rearrest rate of 7.2%.

Taken as a whole, the results of the study supported the efficacy of the risk assessment process used in New York to identify those offenders most likely to recidivate sexually. The factors identified by the research most likely to be associated with an offender being high risk are the same ones identified in prior literature (i.e., Static-99 score, male victim, older offender, and number of prior sexual convictions). The researchers concluded that the results of the current study indicate that sex offender civil management is successful and is likely increasing public safety. This is important to the operation of the criminal justice system because the growing body of research indicates little, no, and sometimes even negative impacts on public safety resulting from sex offender registration and community notification, 13 as well as sex offender residency restrictions. 14 Thus, unlike sex offender registries, community notification, and residency restrictions, sex offender civil management appears from this study to be reducing sexual victimizations.

The methods section is where the material discussed in the prior chapters of this text is put into action to let readers know the details of how the research was conducted. It should provide details on the methods used by the researchers to gather data and answer the research questions and/or test the hypotheses. The methodology section includes a description of the research design, data sources, sampling strategy, variables and how they were measured, and data collection instruments used. Methods sections are often longer in quantitative studies than in qualitative studies. Explicit details of the methods used should be provided, because this section of the article provides much of the material needed by the consumer of research to evaluate the quality of the article. Unfortunately, this detail is not always provided, which leaves the consumer to make assumptions about the methods and their limitations.

Depending on the publication outlet, the limitations of the research study may also be included in the methods section of the research article. If the limitations are not discussed in the methods section, then they will be reviewed in the discussion or conclusion section. Complete transparency and full candor are expected as the researcher shows the reader that he acknowledges the limitations of the research and has thought through how the limitations can impact the results. For example, if the experimental design had several participants drop out of the program between the pre-test and the post-test, then the researcher needs to discuss how subject mortality can influence the results of the study. Similarly, if the survey researcher discovers some wording issues with one of the questions on the survey, then he should address this reliability issue and how it may impact the results of the study. No research is perfect, so it is incumbent upon the researcher to state the limitations and flaws in the research and to provide the information needed by the educated consumer of researcher to decide the magnitude of the limitations and their cumulative impact on the research findings.

In the methods section, the researcher should also discuss the statistical analysis of the data to be performed and reported in the results section of the article. Although the statistical tests performed can become quite technical and complex, it is important for the researcher to present information about the statistical tests so the consumer can become familiar with the techniques used in analyzing the data. Statistics will be discussed in Chapter 9.

It is impossible to develop a single checklist of the topics that need to be addressed in a methods section because the details that need to be provided depend on the methods used. For example, the response rate only needs to be included in the methods section when a survey has been conducted. Likewise, the sampling protocol is frequently a component of the methods section, but sampling is irrelevant when a case study is completed. Specific evaluative questions about the methodology section will not be presented here, but instead will be provided when the internal indicators of research quality are presented later in this chapter.

Results/Findings

The results section is a straightforward discussion of the research findings, but it is frequently the most difficult part of a research article to understand due to the statistical tests that may be used, especially for a newly educated consumer of research. At the beginning of the results section, a discussion of the sample is provided, along with appropriate statistical description, so the reader can understand the characteristics of the research subjects. The results section presents the findings of the research and answers each research question and/or tests each hypothesis.

For quantitative studies, the statistical analysis presented in the results section is typically presented in tables, charts, and graphs as well as described in the text. The tables often provide greater detail than what is described in words and also allow the reader to follow the description of the results provided in the article. In the results section, the researchers will also state whether there were any unexpected findings or findings that have not been discovered in the prior literature. The researcher will wait until the discussion section to discuss the reasons for the anomaly in detail, but she will typically point out the interesting finding when it is initially presented in the results section.

The presentation of data flows logically and a straightforward discussion of the main findings and their significance are presented in the results section. In qualitative research, the data are organized in a manner that illustrates a line of reasoning or tells a story. Some evaluative questions to ask about the results include:

1. What findings are statistically significant? (discussed in Chapter 9)

2. Does the author answer each research question and/ or address each hypothesis?

3. If there are tables, are the highlights discussed in the narrative of the results?

4. Are the results of qualitative studies adequately supported with examples of quotations or descriptions of observations? 16

Some research articles combine the discussion section with the results section, while others combine the discussion section with the conclusion section, while still others keep all three sections separate. We will present them as separate sections. In the discussion section of the article, the researcher is expected to interpret the findings of the research study and discuss their implications. The major findings are discussed and examined for agreement or disagreement with prior research findings as presented in the literature review portion of the article.

The researchers basically answer the following question: “Did the findings support the results of prior literature?” If yes, the author will note that his findings are consistent with prior research. If the answer is no, then the researcher will identify potential reasons for the unexpected finding. The unexpected finding may be due to a research limitation or the researcher may provide an analytical or theoretical framework to explain the odd finding. In a sense, the research article is presented in a circular manner. The literature review is presented followed by the methods and results section, and then in the discussion section, the findings are tied back to the prior literature presented in the literature review.

Depending on the type of research completed, the researchers will present in the discussion section the implications of the findings for prior literature, theory development, and policy and practice in the criminal justice system. Depending on the publication outlet, some research articles may include a few paragraphs on the policy implications of the research findings. Some evaluative questions to ask about the discussion include:

1. Do the researchers acknowledge specific methodological limitations and their potential impact on the findings (limitations may be covered in methods section)?

2. Are the results discussed in terms of the literature cited in the literature review?

3. Are the results discussed in terms of any relevant theories? 17

4. Does the author offer speculations about what the results may mean and their implications?

In the conclusion, the researchers will first briefly summarize the research problem addressed in the study, the major results, and any significant unexpected findings. Then, the researchers provide the reader a broad perspective on the research findings and put the findings into context by demonstrating where the study results fit into the larger literature. The researchers will explain the benefits derived from the research and identify areas in need of further research.

Also, the researcher will discuss the generalizability of the findings. Can the findings be generalized to other populations, other settings, and other contexts? If so, the researcher will justify why the findings can be generalized within the selected parameters. If not, the researcher will discuss this limitation and its causes along with providing an explanation of what research needs to be done in the future to improve the generalizability of the results. Some evaluative questions to ask about the conclusion include:

1. Are specific implications discussed?

2. Are suggestions for future research specified?

3. Does the research extend the boundaries of the knowledge on a topic? 18

4. Do the researcher’s conclusions concur with the results that were reported or does the author overgeneralize the findings?

The reference section of a research article gives the reader complete information about the previous research that was used in the study. Researchers need to provide citations for each source that was used in the research article. Many of the sources will have been used in the literature review section. The reader can use the reference list to obtain additional primary sources on the research topic. If you compare the references of several research articles on the same topic, you will be able to determine what seminal and critical articles exist on the research topic.

Some evaluative questions to ask about the references include:

1. Has the most recent research on the topic been included in the references?

2. Have the seminal articles on the topic been included in the references?

External Indicators of Research Quality

This section will focus on the external indicators of research quality. The external indicators can be identified without reading the research article. It is important to recognize that reading the article and identifying the internal indicators of research quality, which will be discussed in the next section, is a more valid measure of, and therefore a better way to assess, research quality. However, the external indicators can serve as a shortcut method to determine if the research article is worth further attention and assessment.

As previously discussed, the three main publication outlets for research articles are journal articles, reports, and books. Most of the focus of this section will be on journal articles since academic journals are the primary way that researchers disseminate the results of their research. Some of the indicators discussed next, such as university affiliation and researcher reputation, apply equally to journal articles, books, and reports, but a few comments about the indicators of quality books and reports are necessary before we delve into those topics.

For this section, we are referring to books used as a primary source to document a research study. In other words, due to the magnitude of the study, a book-length manuscript is developed to document the research methodology and findings. Secondary sources include textbooks, encyclopedias, and news reports. Secondary sources usually involve summaries of primary source work and, while they may offer some information related to the research methods used in the study, they often do not provide the detail you need to assess the quality of the research article without tracking down the original article (i.e., primary source).

For books as a primary source, one of the main factors to consider when determining the quality of research reported is to look at the book’s publisher. Books published by university presses (e.g., Cornell University Press and University of Texas Press) are typically high-quality manuscripts involving high-quality research. University presses, similar to some of the academic journals discussed next, have stringent manuscript review processes, so only the best manuscripts are printed by these publishers.

Similarly, for reports, you need to look at what organization published the research. If the report is published by a federal agency such as the U.S. Department of Justice, then it should be considered high quality. The U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies have full-time researchers that write research reports on data obtained by the agency, so the research is conducted and written by trained researchers. The same can be said for reports published by state agencies. There are also private companies (e.g., Rand Corporation) that routinely conduct research in criminal justice agencies and then publish the reports, which are frequently available on their websites. Much of this work completed by respected companies is high quality as well because trained, full-time researchers are conducting the research and reporting the results. The theme is that if the research is completed by a full-time researcher, then it is probably a quality piece of research. Of course, there will be exceptions to the general rule, but it is a good piece of information to remember as you move forward in assessing research articles.

You should be more skeptical of research reports completed by city or county criminal justice agencies. Most of these agencies do not have full-time researchers, so there is concern about the capabilities of the person who completed the research. That does not mean that a report completed by a county or city criminal justice agency cannot be high quality but rather that you should not assume it to be high quality based on the agency that produced it. These reports need further assessment to determine their quality. We will discuss three external indicators of quality research: researcher reputation, institutional reputation, and journal quality.

Researcher Reputation

Some researchers consistently produce top-quality research, so the research articles they write—whether as a book, report, or journal article—can be assumed to be high quality. There are researchers that are the best in their particular area of expertise and everything they produce is high quality. Often, the largest body of research in a particular area is done by the same person or the same group of people at a few different institutions. We will not name specific researchers who meet these requirements, but maybe your professor will. If you or your professor does not know the researcher, you can search for information about her on the Internet. You should be able to easily find the researcher’s curriculum vita (like a resume) online and look at her prior publications to see if she has written in this area before and where the prior research articles have been published.

Institutional Reputation

Another external indicator is the institutional affiliation of the researcher and its reputation. Just like journals discussed in the following section, some universities are better than others when it comes to research. Researchers who work at top-ranked research universities are going to have strict requirements to produce high-quality research and high-quality publications in order to maintain their employment. Although even the top-ranked research universities have some deadwood (we definitely are not going to name names), institutional reputation is a quick way to determine if the research article is high quality.

Journal Quality

As previously stated, academic journals are the primary way that researchers disseminate the results of their research. The journals vary in quality though. One measure of the quality of a journal is their manuscript review process. There are two types of journals: refereed and nonrefereed journals. Refereed journals use a peer-review process to review manuscripts. Peer review is a form of quality control most commonly related to academic journals. If a journal follows a peer review process, when a manuscript is submitted to the journal, it is sent out to be reviewed by two or more experts in the field to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for publication. The review is almost always a blind review, which means the reviewer does not know the name of the researcher who wrote the manuscript. This limits bias in the review process.

When a manuscript is submitted to a refereed journal, the journal editor will review the manuscript to see if it is of sufficient quality to send out for external review. Those that are not of sufficient quality are rejected by the journal editor and returned to the author. For those that are good enough to be externally reviewed, the editor will send the manuscript to two or more reviewers. Sometimes, these reviewers are members of the journal’s editorial board. Each reviewer evaluates the article, provides written comments to the editor, and recommends to either accept, reject, or send the manuscript back to the authors for revisions and reassessment after the revisions are made (commonly called “revise and resubmit”). After the reviews are completed, the editor makes the final decision on whether the manuscript will be accepted for publication, rejected, or sent back to the authors with a request to “revise and resubmit.”

Nonrefereed journals do not utilize the peer review process. The articles in nonrefereed journals will be reviewed by the journal editor and published in the order in which they are received or according to a fee that the author pays. Journals that are not peer reviewed do not garner as much respect from fellow researchers as there is less quality control of the material published. If you are not familiar with a particular journal, you can usually determine if it is a peer-reviewed journal by reading the material at the front of the journal. There is a section at the beginning of the journal (sometimes it is in the back) that will be titled something like “information for potential contributors,” which will provide information on the manuscript review process for the journal.

As an external indicator of research quality, research articles appearing in refereed journals will be higher quality than articles appearing in nonrefereed journals. Of course, there are exceptions to this statement, but it is a good principle to remember as you move forward as an educated consumer of research.

You have identified that the journal utilizes a peer-review process and so it is a refereed journal. Now what? Well, all refereed journals are not the same quality; some are better than others. So, how do you determine if the refereed journal is a high-quality journal? One indicator is the journal’s acceptance rate. The acceptance rate is the number of manuscripts accepted for publication divided by the number of manuscripts submitted to the journal for publication consideration. The lower the acceptance rate, presumably the better the quality of the journal. The acceptance rate can be difficult to obtain without directly contacting the journal editor, so it is not always available to the consumer of research.

Another indicator of the quality of the journal is the reputation of the journal editor. As stated previously regarding the reputation of the researcher, if the journal editor is one of the top researchers in the area covered by the journal, then that is an indication that the journal is high quality as well. Similarly, the reader can review the names of the editorial board members listed at the beginning of the journal. The better the reputations of the editorial board members, the better the reputation of the journal. In addition, the university affiliation of each editorial board member will be presented in the journal. If the journal has several editorial board members that come from major research universities, then this is an indication that the journal is of high quality. These three indicators (acceptance rate, editor reputation, and editorial board composition) are used by research consumers to assess the quality of the journal, but a new indicator has been developed in recent years to measure journal quality: the impact factor.

Impact Factor The impact factor is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been citied in a particular year. It is an evaluation tool that is annually provided by the company Thomson Reuters in the Journal Citation Reports. A journal’s impact factor is the average number of times articles from the journal, published in the past two years, have been cited. The latest year available at the time of this writing is 2011. The impact factor for 2011 was calculated as the number of citations in 2011 to articles published in the journal in 2009 and 2010 divided by the number of articles published in the journal in 2009 and 2010. The higher the impact factor, the higher the journal quality. The idea behind the impact factor is that if other researchers are citing the material from the journal’s articles, then this is an indication that the journal’s articles are high quality and thus the journal is a quality venue for published research.

The top-ranked journals of the 2011 Journal Citation Reports in the criminology and penology category which is where criminal justice and criminology journals are ranked, are:

1. Trauma Violence and Abuse (impact factor—3.265);

2. Criminology (impact factor—2.467);

3. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (impact factor—2.231);

4. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (impact factor—2.188), and;

5. British Journal of Criminology (impact factor—2.130)

A list of the top 50 journals in criminal justice and criminology are presented in Figure 8–2. You can assume that the articles in the higher ranked journals are high quality before you even begin to read the journal article.

When judging the quality of a research article using external indicators, the bottom line is to look at it from as many different perspectives as possible, including the author’s credentials, the author’s professional affiliation, and where the work is published.

FIGURE 8.2 | Criminal Justice and Criminology Journal Rankings by Impact Factor–2011

Are Parents Creating Einsteins or Homer Simpsons? 19

In a 2007 study on the effects of popular videos such as the “Baby Einstein” and “Brainy Baby” series, researchers found that these products may be doing more harm than good and may actually delay language development in toddlers. Parents aiming to put their babies on the fast track, even if they are still working on walking, spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on the videos.

The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Washington. The data was obtained through telephone interviews with 1,008 parents of children age 2 months to 24 months. Each telephone interview took about 45 minutes to complete. Questions were asked about child and parent demographics, child-parent interactions, and child’s viewing of several content types of television and DVDs/videos. Parents were also asked to complete the short form of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI), which measures infant language development and has been shown to be both reliable and valid. The associations between CDI scores and media exposure were evaluated using multivariate regression (see Chapter 9), controlling for parent and child demographics and parent-child interactions. 20 Among infants (age 8 to 16 months), each hour per day of viewing baby DVDs/videos was associated with a 17-point decrease in the CDI score. Infants who watched videos learned six to eight fewer new vocabulary words than babies who never watched the videos. Among toddlers (age 17 to 24 months), there were no significant associations between any type of media exposure and CDI scores. 21 In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended no television for children under 24 months.

The University of Washington press release 22 regarding the study led to a letter from Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney and proprietor of Baby Einstein, to Mark Emmert, the president of the University of Washington, calling the press statement “misleading, irresponsible, and derogatory” 23 and claiming the “methodology [used in the study] is doubtful, its data seem anomalous and the inferences it posits unreliable.” 24 In response, President Emmert stated “The Journal of Pediatrics is a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal. Papers submitted to this journal undergo a rigorous review by experts in the field before they are accepted for publication. This process ensures that the work represented in the paper meets high standards of scientific inquiry required by the editors of the journal and its editorial panel of distinguished scientists…. The University of Washington will not retract its news release.” 25

Internal Indicators of Research Quality

Although the external indicators of research quality serve as a quick screening mechanism for research articles, it is not a substitute for a detailed, internal review of the article. Even though many journals utilize a peer-review process and some have low manuscript acceptance rates, articles within those journals will vary in quality, so an internal assessment of research quality is essential. A reader who critically assesses a research article will evaluate the methodology used by the researcher, assess the analysis performed, and verify that the conclusions drawn by the authors are supported by the research findings. When we reviewed the structure of research articles earlier in the chapter, we provided evaluative questions you should ask about the title, abstract, introduction, literature review, results, discussion, conclusion, and references. We did not provide any evaluative questions for the methods section at the time, but now we’re ready to address those in this section, in which the internal indicators of research quality will be presented. These indicators will assist in answering the question “How good is this research article?” We will focus on the methods section of the article.

Throughout this book you have been provided with the tools necessary to critically evaluate research. We have covered a comprehensive list of research methods topics and have consistently discussed issues and challenges faced by researchers when conducting research. For example, in Chapter 3 we discussed probability and non-probability sampling and the issues of representativeness, generalizability, sampling error, and sample size. In Chapter 4, we discussed surveys and issues such as nonresponse, social desirability, ensuring truthful responses, and ensuring consistent question meaning for all respondents. We also provided a comprehensive discussion of reliability and validity, focusing on mechanisms to assess and increase each. In Chapter 5, we discussed experimental and quasi-experimental designs, focusing on the critical importance of the pretest, control group, and random assignment. In addition, we discussed several threats to internal validity that may impact the results found utilizing these designs. In Chapter 6, we discussed field research and the issues of going native, reactivity and the Hawthorne Effect, maintaining objectivity, and ethical dilemmas faced by field researchers. We also discussed case studies and the issues of generalizability and researcher bias. In Chapter 7, we discussed unobtrusive measures, such as secondary data analysis and the issues of having no control over the original data collection and problems with the validity of agency records. We also discussed the use of archival data and the reliability and validity issues that arise from this method, along with content analysis and the challenge of interrater reliability.

At this point, you may be thinking that no piece of research is going to withstand the rigors set forth in this chapter and book. We have stated it before, but it should be clear after the last paragraph that there is no perfect research. Researchers make a series of decisions when conducting a research study and not everyone will agree with those decisions. Each decision creates the potential for error, and each step in the research process creates the potential for error as well. There is plenty of high-quality research, though. The issue is not whether the research has limitations but how the flaws impact the research results. Are the errors of the magnitude that they can significantly impact the results of the study, which then leads you to question the results?

Your ability to read and critically evaluate research articles will improve with practice by reading many journal articles, books, and reports, but it does take practice. Remember, research involves a process and research articles are structured in a similar manner each time. Once you are comfortable with the process for conducting research and the structure of research articles, your review of articles will become easier and more routine. Once you have developed your ability to critically assess research articles, those skills will remain with you forever. You will not have to relearn the research process and evaluative issues every five years in order to maintain your skills. The reality is research methods do not change that much. Yes, it is true that new techniques are developed (e.g., Internet and e-mail surveys), but the foundation of research methods developed decades ago will be the same foundation in 100 years.

We will present several evaluative questions next. As you put your research methods knowledge into practice and review research articles, revisit the earlier chapters. But, do not think of research quality as a dichotomy of good and bad. In reality, research quality should be reflected as a continuum, and every research article can be placed somewhere on the continuum.

Questions to Ask about Research Articles

Following are some evaluative questions you should ask about a research article. Some of the questions will differentially apply, depending on the methods used in the research study. The questions will be categorized by chapter so you can easily refer back to the chapter for additional information.

Evaluative Questions from Chapter 2 Material—Ethics and Terminology

What is/are the basic research question(s)?

What were the major concepts in the research study?

How were the concepts operationalized and measured?

Would other measurements have been better? Why or why not?

What were the independent and dependent variables in the study?

Were any hypotheses stated?

Were these hypotheses justified adequately in terms of prior research?

Did the study seem consistent with current ethical standards? Explain how ethical standards were upheld.

Did the author adequately represent the findings in the discussion and/or conclusions sections?

Did the researcher overgeneralize the findings? If yes, how?

Evaluative Questions from Chapter 3 Material-Sampling In the methods section of a research article, the researcher should describe the sampling procedures used in the study and describe the subjects who participated in the research. When you are reading about the sampling procedures, be sure to evaluate who the research subjects were, taking into account available demographic characteristics such as age, race, ethnicity, and gender. Be sure to assess whether the composition of the sample will limit the generalizability of the results. Some evaluative questions about sampling follow.

Was a sample or the entire population used in the study?

What type of sampling method was employed?

Was a probability sampling method used?

If a non-probability sampling method was used, does the researcher justify its use and discuss its limitations?

Did the authors think the sample was generally representative of the population from which it was drawn? Why or why not?

Do you think the sample was generally representative of the population from which it was drawn? Why or why not?

Was the sample size large enough? Why or why not?

Overall, is the sample appropriate for generalizing to the population?

Evaluative Questions from Chapter 4 Material—Surveys, Validity, and Reliability

Was survey research used? Was this design suited to the research question posed? Why or why not?

Was the response rate reported? If yes, what was it?

Does it appear likely that those who did not respond or participate were markedly different from those who did participate? Why or why not?

What is the likelihood that characteristics of the nonrespondents introduced bias into the results? Did the authors adequately discuss this issue?

What evidence did the authors provide to show the representativeness/generalizability of the sample to the population? What comparisons between the respondents, sample, and population were presented?

Did the survey used, the measures of the variables, seem valid and reliable? Why or why not?

How did the author attempt to establish the validity of the survey?

When delving into sensitive matters (e.g., past victimization or criminal/delinquent history), is there reason to believe that accurate data were obtained?

Do you believe that social desirability is an issue in the study? Why or why not?

How did the author attempt to establish the reliability of the survey?

If an index was used in the survey, does it have adequate internal consistency?

How did the researcher ensure consistent meaning of the questions?

How was the survey distributed? What factors influenced the author’s decision to distribute the survey in this manner?

Evaluative Questions from Chapter 5 Material—Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs

What type of research design was used in this study?

What were the parameters/criteria for inclusion in the study?

What cases were excluded from the study?

What was/were the treatment(s)?

What was/were the dependent variable(s)?

What pre-test(s) was/were conducted? Be sure to discuss how each dependent variable was measured and the time frame.

What post-test(s) was/were conducted? Be sure to discuss how each dependent variable was measured and the time frame.

What was/were the experimental/treatment group(s)?

What was/were the control/comparison group(s)? Was the control/comparison group adequate?

Were the groups established through randomization or matching? Be sure to discuss the procedures used to establish and monitor equivalence.

What threats to internal validity could impact the results of this study? For each threat to internal validity identified, define the threat, describe how it applies to this study, and explain how it could impact the results of this study.

Were any causal assertions made or implied in the hypotheses or in subsequent discussion? If yes, were all three criteria for establishing causal relationships addressed? How did the author establish the existence of the three criteria for causality? What, if any, variables were controlled in the analysis to reduce the risk of spurious relationships?

Evaluative Questions from Chapter 6 Material—Field Research and Case Studies

Was field research or a case study used in this study? Was the design suited to the research question posed? Why or why not?

How much interaction was present between the researcher and the research subjects?

What steps were taken to keep the researcher from influencing the behavior of the research subjects?

Were any ethical dilemmas faced by the researcher? If yes, how did the researcher handle the dilemmas?

Did the researcher maintain objectivity? If not, how did this influence the results of the study?

Did the researcher acknowledge any biases or reactivity in the study? If so, how did they impact the results?

Did the researcher discuss the generalizability of the findings?

Did the instruments used, the measures of the variables, seem valid and reliable? Why or why not?

How did the author attempt to establish the reliability of the measurement?

How did the author attempt to establish the validity of the measurement?

What more could have been done in the study to establish reliability and validity?

Evaluative Questions from Chapter 7 Material—Unobtrusive Methods

Was an unobtrusive method such as secondary data analysis used? Was this design suited to the research question posed? Why or why not?

CLASSICS IN CJ RESEARCH

Factors that Influence Police Decisions Regarding Juveniles

Research Study 26

In the mid-1960s, very few research studies had been conducted on police discretion. The use of police discretion was recognized by researchers and law enforcement personnel at the time, but few studies had addressed the factors that police consider when making decisions to arrest. Piliavin and Briar were the first to assess the factors that impact police decisions regarding juveniles.

What factors influence police decisions regarding juveniles?

The setting for the research was a metropolitan police department in the United States serving an industrial city with approximately 450,000 residents. Data for this study came from observations of police officers on the street over a 9-month period and interviews with these same officers (27 of the 30 officers were interviewed). Utilizing field research, systematic data were collected on police encounters with 76 juveniles. Observations took place on a variety of days and shifts, but more observations occurred in the evenings and on weekends when police officers were more likely to interact with juveniles.

The subjects under study were 30 police officers assigned to the Juvenile Bureau. These police officers were responsible for delinquency prevention as well as law enforcement for the police department. In the field, juvenile officers operated essentially as patrol officers. They were assigned to beats, answered calls for service, and although concerned primarily with juvenile offenders, frequently had occasion to arrest adults. The study is limited to police interaction with juveniles though. The researchers had an opportunity to observe all officers in the Bureau during the study, but their observations were concentrated on those who had been working in the Bureau for a minimum of one year. The officers were observed in the course of their regular patrol shifts. Observations were completed for the following encounters with juveniles:

1. Encounters taking place at or near the scene of offenses reported to the police department; and

2. Encounters occurring as the result of officers’ directly observing youths either committing offenses or in suspicious circumstances.

For these encounters, officers could choose among five dispositional alternatives:

1. Outright release;

2. Release and submission of a field interrogation report briefly describing the circumstances surrounding the police-juvenile encounter;

3. Official reprimand and release to parents or guardian;

4. Citation to juvenile court; and

5. Arrest and confinement in juvenile detention.

Dispositions 3, 4, and 5 involved the juvenile being taken to the police station and resulted in an official record for the juvenile because his name was officially recorded in Bureau files as a juvenile violator.

For purposes of this analysis, each youth’s demeanor in the encounter was classified as either cooperative or uncooperative. The data used for the classification of demeanor were the written records of observations made by the researchers. The classifications were made by an independent assessor not associated with this study. In classifying a youth’s demeanor as cooperative or uncooperative, particular attention was paid to: 1) the youth’s responses to police officers’ questions and requests; 2) the respect and deference, or lack of these qualities, shown by the youth toward police officers, and 3) police officers assessments of the youth’s demeanor.

The researchers reported several results. First, the researchers found that broad discretion was exercised by police officers in dealing with juvenile offenders. All offenses, even serious ones, received each of the five dispositional alternatives previously discussed. Therefore, the commission of a serious offense did not automatically result in arrest.

Second, the exercise of discretion was affected by a few readily observable criteria, including the seriousness of the current offense, the juveniles’ prior offense record, race, and demeanor. The first two criteria (i.e., seriousness of offense and prior record) are legal factors and are expected to be taken into consideration by the police when making decisions.

However, the demeanor of the youth was identified as a major factor in determining what police disposition he would be given. Overall, 67% of the juveniles who were categorized as uncooperative in their interaction with police were arrested while less than 5% of the juveniles who were deemed cooperative were arrested. During interviews, officers estimated that 50–60% of dispositions for first-time juvenile offenders were based on the demeanor of the juvenile. Besides legal factors like seriousness of the offense and prior record, demeanor of the juvenile was the most important factor influencing the decisions of officers.

Third, the differential in arrest and apprehension rates between blacks and whites was not simply a consequence of a greater offense rate among blacks. To some extent, the differential was due to the fact that blacks more often than whites were viewed as uncooperative. Blacks were more likely to receive one of the more severe outcomes. This finding was attributed to police officer prejudice against blacks. Researchers interviewed 27 of the officers assigned to the Juvenile Bureau, and 18 of them candidly expressed their disapproval of blacks.

Piliavin and Briar offered one of the first empirical studies of police discretion by observing police encounters with juveniles. They based their conclusions, however, on a small sample of police observations (i.e., 76 total observations were made in a 9-month period). Also, the 76 observations were not randomly selected. These limitations, small sample size and non-random sample, bring the generalizability of the findings into question. What the researchers observed in this particular city with these officers may not apply in other jurisdictions with different officers.

There are possible reliability issues with how demeanor was coded for the research. Whether or not the juvenile was cooperative and respectful to the police could be a highly subjective decision. The researchers did use an independent assessor to categorize the data on demeanor, but the assessor’s interpretation of the data may have been different from another person’s interpretation. Utilizing an interrater reliability protocol where two independent assessors categorize the data on demeanor and then the two assessments are compared would have improved the reliability of the categorization.

In Piliavin and Briar’s study, the researchers’ role of observer as participant (discussed in Chapter 6) was known to the police officers being studied. The police knew exactly who the researchers were and that their encounters with juveniles were being examined. A potential source of bias with this type of observational research is known as the Hawthorne Effect (see Chapter 6). When research subjects are aware that their behavior is being observed, the observation itself may influence their behavior. The extent to which the police officers in Piliavin and Briar’s study altered their behavior because they were being observed was unknown. However, the candor shown by the officers in their interviews with the investigators and the use of officially frowned-upon practices while under observation provide some assurance that the observations were valid and reflected the typical activities of the police officers studied.

Piliavin and Briar were among the first to conduct an empirical study that explored the influence of demeanor on police decision-making. Their systematic observations of police-juvenile encounters revealed that the police were more likely to arrest uncooperative juveniles. Over the past half century, numerous studies of police discretion have demonstrated the relationship between suspect demeanor and arrest. Piliavin and Briar also observed that police unfairly targeted black juveniles because they fit a stereotype held by the police that most delinquents were black. Today, the influence of race and police discretion centers on the topic of racial profiling as discussed in the chapter opening case study.

Article Critique: Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment

Sherman, Lawrence W., and Richard A. Berk. (1984). “The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault.” American Sociological Review. 49, 261–272. Portions of the article are included in Appendix A.

As the final section in this chapter, we will present an example of an article critique utilizing the internal indicators of research quality discussed in the previous section. Recall that it is impossible to develop a single checklist of the topics that need to be addressed in a methods section of a research article, because the details that need to be provided depend on the methods used. Similarly, it is impossible to develop a single set of questions that can be asked and answered to comprehensively assess every research article, because the questions depend on the methods used in the article. Therefore, we will present an example of an article critique tailored to the experimental and quasi-experimental designs discussed in Chapter 5. We selected the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (MDVE) as the example, because it is probably the best known piece of research in criminal justice and criminology. You not only hear about the results of the MDVE (arrest is most effective in reducing domestic violence recidivism) in research methods, but also hear about it in policing classes and policy courses. The MDVE is to research methods what Miranda v. Arizona is to criminal procedure: the most recognized example on the topic.

Next, we ask and answer several questions regarding the MDVE. Portions of the article are in Appendix A. You can review the article to see where we obtained the information to answer each question. This is the type of activity you will be able to perform, although probably not as structured as the questions and answers that follow, as you begin to apply your knowledge as an educated consumer of research.

1. In one sentence, state the purpose of this study.

The purpose of the MDVE was to determine which of three police responses (arrest, separation, or mediation) produced the lowest recidivism rates for domestic violence offenders.

2. What type of research design was used in this study?

A randomized experimental design was used in the MDVE.

3. What were the parameters/criteria for inclusion in the study?

In order to be included in the study, the calls for police service had to involve a misdemeanor (simple) domestic assault, and both the suspect and the victim had to be present when the police arrived.

4. What cases were excluded from the study?

The following cases were excluded from the study: (1) cases involving felony domestic assaults; (2) cases where both parties were not present when the police arrived; (3) cases where the suspect attempted to assault police officers; (4) cases where a victim persistently demanded an arrest, and (5) cases involving injuries to both parties.

5. What was/were the treatments)?

The treatment was the police response to domestic violence, which included arrest, separation, or mediation.

6. What was/were the dependent variable(s)?

The dependent variable was repeat domestic violence (i.e., recidivism).

7. What pre-test(s) was/were conducted? Be sure to discuss how each dependent variable was measured and the time frame.

Since the dependent variable was recidivism, no pre-test was conducted in the MDVE.

8. What post-test(s) was/were conducted? Be sure to discuss how each dependent variable was measured and the time frame.

The post-test involved a 6-month follow-up period to measure the frequency and seriousness of domestic violence after each police intervention of arrest, separation, or mediation. The dependent variable (i.e., repeat domestic violence) was measured in two ways. First, the researchers obtained police offense and arrest reports for domestic violence that mentioned the suspect’s name during the 6-month follow-up period. Second, victim interviews were completed 2 weeks after the police intervention and every 2 weeks thereafter for 24 weeks. The first victim interview was face-to-face while each subsequent interview was conducted over the telephone. The victim interviews allowed researchers to examine domestic violence offenses that may have occurred but did not come to the official attention of police.

9. What was/were the experimental group(s)?

Since three interventions were used in the MDVE, there are three different groups of people, totaling 314 cases. There were two experimental groups. First, the 136 people arrested during the study comprised one experimental group. Second, the 89 people separated during the study comprised the second experimental group.

10. What was/were the control group(s)?

Since the common police practice at the time for cases of misdemeanor domestic violence was to advise and mediate the situation, leaving both parties at the location, the control group was the 89 people advised/mediated during the domestic violence calls for service.

11. How was random assignment established? Be sure to discuss the procedures used to establish and monitor equivalence.

The three different police actions were randomly distributed based on color-coded report forms carried by the officers. Upon a misdemeanor domestic violence call with both parties present, the officer’s action (arrest, separation, or mediation) was predetermined by the order of report forms in the officer’s notebook. The colored report forms were randomly ordered in the officer’s notebook and the color on the form determined the officer response at the scene. All colored report forms were randomly ordered through a lottery assignment method. The result was that all police officer actions in misdemeanor domestic violence calls were randomly assigned. To ensure the random assignment was carried out as planned, research staff participated in ride-alongs with officers to ensure that officers did not skip the order of randomly ordered forms. In addition, the research staff logged the domestic violence reports in the order received to make sure the sequence corresponded to the original assignment of police interventions. Table 1 in the research article located in Appendix A shows the degree to which the treatments were delivered as designed.

12. Identify two threats to internal validity that may impact the results of this study. For each threat to internal validity identified, define the threat, describe how it applies to this study, and explain how it may impact the results of this study.

The first threat to internal validity is selection bias. As depicted in Table 1 in the article in Appendix A, the officers did not always follow the random assignment protocol. For example, some officers decided to violate the random assignment protocol, which violated the randomized experimental design, because they found the upcoming treatment inappropriate for the situation. The officers did not always follow the randomly assigned action (arrest, separation, or mediation) as a result of other circumstances that occurred at the scene. In fact, some officers simply ignored the assigned action if they felt a particular call for domestic violence required another action. Selection bias generally indicates that the experimental group is somehow different from the control group on a factor that could influence the post-test results. Since the officers violated the random assignment protocol and self-selected some subjects for arrest, the arrested group may be different from the other two groups on factors that may impact repeat domestic violence.

The second threat to internal validity is attrition or subject mortality. Attrition refers to differential loss in the number or type of subjects between the experimental and control groups. In the MDVE, attrition occurred with the victim interviews. Only 205 of the victims (65% response rate) could be located and initial interviews obtained two weeks after the police intervention. Only 161 victims (51% response rate) provided all 12 follow-up interviews over the 6-month follow-up period. The question then is, “Are there differences between the respondents and the nonrespondents that could then impact the results of the MDVE?” We do not know how the two groups differed so are unable to adequately answer the question. We do know from Chapter 4 that as the response rate decreases, it becomes more likely that the nonrespondents will differ from the survey respondents. When there are significant differences between respondents and nonrespondents, each group represents biased subgroups of the total population. Bias means that in some systematic way the individuals responding to a survey are different from the overall population. Therefore, the results based on the survey respondents are not reflective of the overall population.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, we reviewed the steps in the research process to provide the “big picture” of research endeavors. We also reviewed the structure of research articles. It is helpful as an educated consumer of research to understand the common structure of research articles and reports. You will be able to easily identify these sections as you review research articles and reports in the future. We specifically discussed three external indicators of research quality, including researcher reputation, institutional reputation, and journal quality. The external indicators can serve as a short-cut method to determine if the research article is worth further attention and assessment. Although the external indicators of research quality serve as a quick screening mechanism for research articles, it is not a substitute for a detailed, internal review of the article. A reader who critically assesses a research article will evaluate the methodology used by the researcher, assess the analysis performed, and verify that the conclusions drawn by the authors are supported by the research findings. We reviewed the internal indicators of research quality in this chapter. The discussion was a culmination of the tools provided throughout this book to critically evaluate research. Finally, this chapter provided an example of a research article critique to demonstrate how the internal indicators of research quality can be used to assess a research article. Now that you have finished this chapter, you have the tools necessary to thoroughly review and evaluate research, with one exception: statistics. Statistics will be covered in the next chapter.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What are the steps in the research process, and what activities occur at each step?

2. What are the primary sections of a research article, and what material is covered in each section?

3. What are the three main external indicators of research quality? How is journal quality determined?

4. How would you apply the internal indicators of research quality to a research article? Be sure to provide the types of questions you would ask in your assessment.

1 Grogger, Jeffrey, and Greg Ridgeway. (2006). “Testing for racial profiling in traffic stops from behind a veil of darkness.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 101, 878–887.

2 Worden, Robert E., Sarah J. McLean, and Andrew R Wheeler. (2012). “Testing for racial profiling with the veil-of-darkness method.” Police Quarterly 15, 92–111.

4 Hamermesh, D. S. (1996). Workdays, workhours, and work schedules: Evidence for the United States and Germany. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

5 Worden, et al., 2012.

6 http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/background/ jurisdictions.php. Retrieved on July 28, 2012.

8 Worden, et al., 2012.

9 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/07/20/ how-road-rage-endangers-your-commute-and-how-to-prevent-it-in-yourself/; http://www.careerbuilder.com/ share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?sd=7/l8/2012&id=pr708&ed=12/31/2012

10 Pyrczak, Fred. (2008). Evaluating research in academic journals: A practical guide to realistic evaluation. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

12 McReynolds, Larkin S., and Jeffrey C. Sandler. (2012). “Evaluating New York State’s Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act: A matched historical cohort analysis.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 23, 164–185.

13 Sandler, J. C., N. J. Freeman, and K. M. Socia. (2008). “Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 14, 284–302; Zgoba, K., P. Witt, M. Dalessandro, and B. Veysey. (2008). Meghan ’ s Law: Assessing the practical and monetary efficacy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

14 Duwe, G., W. Donnay, and R. Tewksbury. (2008). “Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex offense recidivism.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 35, 484–504.

15 Pyrczak, 2008.

19 Dance, Amber. (August 7, 2007). “Videos as a baby brain drain: A study finds infants who view some popular educational products learn fewer words.” Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/07/science/ sci-babyeinstein7. Retrieved on July 28, 2012; Park, Alice. (August 6, 2007). “Baby Einsteins: Not so smart after all.” Time Science. http://www.time.com/time/ health/article/0,8599,1650352,00.html. Retrieved on July 28, 2012.

20 Zimmerman, Frederick J., Dimitri A. Christakis, & Andrew N. Meltzoff. (2007). “Associations between media viewing and language development in children under age 2 years.” Journal of Pediatrics 151, 364–368.

22 http://www.washington.edu/alumni/uwnewslinks/200709/ videos.html. Retrieved on July 28, 2012.

23 http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/The-full-text-of -Walt-Disney-Co-s-letter-1246455.php. Retrieved on July 28, 2012.

25 uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=36148. Retrieved on July 28, 2012.

26 Piliavin, Irving, and Scott Briar. (1964). “Police encounters with juveniles.” American Journal of Sociology 70, 206–214. This study was also included in Amy B. Thistlethwaite and John D. Wooldredge. (2010). Forty studies that changed criminal justice: Explorations into the history of criminal justice research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Applied Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology by University of North Texas is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Advertisement

Cognitive Biases in Criminal Case Evaluation: A Review of the Research

• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 23 June 2021
• Volume 37 , pages 101–122, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Vanessa Meterko   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1207-8812 1 &
• Glinda Cooper 1  

20k Accesses

7 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Psychological heuristics are an adaptive part of human cognition, helping us operate efficiently in a world full of complex stimuli. However, these mental shortcuts also have the potential to undermine the search for truth in a criminal investigation. We reviewed 30 social science research papers on cognitive biases in criminal case evaluations (i.e., integrating and drawing conclusions based on the totality of the evidence in a criminal case), 18 of which were based on police participants or an examination of police documents. Only two of these police participant studies were done in the USA, with the remainder conducted in various European countries. The studies provide supporting evidence that lay people and law enforcement professionals alike are vulnerable to confirmation bias, and there are other environmental, individual, and case-specific factors that may exacerbate this risk. Six studies described or evaluated the efficacy of intervention strategies, with varying evidence of success. Further research, particularly in the USA, is needed to evaluate different approaches to protect criminal investigations from cognitive biases.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Cognitive and Social Psychological Bases of Bias in Forensic Mental Health Judgments

Decision-Making in the Courtroom: Jury

Is forensic evidence impartial cognitive biases in forensic analysis.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Decades of research in cognitive and social psychology have taught us that there are limitations to human attention and decision-making abilities (see, for example, Gilovich et al. 2002 ). We cannot process all the stimuli that surround us on a daily basis, so instead we have adapted for efficiency by attuning to patterns and developing mental shortcuts or rules of thumb to help us effectively navigate our complex world. While this tendency to rely on heuristics and biases can serve us well by allowing us to make quick decisions with little cognitive effort, it also has the potential to inadvertently undermine accuracy and thus the fair administration of justice.

Cognitive bias is an umbrella term that refers to a variety of inadvertent but predictable mental tendencies which can impact perception, memory, reasoning, and behavior. Cognitive biases include phenomena like confirmation bias (e.g., Nickerson 1998 ), anchoring (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman 1974 ), hindsight bias (e.g., Fischhoff 1975 ), the availability heuristic (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman 1973 ), unconscious or implicit racial (or other identifying characteristics) bias (e.g., Greenwald et al.  1998 ; Staats et al. 2017 ), and others. In this context, the word “bias” does not imply an ethical issue (e.g., Dror 2020 ) but simply suggests a probable response pattern. Indeed, social scientists have demonstrated and discussed how even those who actively endorse egalitarian values harbor unconscious biases (e.g., Pearson et al.  2009 ; Richardson 2017 ) and how expertise, rather than insulating us from biases, can actually create them through learned selective attention or reliance on expectations based on past experiences (e.g., Dror 2020 ). Consequently, we recognize the potential for these human factors to negatively influence our criminal justice process.

In an effort to explore the role of cognitive biases in criminal investigations and prosecutions, we conducted a literature review to determine the scope of available research and strength of the findings. The questions guiding this exercise were as follows: (1) what topics have been researched so far and where are the gaps?; (2) what are the methodological strengths and limitations of this research?; and (3) what are the results, what do we know so far, and where should we go from here?

We searched PsycINFO for scholarly writing focused on cognitive biases in criminal investigations and prosecutions in December 2016 and again in January 2020. Footnote 1 We reviewed all results by title and then reviewed the subset of possibly-relevant titles by abstract, erring on the side of over-inclusivity. We repeated this process using the Social Sciences Full Text, PubMed, and Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text databases to identify additional papers. Finally, we manually reviewed the reference lists in the identified papers for any unique sources we may have missed in prior searches.

We sorted the articles into categories by the actor or action in the criminal investigation and prosecution process that they addressed, including physical evidence collection, witness evaluation, suspect evaluation, forensic analysis and testimony, police case evaluation (i.e., integrating and drawing conclusions based on the totality of the evidence), prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, juries, and sentencing. Within each of these categories, we further sorted the articles into one of three types of sources: “primary data studies” describing experimental or observational studies that involved data collection or analysis, “intervention studies” that were solution-oriented and involved implementing some type of intervention or training to prevent or mitigate a phenomenon, and “secondary sources” (e.g., commentaries, letters, reviews, theoretical pieces, general book chapters) that discussed cognitive biases but did not present primary data.

To narrow the scope of this review, we did not include articles that focus solely on implicit racial bias or structural racial bias in the criminal legal system. The foundational and persistent problem of racial (particularly anti-Black) bias throughout our legal system—from policing to sentencing (e.g., Voigt et al. 2017 ; NYCLU 2011 ; Blair et al.  2004 ; Eberhardt et al.  2006 )—has been clearly demonstrated in laboratory experiments and analyses of real-world data and is well-documented in an ever-growing body of academic publications and policy reports (e.g., Correll et al.  2002 ; Chanin et al.  2018 ; Owens et al. 2017 ; Staats et al. 2017 ).

Scope of Available Research and Methodology

Cognitive biases in forensic science have received the most attention from researchers to date (for a review of these forensic science studies, see Cooper & Meterko 2019 ). The second most substantial amount of scholarship focused on case evaluation (i.e., integrating and drawing conclusions based on the totality of the evidence in a case). Ultimately, we found 43 scholarly sources that addressed various issues related to the evaluation of the totality of evidence in criminal cases: 25 primary data (non-intervention) studies, five intervention studies, and one additional paper that presented both primary data and interventions, and 12 secondary sources. For the remainder of this article, we focus solely on the primary data and intervention studies. One of the primary data studies (Fahsing & Ask 2013 ) described the development of materials that were used in two subsequent studies included in this review (Fahsing & Ask 2016 ; 2017 ), and thus, this materials-development paper is not reviewed further here. Table 1 presents an overview of the research participants and focus of the other 30 primary data and intervention studies included in our review.

One challenge in synthesizing this collection of research is the fact that these studies address different but adjacent concepts using a variety of measures and—in some instances—report mixed results. The heterogeneity of this research reveals the complex nature of human factors in criminal case evaluations.

Eighteen of the 30 papers (13 primary data and three intervention) included participants who were criminal justice professionals (e.g., police, judges) or analyzed actual police documents. An appendix provides a detailed summary of the methods and results of the 18 criminal justice participant (or document) studies. Fifteen papers were based on or presented additional separate analyses with student or lay participants. Recruiting professionals to participate in research is commendable as it is notoriously challenging but allows us to identify any differences between those with training and experience versus the general public, and to be more confident that conclusions will generalize to real-world behavior. Of course, representativeness (or not) must still be considered when making generalizations about police investigations.

Reported sample sizes ranged from a dozen to several hundred participants and must be taken into account when interpreting individual study results. Comparison or control groups and manipulation checks are also essential to accurately interpreting results; some studies incorporated these components in their designs while others did not.

Most studies used vignettes or case materials—both real and fictionalized—as stimuli. Some studies did not include enough information about stimulus or intervention materials to allow readers to critically interpret the results or replicate an intervention test. Future researchers would benefit from publishers making more detailed information available. Further, while the use of case vignettes is a practical way to study these complex scenarios, this approach may not completely mimic the pressures of a real criminal case, fully appreciate how the probative value of evidence can depend on context, or accurately reflect naturalistic decision-making.

Notably, only two of the criminal case evaluation studies using professional participants were conducted in the USA; all others were based in Europe (Austria, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK). The differences between police training, operations, and the criminal justice systems writ large should be considered when applying lessons from these studies to the USA or elsewhere.

Finally, all of these papers were published relatively recently, within the past 15 years. This emerging body of research is clearly current, relevant, and has room to grow.

Research Findings

The primary data studies address a constellation of concepts that demonstrate how human factors can inadvertently undermine the seemingly objective and methodical process of a criminal investigation. To organize these concepts, we used a taxonomy originally developed to describe potential sources of bias in forensic science observations and conclusions as a guide (Dror 2017 ; Dror et al.  2017 ) and adapted it to this collection of case evaluation literature. Footnote 2 As in Dror’s taxonomy, the broad base of this organizing pyramid is “human nature,” and as the pyramid narrows to its peak, potential sources of bias become increasingly dependent on environmental, individual, and case-specific circumstances and characteristics (Fig.  1 ). Some authors in this collection address more than one of these research areas within the same paper through multiple manipulations or a series of studies (Table 1 ).

Organizational framework for case evaluation studies, adapted from Dror’s ( 2017 ) taxonomy of different sources of potential bias that may cognitively contaminate forensic observations and conclusions. The specific factors listed in this pyramid are those that were examined in the collection of studies in the present literature review

Human Nature

The “human nature” studies include those that demonstrate universal psychological phenomena and their underlying mechanisms in the context of a criminal case evaluation. Several studies focused on confirmation bias. Confirmation bias, sometimes colloquially referred to as “tunnel vision,” denotes selective seeking, recalling, weighting, and/or interpreting information in ways that support existing beliefs, expectations, or hypotheses, while simultaneously avoiding or minimizing inconsistent or contradictory information (Nickerson 1998 ; Findley 2012 ). Some authors in this collection of studies used other terms to describe this concept or elements of it, including “context effects,” the term used by Charman et al. ( 2015 ) to describe when “a preexisting belief affects the subsequent interpretation of evidence” (p. 214), and asymmetrical skepticism (Ask & Granhag 2007b ; Marksteiner et al.  2010 ).

Eight studies with law enforcement personnel (Ask & Granhag 2007b ; Ask et al.  2008 ; Charman et al.  2017 ; Ditrich 2015 ; Groenendaal & Helsloot 2015 ; Marksteiner et al. 2010 ; Rassin 2010 ; Wallace 2015 ) examined aspects of confirmation bias; one addressed the distinct but related phenomenon of groupthink (Kerstholt & Eikelboom 2007 ). The importance of this issue was demonstrated by a survey of an unspecified number of professional crime scene officers conducted by Ditrich ( 2015 ), asking for their opinions about the relative frequency and severity of various cognitive errors that could potentially negatively affect a criminal investigation; based on their experiences, respondents highlighted confirmation bias (as well as overestimating the validity of partial information and shifting the burden of proof to the suspect). The other studies within this group used experimental designs to assess police officers’ evaluation of evidence. Charman et al. ( 2017 ) reported that police officers’ initial beliefs about the innocence or guilt of a suspect in a fictional criminal case predicted their evaluation of subsequent ambiguous evidence, which in turn predicted their final beliefs about the suspect’s innocence or guilt. This is not the only study to demonstrate that, like the rest of us, police officers are susceptible to confirmation bias. Ask and colleagues ( 2008 ) found that police recruits discredited or supported the same exact evidence (“the viewing distance of 10 m makes the witness identification unreliable” versus “from 10 m one ought to see what a person looks like”) depending on whether it was consistent or inconsistent with their hypothesis of a suspect’s guilt. Ask and Granhag ( 2007b ) found that when experienced criminal investigators read a vignette that implied a suspect’s guilt (but left room for an alternative explanation), they rated subsequent guilt-consistent evidence as more credible and reliable than evidence that was inconsistent with their theory of guilt; similar results were seen in a study of police officers, district attorneys, and judges by Rassin ( 2010 ).

Marksteiner et al. ( 2010 ) investigated the motivational underpinnings of this type of asymmetrical skepticism among police trainees, asking whether it is driven by a desire to reconcile inconsistent information with prior beliefs or by the goal of case closure, and encountered mixed results. The group who initially hypothesized guilt reacted as expected, rating subsequent incriminating evidence as more reliable, but in the group whose initial hypothesis was innocence, there was no difference in the way that they rated additional consistent or inconsistent information. Wallace ( 2015 ) found that the order in which evidence was presented influenced guilt beliefs. When police officers encountered exculpatory evidence prior to inculpatory evidence, guilt belief scores decreased, suggesting their final decisions were influenced by their initial impressions. Kerstholt and Eikelboom ( 2007 ) describe how teams tend to converge on one interpretation, and once such an interpretation is adopted, individual members are less able to examine underlying assumptions critically. They asked independent crime analysts to evaluate a realistic criminal investigation with fresh eyes and found that they were demonstrably influenced when they were aware of the investigative team’s existing working hypothesis.

Studies in student and general populations examining confirmation bias and other aspects of human cognition (Ask et al. 2011b ; Charman et al.  2015 ; Eerland et al.  2012 ; Eerland & Rassin 2012 ; Greenspan & Surich 2016 ; O’Brien 2007 ; 2009 ; Price & Dahl 2014 ; Rassin et al.  2010 ; Simon et al.  2004 ; Wastell et al.  2012 ) reported similar patterns to those described above with police participants. O’Brien ( 2007 ; 2009 ) found that students who named a suspect early in a mock criminal investigation were biased towards confirming that person’s guilt as the investigation continued. O’Brien measured memory for hypothesis-consistent versus hypothesis-inconsistent information, interpretation of ambiguous evidence, participants’ decisions to select lines of inquiry into the suspect or an alternative, and ultimate opinions about guilt or innocence. In a novel virtual crime scene investigation, Wastell et al. ( 2012 ) found that all students (those who ultimately chose the predetermined “correct” suspect from the multiple available people of interest and those who chose incorrectly) sought more chosen-suspect-consistent information during the exercise. However, those who were ultimately unsuccessful (i.e., chose the wrong person) spent more time in a virtual workspace (a measure of the importance placed on potential evidence) after accessing confirmatory information. They also found that students who settled on a suspect early in the exercise—measured by prompts throughout the virtual investigation—were comparatively unsuccessful.

Other psychological phenomena such as recency effects (i.e., our ease of recalling information presented at the end of a list relative to information presented at the beginning or middle) and the feature positive effect (i.e., our tendency to generally attune to presence more than absence) were also examined in studies with student or general population participants. Price and Dahl ( 2014 ) explored evidence presentation order and found that under certain circumstances, evidence presented later in an investigation had a greater impact on student participant decision-making in a mock criminal investigation. Charman and colleagues also found order of evidence presentation influenced ratings of strength of evidence and likelihood of guilt in their 2015 study of evidence integration with student participants. These results appear to provide evidence against the presence of confirmation bias, but recency effects still demonstrate the influence of human factors as, arguably, the order in which one learns about various pieces of evidence -whether first or last- should not impact interpretation. Several research teams found that a positive eyewitness identification is seen as more credible than a failure to identify someone (Price & Dhal 2014 , p.147) and the presence of fingerprints—as opposed to a lack of fingerprints—is more readily remembered and used to make decisions about a criminal case (Eerland et al. 2012 ; Eerland & Rassin 2012 ), even though the absence of evidence can also be diagnostic. Other researchers highlighted our psychic discomfort with cognitive dissonance (Ask et al. 2011b ) and our tendency to reconcile ambiguity and artificially impose consistency in a criminal case by engaging in “ bidirectional coherence-based reasoning” (Simon et al. 2004 ; Greenspan & Surich 2016 ).

Environment and Culture

The three “environment and culture” studies with police personnel (Ask & Granhag 2007b ; Ask et al.  2011a ; Fahsing & Ask 2016 ) revealed the ways in which external factors can influence an investigation. For instance, type of training appears to impact the ability to generate a variety of relevant hypotheses and actions in an investigation. English and Norwegian investigators are trained and performed differently when faced with semi-fictitious crime vignettes (Fahsing & Ask 2016 ). Organizational culture can impact the integrity of an investigation as well. Ask and colleagues ( 2011a ) concluded that a focus on efficiency—as opposed to thoroughness—produces more cursory processing among police participants, which could be detrimental to the accurate assessment of evidence found later in an investigation. Ask and Granhag ( 2007b ) observed that induced time pressure influenced officers’ decision-making, creating a higher tendency to stick with initial beliefs and a lower tendency to be influenced by the evidence presented.

Individual Characteristics

Seven “individual characteristics” studies with police personnel (Ask & Granhag 2005 ; 2007a ; Dando & Ormerod 2017 ; Fahsing & Ask 2016 ; 2017 ; Kerstholt & Eikelboom 2007 ; Wallace  2015 ) plus two studies with student populations (Rassin 2010 , 2018a ) examined ways in which personal attributes can influence an investigation. Varying amounts of professional experience may matter when it comes to assessments of potential criminal cases and assumptions about guilt. For instance, police recruits appear to have a strong tendency toward criminal—as opposed to non-criminal—explanations for an ambiguous situation like a person’s disappearance (Fahsing & Ask 2017 ) and less experienced recruits show more suspicion than seasoned investigators (Wallace 2015 ). In a departure from the typical mock crime vignette method, Dando and Ormerod ( 2017 ) reviewed police decision logs (used for recording and justifying decisions made during serious crime investigations) and found that senior officers generated more hypotheses early in an investigation, and switched between considering different hypotheses both early and late in an investigation (suggesting a willingness to entertain alternative theories) compared with inexperienced investigators. An experimental study, however, found that professional crime analyst experience level (mean 7 months versus 7 years) was not related to case evaluation decisions and did not protect against knowledge of prior interpretations of the evidence influencing conclusions (Kerstholt & Eikelboom 2007 ).

Two studies examined differences in reasoning skills in relation to the evaluation of evidence. Fahsing and Ask ( 2017 ) found that police recruits’ deductive and inductive reasoning skills were not associated with performance on an investigative reasoning task. In contrast, in a study with undergraduate students, accuracy of decision-making regarding guilt or innocence in two case scenarios was associated with differences in logical reasoning abilities as measured by a test adapted from the Wason Card Selection Test (Rassin 2018a ).

Ask and Granhag ( 2005 ) found inconsistent results in a study of police officers’ dispositional need for cognitive closure and the effect on criminal investigations. Those with a high need for cognitive closure (measured with an established scale) were less likely to acknowledge inconsistencies in case materials when those materials contained a potential motive for the suspect, but were more likely to acknowledge inconsistencies when made aware of the possibility of an alternative perpetrator. In a replication study with undergraduate students, Ask & Granhag ( 2005 ) found that initial hypotheses significantly affected subsequent evidence interpretation, but found no interaction with individual need for cognitive closure. Students who were aware of an alternative suspect (compared with those aware of a potential motive for the prime suspect) were simply less likely to evaluate subsequent information as evidence supporting guilt.

In another study, when Ask and Granhag ( 2007a ) induced negative emotions in police officers and then asked them to make judgments about a criminal case, sad participants were better able to substantively process the consistency of evidence or lack thereof, whereas angry participants used heuristic processing.

Case-Specific

Four studies of police personnel (Ask et al. 2008 ; Fahsing & Ask 2016 ; 2017 ; Wallace 2015 ), one using police records (Dando & Omerod  2017 ), and three studies of student populations (Ask et al. 2011b ; O’Brien  2007 ; 2009 ; Rassin et al. 2010 ) examined “case-specific” and evidence-specific factors. In a study of police officers, Ask and colleagues ( 2008 ) showed that the perceived reliability of some types of evidence (DNA versus photographs versus witnesses) is more malleable than others; similar results pertaining to DNA versus witness evidence were found in a study of law students (Ask et al. 2011b ).

Fahsing and Ask ( 2016 ) found that police recruits who were presented with a scenario including a clear “tipping point” (an arrest) did not actually produce significantly fewer hypotheses than those who were not presented with a tipping point (though they acknowledge that the manipulation—one sentence embedded in a case file—may not have been an ecologically valid one). In a subsequent study with police recruits, the presence of a tipping point resulted in fewer generated hypotheses, but the difference was not statistically significant (Fahsing & Ask 2017 ).

Other studies using law students (Rassin et al. 2010 ) or undergraduate students (O’Brien 2007 ) examined the influence of crime severity on decision-making. Rassin et al. ( 2010 ) observed that the affinity for incriminating evidence increases with crime severity, but in one of O’Brien’s ( 2007 ) studies, crime severity did not have a demonstrable impact on confirmation bias.

Interventions

Taken together, this body of work demonstrates vulnerabilities in criminal investigations. Some researchers have suggested theoretically supported solutions to protect against these vulnerabilities, such as gathering facts rather than building a case (Wallace 2015 ) or institutionalizing the role of a “contrarian” in a criminal investigation (MacFarlane 2008 ). Few studies have tested and evaluated these potential remedies, however. Testing is an essential prerequisite to any advocacy for policy changes because theoretically sound interventions may not, in fact, have the intended effect when applied (e.g., see below for a description of O’Brien’s work testing multiple interventions with differing results).

Four studies have examined various intervention approaches with police departments or investigators (Groenendaal & Helsloot 2015 ; Jones et al.  2008 ; Rassin 2018b ; Salet & Terpstra 2014 ). Jones et al. ( 2008 ) created a tool that helped an experimental group of investigators produce higher quality reviews of a closed murder case than those working without the aid of the review tool. Their article provides an appendix  with “categories used in the review tool” (e.g., crime scene management, house-to-house enquiries, community involvement) but lacks a detailed description of the tool itself and the outcome measures. Importantly, the authors raise the possibility that a review tool like this may improve how officers think through a case because of the structure or content of the tool or it may succeed by simply slowing them down so they can think more critically and thoroughly. Another approach that shows promise in reducing tunnel vision is using a pen and paper tool to prompt investigators to consider how well the same evidence supports different hypotheses (Rassin 2018b ). In a study of actual case files, supplemented with interviews, Salet and Terpstra ( 2014 ) explored “contrarians” and found that there are real-world challenges to the position’s efficacy (e.g., personal desire to be a criminal investigator, desire for solidarity with colleagues) and considerable variability in the way contrarians approach their work, with some opting for closeness to an investigation and others opting for distance; individuals also embraced different roles (e.g., supervisor, devil’s advocate, focus on procedure). The researchers concluded that, in practice, these contrarians appear to have exerted subtle influence on investigations but there is no evidence of a radical change in case trajectory. Similarly, members of criminal investigation teams in the Netherlands reported that, in practice, designated devil’s advocates tend to provide sound advice but do not fundamentally change the course of investigations (Groenendaal & Helsloot  2015 ). Groenendaal and Helsloot describe the development and implementation of the Criminal Investigation Reinforcement Programme in the Netherlands, which was prompted by a national reckoning stemming from a widely publicized wrongful conviction. The program included new policies aimed at, among other things, reducing tunnel vision (including the use of devil’s advocates, structured decision-making around “hypotheses and scenarios,” and professionalized, permanent “Command Core Teams” dedicated to major crimes). This deliberate intervention provided an opportunity for researchers to interview investigators who were directly impacted by the new policies. Groenendaal and Helsloot conclude that the main effect of this intervention was an increased awareness about the potential problem of tunnel vision, and they focus on an unresolved a tension between “efficacy” (more convictions) and “precaution” (minimizing wrongful convictions). Their work underscores the importance of collecting criminal legal system data, as interviewees reported their experiences and impressions but could not report whether more correct convictions had been obtained or more wrongful convictions avoided.

Other studies have examined various intervention ideas with student populations (Haas et al.  2015 ; O’Brien 2007 ; 2009 ). Haas et al. ( 2015 ) found that using a checklist tool to evaluate evidence appears to improve students’ abductive reasoning and reduce confirmation bias. O’Brien ( 2007 ; 2009 ) found that orienting participants to being accountable for good process versus outcome had no impact, and that when participants expected to have to persuade someone of their hypothesis, this anticipation actually worsened bias. More promisingly, she discovered that participants who were asked to name a suspect early in an investigation, but were then told to consider how their selected suspect could be innocent and then generate counter-arguments, displayed less confirmation bias across a variety of measures (they looked the same as those who did not name a suspect early). But another approach—asking participants to generate two additional alternative suspects—was not effective (these participants showed the same amount of bias as those who identified just one suspect).

Zalman and Larson ( 2016 ) have observed “the failure of innocence movement advocates, activists, and scholars to view the entirety of police investigation as a potential source of wrongful convictions, as opposed to exploring arguably more discrete police processes (e.g., eyewitness identification, interrogation, handling informants)” (p.3). While the thorough examination of these discrete processes has led to a better understanding of risk factors and, ultimately, reforms in police practices (e.g., see the Department of Justice 2017 guidelines for best practices with eyewitnesses), a recent shift towards viewing wrongful convictions from a “sentinel events” Footnote 3 perspective advances the conversation around these criminal justice system failures (Doyle 2012 ; 2014 ; Rossmo & Pollock 2019 ).

This literature review has identified a body of research that lends support to this holistic perspective. The studies reviewed here address a constellation of concepts that demonstrate how the human element—including universal psychological tendencies, predictable responses to situational and organizational factors, personal factors, and characteristics of the crime itself—can unintentionally undermine truth-seeking in the complex evidence integration process. Some concepts are addressed by one study, some are addressed by several, and some studies explored multiple variables (e.g., demonstrating the existence of confirmation bias and measuring how level of professional experience plays a role).

Several contemporary studies have demonstrated the existence of confirmation bias in police officers within the context of criminal investigations. Other psychological phenomena have not been examined in police populations but have been examined in student or general populations using study materials designed to assess the interpretation of criminal case evidence and decision-making. This collection of studies also investigates the role of environmental factors that may be specific to a department or organization, characteristics of individual investigators, or of the specific case under review. At the environmental level, type of training and organizational customs were influential and are promising areas for further research as these factors are within the control of police departments and can be modified. With respect to individual characteristics, a better understanding of advantageous dispositional tendencies and what is gained by professional experience, as well as the unique risks of expertise, could lead to better recruitment and training methods. Case-specific factors are outside the control of investigators, but awareness of factors that pose a greater risk for bias could serve as an alert and future research could identify ways to use this information in practice (see also Rossmo & Pollock 2019 for an in-depth discussion of “risk recipes”).

Charman and colleagues ( 2017 ) present a particularly interesting illustration of the way in which a criminal case is not merely the sum of its parts. In this study, the researchers presented law enforcement officers with exonerating, incriminating, or neutral DNA or eyewitness evidence, collected initial beliefs about guilt, asked participants to evaluate a variety of other ambiguous evidence (alibi, composite sketch, handwriting comparison, and informant information that could be reasonably interpreted in different ways), and then provide a final rating of guilt. As hypothesized, the researchers found those who were primed with incriminating evidence at the beginning were more likely to believe the suspect guilty at the end. However, even those who initially received exonerating information and initially rated the likelihood of suspect guilt as relatively low ended up increasing their guilt rating after reviewing the other ambiguous evidence. It appears that the cumulative effect of ambiguous evidence tilted the scales towards guilt. This unexpected outcome underscores the value of understanding how the totality of evidence in a criminal case is evaluated, and has implications for the legal doctrine of “harmless error” rooted in assumptions of evidentiary independence (e.g., Hasel & Kassin 2009 ).

Consistently incorporating control groups into future study designs and including complete stimulus materials in future publications could build on this foundation. This would help future researchers fully interpret and replicate study results and would assist in determining what elements of intervention strategies work. Since the majority of these studies were conducted in Europe, it would be worthwhile to explore whether or not these results can be replicated in the USA, given the similarities and differences in our criminal justice systems and the variety of approaches used to select and train detectives across police departments. Finally, valuable future research will move beyond the demonstration of these human vulnerabilities and will design and test strategies to mitigate them in the complex real world. Footnote 4 Vignettes and mock-investigations are clever ways of studying criminal investigations, but it is worth remembering that these approaches cannot fully capture the dynamics of a real criminal investigation. Collaboration between academic researchers and criminal investigators could generate robust expansions of this work.

Evidence evaluation and synthesis in criminal investigations is, of course, just one part of a larger legal process. In addition to police, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges have powerful roles in determining case outcomes, especially in a system that is heavily reliant on plea bargaining. Critically addressing the potential influence of cognitive biases throughout this system, and promoting and implementing proven, practical protections against these tendencies will advance accuracy and justice.

We used the following search terms and Boolean Operators: (criminal OR justice OR police OR investigat* OR forensic* OR jury OR juries OR judge* OR conviction* OR prosecut* OR defense OR defender* OR attorn*) in any field (e.g., text, title) AND (“cognitive bias” OR “cognitive dissonance” OR “tunnel vision” OR “confirmation bias” OR “interpretive bias” OR “belief perseverance” OR “asymmetrical skepticism”) in any field (e.g., text, title).

As Dror ( 2017 ) notes, the development of this taxonomy began in a paper in 2009 (Dror 2009 ) and was further developed in a 2014 paper (Stoel et al. 2014 ), with additional sources of bias added subsequently (in Dror 2015 , and Zapf & Dror 2017 ).

According to the National Institute of Justice ( 2017 ), a sentinel event is a significant negative outcome that (1) signals underlying weaknesses in the system or process, (2) is likely the result of compound errors, and (3) may provide, if properly analyzed and addressed, important keys to strengthen the system and prevent future adverse outcomes.

As Snook and Cullen ( 2008 ) assert, “it is unrealistic to expect police officers to investigate all possible suspects, collect evidence on all of those suspects, explore all possible avenues concerning the circumstances surrounding a crime, search for disconfirming and confirming evidence of guilt for every suspect, and integrate all of this information” (p. 72). Dando and Ormerod ( 2017 ) illustrate this real-world complexity when they describe an investigation that was delayed because a call for tips led to a flood of false leads, suggesting that more information is not always better. Further, though it addresses procedural justice in street policing rather than evidence integration in a criminal investigation (and thus was not included in this review), Owens et al. ( 2018 ) provide an example of a field study, complete with published scripts. Recognizing the automated thinking and behavior that comes with job experience, these researchers tested an intervention to reduce the number of incidents resolved with arrests and use of force by implementing a training program aimed at encouraging beat officers to think more slowly and deliberately during routine encounters; they also assessed the cost of this intervention in the police department.

Ask K, Granhag PA (2005) Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: the need for cognitive closure. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 2(1):43–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.19

Article   Google Scholar  

Ask K, Granhag PA (2007a) Hot cognition in investigative judgments: the differential influence of anger and sadness. Law Hum Behav 31(6):537–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9075-3

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ask K, Granhag PA (2007b) Motivational bias in criminal investigators’ judgments of witness reliability. J Appl Soc Psychol 37(3):561–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00175.x

Ask K, Granhag PA, Rebelius A (2011a) Investigators under influence: how social norms activate goal-directed processing of criminal evidence. Appl Cogn Psychol 25(4):548–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1724

Ask K, Rebelius A, Granhag PA (2008) The ‘elasticity’ of criminal evidence: a moderator of investigator bias. Appl Cogn Psychol 22(9):1245–1259. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1432

Ask K, Reinhard M-A, Marksteiner T, Granhag PA (2011b) Elasticity in evaluations of criminal evidence: exploring the role of cognitive dissonance. Leg Criminol Psychol 16:289–306

Blair IV, Judd CM, Chapleau KM (2004) The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychol Sci 15(10):674–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00739.x

Chanin J, Welsh M, Nurge D (2018) Traffic enforcement through the lens of race: a sequential analysis of post-stop outcomes in San Diego. California Criminal Justice Policy Review 29(6–7):561–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417740188

Charman SD, Carbone J, Kekessie S, Villalba DK (2015) Evidence evaluation and evidence integration in legal decision-making: order of evidence presentation as a moderator of context effects. Appl Cogn Psychol 30(2):214–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3181

Charman SD, Kavetski M, Mueller DH (2017) Cognitive bias in the legal system: police officers evaluate ambiguous evidence in a belief-consistent manner. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 6(2):193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.02.001

Cooper GS, Meterko V (2019) Cognitive bias research in forensic science: a systematic review. Forensic Sci Int 297:35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016

Correll J, Park B, Judd CM, Wittenbrink B (2002) The police officer’s dilemma: using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. J Pers Soc Psychol 83(6):1314–1329. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1314

Dando CJ, Ormerod TC (2017) Analyzing decision logs to understand decision making in serious crime investigations. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59(8):1188–1203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817727899

Department of Justice (2017) Retrieved from: https://www.justice.gov/file/923201/download

Ditrich H (2015) Cognitive fallacies and criminal investigations. Sci Justice 55:155–159

Dror IE (2009) How can Francis Bacon help forensic science? The four idols of human biases. Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, and Technology 50(1):93–110

Dror IE (2015) Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilizing the human element. Philos Trans R Soc B 370(1674). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0255

Dror IE (2017) Human expert performance in forensic decision making: seven different sources of bias. Aust J Forensic Sci 49(5):541–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2017.1281348

Dror IE (2020) Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Anal Chem 92(12):7998–8004. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704

Dror IE, Morgan RM, Rando C, Nakhaeizadeh S (2017) Letter to the Editor: The bias snowball and the bias cascade effects: two distinct biases that may impact forensic decision making. J Forensic Sci 62(3):832–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13496

Doyle JM (2012) Learning about learning from error. Police Foundation 14:1–16

Google Scholar  

Doyle JM (2014) NIJ’s sentinel events initiative: looking back to look forward. National Institute of Justice Journal 273:10–14. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/244144.pdf

Eberhardt JL, Davies PG, Purdie-Vaughns VJ, Johnson SL (2006) Looking deathworthy: perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychol Sci 17(5):383–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01716.x

Eerland A, Post LS, Rassin E, Bouwmeester S, Zwaan RA (2012) Out of sight, out of mind: the presence of forensic evidence counts more than its absence. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 140(1):96–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.02.006

Eerland A, Rassin E (2012) Biased evaluation of incriminating and exonerating (non)evidence. Psychol Crime Law 18(4):351–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.493889

Fahsing I, Ask K (2013) Decision making and decisional tipping points in homicide investigations: an interview study of British and Norwegian detectives. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 10(2):155–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1384

Fahsing I, Ask K (2016) The making of an expert detective: the role of experience in English and Norwegian police officers’ investigative decision-making. Psychol Crime Law 22(3):203–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1077249

Fahsing IA, Ask K (2017) In search of indicators of detective aptitude: police recruits’ logical reasoning and ability to generate investigative hypotheses. J Police Crim Psychol 33(1):21–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9231-3

Findley KA (2012) Tunnel vision. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological research (pp. 303–323). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13085-014

Fischhoff B (1975) Hindsight does not equal foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1(3):288–299

Gilovich T, Griffin DW, Kahneman D (Eds.) (2002) Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press

Greenspan R, Scurich N (2016) The interdependence of perceived confession voluntariness and case evidence. Law Hum Behav 40(6):650–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000200

Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JLK (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol 74(6):1464–1480

Groenendaal J, Helsloot I (2015) Tunnel vision on tunnel vision? A preliminary examination of the tension between precaution and efficacy in major criminal investigations in the Netherlands. Police Pract Res 16(3):224–238

Haas HS, Pisarzewska Fuerst M, Tönz P, Gubser-Ernst J (2015) Analyzing the psychological and social contents of evidence-experimental comparison between guessing, naturalistic observation, and systematic analysis. J Forensic Sci 60(3):659–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12703

Hasel LE, Kassin SM (2009) On the presumption of evidentiary independence. Psychol Sci 20(1):122–126

Jones D, Grieve J, Milne B (2008) Reviewing the reviewers: a tool to aid homicide reviews. The Journal of Homicide and Major Incident Investigation 4(2):59–70

Kerstholt JH, Eikelboom AR (2007) Effects of prior interpretation on situation assessment in crime analysis. J Behav Decis Mak 20(5):455–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.570

MacFarlane BA (2008) Wrongful convictions: the effect of tunnel vision and predisposing circumstances in the criminal justice system. Goudge Inquiry Research Paper. https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/goudge/policy_research/pdf/Macfarlane_Wrongful-Convictions.pdf

Marksteiner T, Ask K, Reinhard M-A, Granhag PA (2010) Asymmetrical scepticism towards criminal evidence: the role of goal- and belief-consistency. Appl Cogn Psychol 25(4):541–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1719

National Institute of Justice (2017) Retrieved from: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/sentinel-events-initiative

Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2(2):175–220

NYCLU (2011) NYCLU Stop-And-Frisk Report 2011. New York Civil Liberties Union

O’Brien BM (2007) Confirmation bias in criminal investigations: an examination of the factors that aggravate and counteract bias. ProQuest Information & Learning, US. (2007–99016–280)

O’Brien B (2009) Prime suspect: an examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Psychol Public Policy Law 15(4):315–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017881

Owens E, Kerrison EM, Da Silveira BS (2017) Examining racial disparities in criminal case outcomes among indigent defendants in San Francisco. Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice

Owens E, Weisburd D, Amendola KL, Alpert GP (2018) Can you build a better cop?: Experimental evidence on supervision, training, and policing in the community. Criminol Public Policy 17(1):41–87. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1745-9133.12337

Pearson AR, Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL (2009) The nature of contemporary prejudice: insights from aversive racism. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 3(3):314–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00183.x

Price HL, Dahl LC (2014) Order and strength matter for evaluation of alibi and eyewitness evidence: Recency effects. Appl Cogn Psychol 28(2):143–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2983

Rassin E (2010) Blindness to alternative scenarios in evidence evaluation. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 7:153–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.116

Rassin E (2018a) Fundamental failure to think logically about scientific questions: an illustration of tunnel vision with the application of Wason’s Card Selection Test to criminal evidence. Appl Cogn Psychol 32(4):506–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3417

Rassin E (2018b) Reducing tunnel vision with a pen-and-paper tool for the weighting of criminal evidence. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 15(2):227–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1504

Rassin E, Eerland A, Kuijpers I (2010) Let’s find the evidence: an analogue study of confirmation bias in criminal investigations. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 7:231–246

Richardson LS (2017) Systemic triage: Implicit racial bias in the criminal courtroom. Yale Law J 126(3):862–893

Rossmo DK, Pollock JM (2019) Confirmation bias and other systemic causes of wrongful convictions: a sentinel events perspective. Northeastern University Law Review 11(2):790–835

Salet R, Terpstra J (2014) Critical review in criminal investigation: evaluation of a measure to prevent tunnel vision. Policing 8(1):43–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pat039

Simon D, Snow CJ, Read SJ (2004) The redux of cognitive consistency theories: evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. J Pers Soc Psychol 86(6):814–837. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.814

Snook B, Cullen RM (2008) Bounded rationality and criminal investigations: has tunnel vision been wrongfully convicted? In D. K. Rossmo (Ed.), Criminal Investigative Failures (pp. 71–98). Taylor & Francis

Staats C, Capatosto K, Tenney L, Mamo S (2017) State of the science: implicit bias review. The Kirwan Institute

Stoel R, Berger C, Kerkhoff W, Mattijssen E, Dror I (2014) Minimizing contextual bias in forensic casework. In M. Hickman & K. Strom (Eds.), Forensic science and the administration of justice: Critical issues and directions (pp. 67–86). SAGE

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131

Voigt R, Camp NP, Prabhakaran V, Hamilton WL, Hetey RC, Griffiths CM, Eberhardt JL (2017) Language from police body camera footage shows racial disparities in officer respect. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(25):6521–6526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702413114

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wallace WA (2015) The effect of confirmation bias in criminal investigative decision making. ProQuest Information & Learning, US. (2016–17339–014)

Wastell C, Weeks N, Wearing A, Duncan P (2012) Identifying hypothesis confirmation behaviors in a simulated murder investigation: implications for practice. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 9:184–198

Zalman M, Larson M (2016) Elephants in the station house: Serial crimes, wrongful convictions, and expanding wrongful conviction analysis to include police investigation. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2716155

Zapf PA, Dror IE (2017) Understanding and mitigating bias in forensic evaluation: lessons from forensic science. Int J Forensic Ment Health 16(3):227–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2017.1317302

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Dr. Karen Amendola (Police Foundation), Ms. Prahelika Gadtaula (Innocence Project), and Dr. Kim Rossmo (Texas State University) for their thoughtful reviews of earlier drafts.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Science & Research Department, Innocence Project, New York, NY, USA

Vanessa Meterko & Glinda Cooper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanessa Meterko .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by either of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. Detailed Summary of 18 Studies with Police Participants or Source Materials

• a Homicide case vignette was the same as the others with this designation
• b Assault case vignette was the same as the others with this designation
• c Homicide case vignette was the same as the others with this designation
• d Missing person case vignettes were the same as others with this designation
• e The second study reported in this article used undergraduate student participants

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Meterko, V., Cooper, G. Cognitive Biases in Criminal Case Evaluation: A Review of the Research. J Police Crim Psych 37 , 101–122 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09425-8

Download citation

Accepted : 08 December 2020

Published : 23 June 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09425-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cognitive bias
• Confirmation bias
• Investigation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• University News
• Faculty & Research
• Health & Medicine
• Science & Technology
• Social Sciences
• Humanities & Arts
• Students & Alumni
• Arts & Culture
• Sports & Athletics
• The Professions
• International
• New England Guide

The Magazine

• Current Issue
• Past Issues

Class Notes & Obituaries

• Browse Class Notes
• Browse Obituaries

Collections

• Commencement
• The Context
• Harvard Squared
• Harvard in the Headlines

Support Harvard Magazine

• Why We Need Your Support
• How We Are Funded
• Ways to Support the Magazine
• Special Gifts
• Behind the Scenes

Classifieds

• Vacation Rentals & Travel
• Real Estate
• Products & Services
• Harvard Authors’ Bookshelf
• Education & Enrichment Resource
• Ad Prices & Information
• Place An Ad

Follow Harvard Magazine:

Restoring Justice

Exploring an alternative to crime and punishment.

July-August 2021

Illustration by James Heimer

“I spent 28 years in prison,” Armand Coleman was saying to the Harvard Law School students and professors gathered over Zoom on an early spring afternoon. For 22 of those years, he lived in a maximum-security prison; for 12, he was in solitary confinement. “But the time I spent in the restorative-justice program was the hardest thing I’ve ever done,” Coleman said. “It just…” He paused for a moment. “It was very difficult to come to terms with what I did, and also to come to terms with the things that happened to me that turned me into the person I was.”

Coleman and his friend, Emmanual “Noble” Williams—both former inmates at MCI Norfolk, one of the Commonwealth’s oldest and largest prisons—were guest speakers in senior lecturer Nancy Gertner’s class on mass incarceration and sentencing law. They’d come to talk about an approach to criminal justice that has gained ground during the past couple of decades as an alternative to the prevailing legal process. Restorative justice focuses not on prosecution and punishment, but on harm done and how to repair it. The men had come to talk about how completely it had changed them.

The term “restorative justice” these days describes an increasingly broad collection of practices and programs, in settings ranging from prisons to schools to workplaces. It is the concept that animates the American debate over reparations for slavery, and at its most far-reaching, restorative justice drives the work of truth and reconciliation commissions like those convened in South Africa and Rwanda in the aftermath of apartheid and atrocity.

In the criminal context, restorative justice most often involves face-to-face meetings between a victim and an offender (though practitioners don’t use those words, preferring descriptors like “affected party” and “responsible party,” because “victim” and “offender,” as one advocate explains, “leave people fixed in time,” and restorative justice is all about change). These meetings—often called “circles”—are also attended by members of the wider community: family, friends, other people affected by the crime. And by the time everyone sits down together, weeks or months of planning and preparation have gone into the event, as restorative-justice facilitators first meet separately—with both victim and offender—to gather information and to discuss in detail the expectations and structure of the coming dialogue and the process as a whole.

When the face-to-face conversation takes place—and sometimes there is more than one—each party speaks, one at a time and without interruption, about the crime and its effects, and about the circumstances and life histories leading up to it. The person who has committed the crime takes responsibility, expresses remorse, and offers a detailed public apology; victims give voice to their pain, their feelings, and their needs. Then the group comes to consensus on a set of actions that the offender can take to meet those needs, repair the harm, and prevent further offenses.

To date, 45 states have passed laws permitting the use of restorative justice in at least some criminal cases. Programs typically function in one of three ways: as a form of diversion from the criminal process, allowing offenders—especially young or first-time offenders—to avoid charges and a conviction; as a form of alternative sentencing; or, in more serious cases, as a way to reduce a criminal sentence. The program Coleman and Williams took part in was a fourth kind: initiated years after their convictions, it did not influence the men’s sentences or release dates, but its deeper purpose was the same—to help participants take responsibility for their wrongdoing and understand themselves better, and, to the extent possible, “make things right,” as Coleman put it.

Adriaan Lanni

Photograph by Stu Rosner

In Gertner’s class, he and Williams were accompanied by a third speaker, Touroff-Glueck professor of law Adriaan Lanni, who for the past three years has taught a course on restorative justice, and this year published a paper, “Taking Restorative Justice Seriously,” that argued for the concept’s expanded use—“thoughtfully and gradually”—in part as a way to help reduce incarceration, but also as a more effective and humane method for dealing with crime. She regularly invites Coleman and Williams to her own classroom; she also invites crime survivors who have found restitution in restorative justice. “I think that might actually be the most important thing I do at Harvard Law School,” she says. This spring she introduced her students to Janet Connors, whose son was murdered in 2001. Connors sought out a dialogue with the men convicted and eventually formed a deep connection with one of them. She is now a pioneering restorative-justice practitioner and activist in Boston. “There’s research and teaching on restorative justice,” Lanni says, “but hearing the experiences of people and how it’s changed their lives—I’ve had many students tell me that that’s what altered their view of the criminal legal system.”

That afternoon in Gertner’s class, Lanni helped steer the discussion, and Coleman laid out for students the basics of the restorative-justice program at MCI Norfolk. Operating within the prison, it’s largely run by the prisoners themselves, men for whom questions of conviction and sentencing were settled long ago. Many of them know they are never going home. “These men are lifers,” Coleman told the students. “Most of them have been in for 20 years, 30 years, some 40 years.” Yet restorative justice offers them something needed: accountability, self-knowledge, repair, healing. Programs based on a similar model operate inside other prisons around the country, facilitated by volunteers. Norfolk’s began after tensions between rival gang members in 2010 escalated to a brawl that ended with the prison’s youngest inmate, a newly arrived 18-year-old, on a medevac flight out. “After that,” Coleman said, “several of the men came together and figured that they needed to do something to make space for the young men, to bring healing to our community.”

Coleman arrived at the prison just as the program was getting started, and he didn’t fully anticipate what he was getting into. “When I started the process, I already had two decades incarcerated. And in all that time, I had never spoken about my crimes, even to my codefendants, even to my closest comrades.” He went to prison at 17 for murder. After he was locked up, surviving became easier if he didn’t think about why he was there. But programs like the one at Norfolk include a questionnaire about the crime and its impact: “It basically takes you through the whole gamut of how you hurt somebody and how you were hurt and how you could heal,” he said. Writing out his answers, he wept for the first time since arriving in prison.

The shattering moment for Williams, who spent 10 years in prison for home invasion and attempted murder, came later, at a “retreat” in the prison’s auditorium, attended by inmates’ families and friends and a panel of “surrogate” victims (people who’ve suffered crimes similar to those the men had committed, who stand in as participants in restorative-justice circles when the actual victims cannot be present). The men make their public apologies from a podium, after months of work and internal searching. Williams remembered going back to his cell briefly to prepare himself. “I almost didn’t come back out,” he said. “I’ll never forget, I was standing in my cell, staring out the window, crying. I was shaking. Because I really got to see the reality of me starting a gang and how I had made certain parts of my community unsafe, which led to people getting murdered, to people too scared to go to the park.”

“A Process of Making Things Right”

Restorative justice may seem like a new idea—it is such a radical departure from the current system. But in reality, it is ancient. The concept has origins with indigenous peoples around the world, including Native American and Canadian First Nations civilizations. In New Zealand, where all juvenile crimes except murder go through a restorative process and adult crimes are automatically referred for similar consideration, the genesis lies in Maori traditions. In Africa, the philosophy that undergirds restorative justice is ubuntu , a complex term that translates roughly as “A human being is a human being because of other human beings.” When South Africa embarked on its reconciliation process after apartheid, ubuntu provided the ethical framework.

The modern history of restorative justice in the West begins with Howard Zehr, the son of a Mennonite church leader, who left academia in the late 1970s to found the country’s first victim-offender reconciliation program, in Elkhart, Indiana. That program followed a model of restorative justice Zehr had developed largely from his own faith, mining the Bible and his Mennonite beliefs for a set of guiding principles. Many of them echo indigenous ideas. “The key to Old Testament justice was the concept of Shalom—of making things right, of living in peace and harmony with one another in right relationship,” Zehr wrote in a 1985 paper titled “Retributive Justice, Restorative Justice.” “The test of justice, then, was not whether the right rules, the right procedures, were followed.…Justice is to be tested by the outcome, not the procedures, and it must come out with right relationships. Justice is a process of making things right.”

In 1990, Zehr collected what he’d learned about restorative justice into Changing Lenses, a foundational book that called for a new paradigm in crime and punishment. One of its central tenets, which has guided countless other practitioners since, is what are known as the “three questions” of restorative justice: “Who has been hurt? What are their needs? Who is responsible for righting the harm?” By contrast, Zehr observed, a legal system built around punishment asks very different questions: “What rules were broken? Who did it? What do they deserve?”

sujatha baliga

Photograph courtesy of sujatha baliga

Another question is also crucial: “What happened?” That may be, in fact, the most important question that gets asked and answered in restorative-justice circles, believes sujatha baliga ’93, a practitioner in Oakland, California, who in 2019 won a MacArthur Fellowship for her work. When things go terribly wrong, says baliga (who prefers to lowercase her name), the need to know what happened and why—and to hear it directly from the person who committed the crime—is one of the deepest and most urgent that survivors feel.

It is a need she herself has felt. Growing up in an immigrant family in Pennsylvania, baliga was sexually abused by her father from as early as she can remember. He never apologized, and the abuse stopped only with his death, when she was 16. As an undergraduate, her intention was to become a prosecutor and put other abusers behind bars, and so after graduation, she spent a couple of years as a victim advocate, working in the areas of domestic violence, sexual assault, and rape crisis. And then, in her mid twenties, after mailing her law-school applications, she took a trip to India, where the weight of her childhood trauma and anger caught up with her. Amid a nervous breakdown and at the suggestion of a Tibetan family she had met while backpacking, she wrote to the Dalai Lama for help and advice. To her surprise, he responded by asking to meet with her, and the hour she spent with him that spring, she says, set her on a path toward healing and forgiveness—and ultimately toward restorative justice.

Other survivors’ stories contain more quotidian details, but the threads are similar. Janet Connors has spoken about the anger and emptiness she felt after her son’s killers were convicted, and a nagging dissatisfaction that nudged her to try to engage with them. Danielle Sered, who founded the New York-based program Common Justice and whose book, Until We Reckon , has become a pivotal text in the restorative-justice field, is a rape survivor. She has said that when victims are offered the option of sitting down with their offenders, 90 percent say yes.

That matches baliga’s experience, too. Within the first week of law school, she realized she couldn’t be a prosecutor. Instead she became a public defender in New York and Santa Fe, and later moved to California to work on death-penalty appeals. But being a defense attorney still didn’t feel quite right. A Buddhist, she found herself increasingly drawn to the system of justice that existed in Tibet before the Chinese occupation, with its focus on repair and healing for all involved. In 2008, she left the law to start a restorative-justice program for juvenile offenders, and eventually led the restorative-justice project at Impact Justice, an organization focused on research and reform. There, baliga specialized in cases involving sexual abuse and intimate-partner violence; she left last year to write a book on forgiveness and help advise other organizations.

People often get restorative justice wrong, she says. “They think it’s just everything kinder, gentler.” Really, it’s neither. For one thing, as baliga explained in a 2017 lecture at Harvard Divinity School (HDS), “If we’re going to ask these questions about who was harmed and what do they need, we can’t gloss over this word ‘harm,’ right?” Sometimes the harm is unthinkable. In 2012, a New York Times Magazine story chronicled a difficult case baliga facilitated between a 19-year-old who had murdered his fiancée and the parents of the murdered girl. It is a wrenching narrative of pain, loss, and seemingly impossible grace.

Plus, she adds, the entire process is designed to meet the needs of victims . Perhaps counterintuitively, she says, victims’ needs are more readily met in a circle than in a courtroom. The adversarial structure of the criminal-justice system routinely pushes offenders to downplay or deny their crimes, and those who plead guilty frequently plead to charges that are different from the actual offenses they committed—sometimes less severe, but at other times much more severe—and so survivors are often left with no real answer to that deeply urgent question, what happened . Restorative-justice programs that work as a form of diversion from conviction, intervening (as Impact Justice does) before charges are filed, are better able to elicit answers, baliga says. They are also “more empowering to survivors, and more accessible to survivors of color.” One reason she never reported her father was because of the potential consequences for her family: immigration problems, or her own removal to a new home with a language and culture she didn’t know. Also, reporting him would have meant giving up her say in any consequences, her “ownership” of the offense: “If I had reported it, it would have been the state versus my father, not me versus my father,” she points out. “And what does the state do? It exacts punishment. It does not repair the harm done to me.”

“I think survivors have been sold a bill of goods,” baliga says, “that the criminal legal system is real justice.”

Of the current carceral system, she says, “If you actually asked survivors what we needed, it would not be mass criminalization. No one would have designed this, including the people most impacted by harm….I think survivors have been sold a bill of goods, that the criminal legal system is real justice.”

And so her life’s work has been an effort to shift the paradigm, to “share the story that there is healing and resolution and happiness and thriving on the other side, when no criminal legal engagement ever happened.” One imperative for making this healing possible, she insists, is taking the necessary time to let the process play out. “Justice moves at the speed of trust,” baliga told the HDS audience, and that means not shortchanging any part of the procedure. “Time is a great challenge to our work.”

Another imperative revolves, again, around survivors: “The entire process, leading up to getting into the room where the circle takes place, needs to be about helping the person who’s experienced the harm feel empowered to set the terms,” baliga says. “I think a big problem with some restorative processes is that people think they can just throw people in a room together and have it work out.” The process becomes equally misguided when “it’s driven more by trying to prevent somebody from going to prison than it is from holding both parties with equal compassion and concern.” Yet equal compassion is called for, baliga says, because people who have caused harm have usually experienced it themselves. Offenders, very often, are also victims.

“What’s Your Story?”

Just as transformative for offenders as the recognition of their own accountability is the work of examining—often for the first time—the circumstances in their own lives that led to the crimes they committed: the violence, abuse, injustice, or poverty that shaped them. This is not the same as absolution. It is a necessary full accounting. Williams remembered finally making that connection: “Before I committed my first crime, many, many crimes were committed against me,” he said. Restorative justice redirected him in a way he didn’t see coming. “The first time I felt human, the first time I felt seen, was in a circle,” he said. “Someone asked me, ‘What’s your story? What’ve you been through? How you feel?’”

Harvard legal scholar and human-rights expert Martha Minow lays out the paradox in her book When Should Law Forgive? —which advocates a more restorative criminal justice system in the United States and draws an analogy between child soldiers in places like Sierra Leone and young gang members in American cities (read the review, “Forgive, but Don’t Forget,” November-December 2019, page 64). The 300 th Anniversary University Professor explains what she sees as the “concentric circles” that make room for empathy and forgiveness: “Concentric circles of people, incentives, and causes influence violations of the law,” she writes. In an interview, she elaborates: “We’re a nation that is so ready to blame other people. And I think we’re in search of, and in need of, ways to see our interconnections.…Finding ways for people to actually encounter one another as human beings is an important ingredient here, and that, at its core, is one thing that restorative methods allow.”

For Coleman and Williams, all of this was a revelation. Sitting in a circle with facilitators and other inmates at Norfolk, they revisited childhoods marked by addiction and abuse within their families, gangs and violence in their communities. Williams recalled that as child, “It was safer in the projects than it was in my house.” He came to realize, he said, that by founding a gang, he was, in part, “creating something so I could be safe.”

“Once you detail what happened to you,” Coleman said, “you go through a whole process.” One long-buried memory he shared with students took him back to second grade and an abusive teacher, whose side his mother took after he was accused of an infraction he didn’t commit. Coleman was suspended from school and then beaten when he got home. Afterward, he disliked school and distrusted his mother. “I really felt like I had nobody,” he said. “I started fighting every day in school.…I can remember myself disconnecting from my mother and trying to find other people to connect to. Until, eventually, I connected with my uncles, who were involved in the street life.”

Analyzing the Data

In recent decades, numerous restorative-justice programs have sprung into existence. A few operate entirely outside the legal system, without ever involving any authorities; others work with local police departments and district attorneys’ offices. Methodologies vary from place to place, too—making it more difficult to assess the effectiveness of the underlying concept: most analyses have focused on juvenile and first-time offenders. But recent rigorous, randomized studies find that restorative justice typically does a modestly better job at reducing recidivism than the court system—resulting in anywhere from 7 percent to 45 percent fewer repeat arrests or convictions, depending on the study parameters. One 2015 analysis found that this effect was actually most pronounced for violent offenses and adult offenders.

Crime victims also consistently appear to be more satisfied after a restorative-justice process than after a traditional criminal one—sometimes dramatically so (in a 2017 study of its own work, Impact Justice found that 91 percent of victims said they’d recommend the process to a friend and 88 percent said the repair plan adopted by the group addressed their needs). Surveys show that while people who have survived a crime want to feel safe, many of them also prefer rehabilitation for the perpetrators, rather than long periods of incarceration. Researchers find that victims often perceive restorative dialogues to be fairer and more responsive to their needs and wishes. One 2013 study of face-to-face meetings between victims and offenders found a marked decrease in victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms and in their desire for revenge. A multiyear randomized study in Australia found that victims of violent crime who went to court were five times more likely to believe they would be re-victimized by the offender, while those who went through a restorative process felt more secure and achieved a greater sense of closure.

Adriaan Lanni points to such findings in her argument in favor of restorative justice, but says even they fall short of the full picture. For several years, she has volunteered as a case coordinator for a Concord-based program, and has seen firsthand what happens in those conversations. “I think you lose a lot if you just look at the quantitative analysis, like, ‘Give me the recidivism number,’” she says. “It’s sort of a magical experience. I was skeptical about restorative justice until I started sitting in circles. But it’s really transformative, in a way that’s hard to measure.”

“A Much More Capacious Approach”

Lanni found her way to restorative justice bit by bit. Originally, she planned to become a labor lawyer. Both her parents were labor organizers, and she spent her Yale Law School summers working at union-side law firms and the American Civil Liberties Union. But a class on capital punishment profoundly changed her outlook on the legal system; she dove into criminal law and procedure and wrote a paper on jury sentencing, arguing that communities should have more of a say in the criminal-justice decisions that affect them. “I think you can’t really study the criminal legal system without being appalled by mass incarceration and racial disparities,” she says.

Meanwhile, she had already fallen deep into another consuming interest: ancient Athenian democracy. That’s what she had studied as a Marshall Scholar at Cambridge University prior to law school, and as a doctoral student afterward; her dissertation (and first book) addressed jury decision-making in Athens. “The Athenian jury had a much more individualized, contextualized approach,” she says. “They would take into account the impact that, for example, the punishment would have on the defendant and on the community, and on the defendant’s family.” In the American system, those things are irrelevant: “We don’t even tell the American jury what the sentence will be, except in capital cases.”

In the concept of restorative justice, all of this came together. She discovered that restorative justice, like the Athenian system, offered “a much more capacious approach” to what ought to happen after a crime. Ancient law—not only in Athens, but also in Rome and the Near East—is a subject she still teaches: “What I think is important about a class like that for lawyers,” she says, “is that it denaturalizes our system and shows us that it’s not inevitable; it’s a result of contingencies and historical choices. There are different ways of thinking about crime and punishment than what we’ve chosen.”

Lanni’s engagement with restorative justice reflects a growing tide at the Law School. Minow reports that newly admitted students now often arrive with an interest—and sometimes actual experience—in restorative work. Lecturer John Cratsley, who, like Gertner, is a retired judge, devotes a few class periods every semester to teaching the concept: “It’s an extremely valuable tool that I wish had been available to me when I was on the bench,” he says. Meanwhile, student demand for Lanni’s restorative-justice course keeps growing. At one point this past spring, there were 150 names on the waitlist.

Moral and legal philosopher Erin Kelly, Ph.D. ’95, has found herself increasingly turning her research toward restorative justice, too. A faculty member at Tufts University who was a visiting Harvard Law professor this past spring, she studies criminal law and its relationship to injustice. Her 2018 book, The Limits of Blame: Rethinking Punishment and Responsibility , critiqued the moralism that justifies harsh treatment of lawbreakers. “A lot of times, people think that individual moral accountability only makes sense within a retributive framework,” she says. “I think a lot of people naturally put together the ideas of moral accountability, blame, and punishment. And they think that if we pull them apart, then we’re not being morally serious.”

Indeed, one common critique of restorative justice is that it allows offenders to escape proper punishment. But to Kelly, the punitive approach to criminal justice—the foundational idea that perpetrators must be harmed—is what’s “difficult to defend on the basis of rational argument.” Mitigating factors in crimes, and the long history of social injustice and inequality, complicate responsibility and mean that “When you ask, ‘Who deserves punishment? And how much punishment do they deserve?’ it’s harder to pin down a convincing answer than retributivists would like us to think.” Meanwhile, the broad discretionary power of police and prosecutors muddies the notion of the legal system as a tidy instrument; in reality, it is subjective and messy: “There’s lots of room for moral contestation there.”

Conversely, she argues, restorative justice is a firmer solution than many people imagine. “Instead of offering a purportedly objective answer to the question of what should happen next after criminal wrongdoing, what’s being offered is…a procedure that’s well-organized, with each person having a role and being recognized as an equal partner in the enterprise. And then things get worked out through that procedure.” Democracy itself follows that model, Kelly says. “And there’s something attractive, especially in a pluralistic society, and a society that values liberty and autonomy, about a democratic exercise in which the most important people with regard to what has happened are present and participating in the outcome.”

Fairness, Power, and Forgiveness

Still, restorative justice is not a panacea. An emerging field, it remains a site of vast experimentation, and there are trade-offs and drawbacks, questions to be worked out. Not every case can be decided this way: with defendants who are not ready to accept responsibility, for instance, or who are wrongfully accused, or offenders who pose serious danger to themselves or others.

Fairness is a worry in cases where police or prosecutors determine who has the option of a restorative process, and in cases where the offender wants to take responsibility and make amends but the victim is not willing or emotionally ready to meet. Surrogate victims offer a possible solution, but that in turn raises the concern that offender rehabilitation will supersede victims’ needs.

The power dynamic between facilitator and participants can also be tricky, especially when disparities in race, gender, age, and class come into play. And there is sometimes a risk that participants may feel coerced: offenders, to take part, with the threat of a criminal sentence hanging over them; victims, to forgive the perpetrator. Forgiveness must never be a requirement of the process, sujatha baliga says. “Forgiveness is an individual journey.” Very often it happens, but not always. “There’s an independent good to wanting to make things right. Whether or not you receive forgiveness when you’ve caused harm is not your business.”

Coleman recalled discovering restorative justice and thinking, “Wow, the people who need it most don’t have this. I was like, ‘Damn, man, I need this more than anybody.’ ”

Perhaps the biggest concern has to do with race. On one hand, restorative practices that originated in indigenous communities have been adopted without credit or adapted in ways that sever them from their original purpose and meaning. This kind of cultural appropriation “is a huge issue in the field,” Lanni says. Also, the problems of crime and incarceration fall disproportionately on minority communities. In those places, restorative justice has a real potential to bring change, advocates say, and yet, many programs are in white, suburban neighborhoods, dealing primarily with nonviolent offenses (though some organizations, like baliga’s, do focus on violent crime and minority communities). In talking to the Harvard Law students, Coleman recalled discovering the concept of restorative justice and thinking, “Wow, the people who need it most don’t have this. I was like, ‘Damn, man, I need this more than anybody.’” He and Williams help lead The Transformational Prison Project, which brings the restorative process they experienced in Norfolk to former inmates now living on the outside ; and Coleman is on staff at Communities for Restorative Justice, the same Concord-based organization where Lanni volunteers. His role involves expanding the program’s reach into Boston’s neighborhoods of color.

•   •   •

The first restorative justice circle involving a serious crime that Lanni took part in as a volunteer concerned a young man in Boston who, after smoking pot late at night with his friends, chased down a pedestrian and pointed a gun at him when the man refused to give the young assailants any money. The gun was loaded with BBs and the stick-up was meant as a prank, but the pedestrian ran away fearing for his life. The boy was arrested soon after. In the circle, Lanni says, everything came out: fear, regret, recognition, life histories and memories of trauma, and the story of what happened that night. And somewhere in those hours in the circle, that magical thing, the phenomenon Lanni can’t quite put into words and can’t capture with statistics, happened. It was the first time she’d seen it. At the end of the meeting, anger had turned to empathy; a traumatized victim felt less afraid and a young man had heard directly from the person he’d hurt—and had apologized, felt remorse, and made amends. After it was over, the offender’s mother stood up and hugged the victim. “I had walked into that room with curiosity and hope, but also with skepticism,” Lanni says. “I walked out with a firm belief in the transformative potential of restorative justice.” 

Associate editor Lydialyle Gibson’s profile of Jeannie Suk Gersen, “Due Process,” appeared in the March-April issue.

Published in the print edition of the July-August 2021 issue (Volume 123, Number 6), under the headline “Justice Be Done.”

You might also like

Paying Student-Athletes?

As NIL money flows, Harvard’s approach remains unchanged.

Harvard, Ivies to Join Big Ten

“Superconference” play to begin in 2025-26; features relegation.

Harvard College Admits Class of 2028

A smaller undergraduate applicant cohort—the first since Supreme Court ended affirmative action 

Most popular

The Risks of Homeschooling

Elizabeth Bartholet highlights risks when parents have 24/7 authoritarian control over their children.

AWOL from Academics

Behind students' increasing pull toward extracurriculars

More to explore

The College Pump

Darker Days

The current disquiets compared to Harvard’s Vietnam-era traumas

Making Space

The natural history of Junko Yamamoto’s art and architecture

Spellbound on Stage

Actor and young adult novelist Aislinn Brophy

A better path forward for criminal justice: Reimagining pretrial and sentencing

• Download a PDF of this chapter.

Subscribe to Governance Weekly

Pamela k. lattimore , pamela k. lattimore senior director for research development, division for applied justice research - rti international cassia spohn , and cassia spohn regents professor - school of criminology and criminal justice, arizona state university matthew demichele matthew demichele senior research sociologist - rti international.

• 28 min read

Below is the second chapter from “A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice,” a report by the Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform. You can access other chapters from the report here .

The roots of mass incarceration in the United States lie in policies and practices that result in jail for millions of individuals charged with but not convicted of any crime and lengthy jail or prison sentences for those who are convicted. These policies and practices are the results of 50 years of efforts at criminal justice reform in response to the “War on Crime” and the “War on Drugs” that began in the 1970s—intended to improve public safety, curb drug abuse, and address perceived inequities in the justice system, these reforms also had unintended consequences that exacerbated disparities.

As the United States grapples with yet another iteration of calls for social and racial justice following multiple deaths of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement, the time is ripe to develop and implement deep structural reforms that will increase fairness and ensure proportionate punishment without sacrificing public safety. Concurrently, practices implemented to address the public health crisis in the Nation’s jails and prisons accompanying the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity to examine whether reducing pretrial detention and prison sentences can be accomplished without negatively affecting public safety.

As the United States grapples with yet another iteration of calls for social and racial justice following multiple deaths of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement, the time is ripe to develop and implement deep structural reforms that will increase fairness and ensure proportionate punishment without sacrificing public safety.

This chapter briefly discusses the evolution of criminal justice reform efforts focused on pretrial and sentencing policies and practices that resulted in unprecedented rates of incarceration that have only recently begun to abate. This discussion is followed by proposals for policy reforms that should be implemented and recommendations for critical research needed to guide future reform efforts.

Level Setting

Despite declining somewhat over the past two decades, America’s incarceration rate remains the highest in the world. 1  Individuals in the United States may spend months in jail awaiting trial and those convicted are more likely than those in peer nations to receive long carceral sentences. Against the backdrop of renewed calls for racial and social justice in response to deaths of Black people at the hands of police, the COVID-19 pandemic has shone an unforgiving spotlight on America’s jails and prisons, where those awaiting trial or serving sentences have experienced disproportionate rates of infection and death due to the spread of the virus. The responses to the pandemic in many jurisdictions have included unprecedented efforts to reduce jail populations and some efforts toward early prison release that provide an opportunity to determine whether reducing pretrial detention or prison sentences can be accomplished without negatively affecting public safety.

The United States has been engaged in efforts to reform pretrial practices and sentencing for more than five decades. The 1966 Bail Reform Act sought to reduce pretrial detention through the offer of payment of money bond in lieu of detention, while rising violent crime rates and an ongoing “drug war” resulted in the 1984 Pretrial Reform Act that once again led to a reliance on preventive pretrial detention. More recently, there has been a renewed push to reduce reliance on financial requirements for pretrial release in response to concerns about the growing numbers of individuals detained and the disparate impact of these detentions on individuals who are poor and people of color. Risk assessment tools that predict failure to appear and new arrests for those released while awaiting trial have been implemented to support release decisionmaking and to provide an alternative to money bail. These tools have also been suggested as a means to reduce disparities in release that may reflect implicit biases and cognitive errors in judgement by those charged with making release decisions quickly with incomplete information. Risk assessment tools continue to garner support despite criticisms that they perpetuate historical biases that exist in the criminal record information used to make the predictions.

Concerns about disparity, discrimination, and unfairness in sentencing led to a sentencing reform movement that began in the mid-1970s and that, over time, revolutionized sentencing. States and the federal system moved from indeterminate sentencing, in which judges imposed minimum and maximum sentences and parole boards determined how long those incarcerated would serve, to structured sentencing policies that constrained the discretion of judges, ensured that sentences were pegged to crime seriousness and to the criminal history of those found guilty, and, in many jurisdictions, eliminated discretionary release on parole.

As the “War on Crime” and the “War on Drugs” escalated during the 1980s in response to increasing rates of violent crime and the drug—primarily crack cocaine—epidemic, reformers also championed changes designed to establish more punitive sentencing standards. These changes included sentencing enhancements for use of a weapon, prior criminal history, and infliction of serious injury; mandatory minimum sentences, particularly for drug and weapons offenses; “three-strikes laws” that mandated long prison sentences for repeat offenders; truth-in-sentencing statutes that required individuals to serve more of their sentences before they were eligible for release; and life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) sentences. Federal support for these efforts included funding under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322) that established the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) Incentive Grant Program, which was designed to assist state efforts to remove violent offenders from the community. Over five years (FY1996 to FY2001) this program provided states with $3 billion in funding to expand prison and jail capacity and to encourage states to eliminate indeterminate sentencing in favor of “Truth in Sentencing” laws that required individuals to serve at least 85 percent of the imposed sentence. 2

What have been the results of these efforts at reform? More individuals detained pretrial as the numbers of individuals booked into jails increased and as the proportion of those held in jail pending trial increased from 56 percent of the jail population in 2000 to 66 percent in 2018. Prison populations also skyrocketed—from about 200,000 in 1970 to 1.43 million in 2019. 3 Further, sentences became more punitive, with individuals convicted of felonies in state and federal courts facing a greater likelihood of incarceration and longer sentences than they did in the pre-reform era. The number of individuals serving life—and life without the possibility of parole—sentences also increased dramatically; there are now more offenders serving life sentences than the total number of individual who were held in all U.S prisons in the early 1970s. Worldwide, the United States accounts for more than one-third of all life sentences and eight out of ten LWOP sentences. Moreover, there is persuasive evidence that these punitive changes did not produce the predicted decline in crime but did exacerbate already alarming racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration.

T here are now more offenders serving life sentences than the total number of individual s  who were held in all U.S prisons in the early 1970s.

Pretrial detention and prison incarceration are linked, as those engaged in recent efforts on pretrial reform recognize. Pretrial detention contributes to mass incarceration both directly and indirectly. Pretrial detention results in a greater likelihood that individuals (irrespective of guilt) will plead guilty, a greater likelihood of being sentenced to incarceration, and longer sentences. These impacts are disproportionately borne by people of color—who are more likely to be detained and less likely to be able to afford bond amounts that are often set higher than for similarly situated White defendants.

The consequences of pretrial detention are difficult to reconcile given that many of those detained pretrial are charged with offenses that, were they to be found guilty, would be unlikely to result in incarcerative sentences. Research suggests that pretrial detention is linked to substantially higher recidivism rates post sentencing—suggesting that even if pretrial detention reduces some criminal activity during the pretrial period this is more than offset by much higher recidivism rates after individuals serve their sentences. Further, pretrial detention removes individuals presumed innocent from their families and communities—often resulting in the loss of employment and housing, interrupted treatment, and, in some cases, the loss of child custody. Court imposed fines and fees are passed without making income-based adjustments and failure to pay such fines and fees can result in revocation of one’s driver’s license and further incarceration.

Housing America’s prisoners is expensive—more than $88 billion in local, state, and federal taxpayer monies were spent on corrections in 2016. 4 Most of those in jail are awaiting trial—so the costs of jail are not to pay for punishment. Instead, pretrial detention is meant to ensure attendance at trial and to protect the public from harm by individuals who have not been convicted of a crime. But, in fact, failure to appear at trial is rare and often due to mundane reasons (e.g., forgetting the trial or hearing date). Similarly, new arrests of those released pretrial are also infrequent with arrests for violent crimes rare. 5

The costs of jail or prison for sentenced individuals are justified in terms of one or more of the purposes of punishment—retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The first of these (retribution) provides voice to the victims of crime and recognizes society’s need for justice. The remaining three are utilitarian justifications of punishment, each of which is designed to prevent or reduce crime. Incarcerated individuals cannot perpetrate new crimes on society at large (incapacitation) and there is a presumption that punishment will deter those who have been punished and those contemplating similar crimes from future criminal acts (deterrence). Finally, as reflected in the last three decades’ focus on reentry programs, society benefits if prisoners can be rehabilitated, reentering society with the skills and desire to be contributing citizens. These goals are often at odds—lengthy prison sentences may be justified by the seriousness of the crime and may act to incapacitate dangerous individuals or to deter potential offenders, but they also may decrease the odds of rehabilitation and successful reentry into the community. Long prison sentences that cause individuals to lose touch with their families and their communities and that reduce their ability to function in society interfere with rehabiliative goals, particularly as the prison environment itself is toxic to individual agency and the skills needed to function in society.

There is an urgent need to identify a balanced strategy with respect to pretrial justice and sentencing, one that will reduce crime and victimization, ameliorate unwarranted disparities, and reclaim human capital currently lost to incarceration. This strategy should identify the costs incurred across the system and society and ensure that these costs are balanced by the benefits. Further, to ensure that the intent of policy changes is realized and to identify unanticipated consequences, rigorous research should assess the impacts and costs of changes, identifying what is promising.

Criminal justice reform is complicated. In the United States, justice responsibilities are spread across the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of local, state, and federal governments. As a result, the costs and benefits of various justice functions are seldom obvious to those making decisions. Further, the costs often accrue to one branch and level of government while the benefits accrue to another—for example, if the local government implements and pays for a program that diverts individuals with mental illness from jail to treatment, thus reducing future criminal activity, the local police and jail may incur fewer future justice system costs but the greatest savings may accrue to the state government that won’t have to prosecute and incarcerate or supervise these individuals in the future. A judicial decision to detain an individual pretrial or to sentence an individual to years in prison (or on probation) imposes costs that are not borne by the judicial branch. As a result, there is often little incentive to change policies and practices. In addition, laws and decisions are often made to address retributive or incapacitation goals—perhaps with a nod to deterrence—without consideration that less punitive—and less costly—interventions might provide better, long-term societal outcomes. Finally, the justice system is often the system of last resort to address the needs of individuals with mental illness and substance use disorders, who often do not have the education and job skills to be successful in the 21 st century. Rethinking how society can better address societal disadvantage may relieve the burdens on the justice system and result in better outcomes.

Our recommendations for achieving these goals include the following:

Short-Term Reforms

• Cost-benefit Analyses of Pretrial and Sentencing Practices
• Set Fines and Fees on Ability to Pay

Hold Prosecutors Accountable for Filing and Plea-Bargaining Decisions

• Reconsider Probation and Parole Practices that Contribute to Mass Incarceration

Medium-Term Reform

Inter-Agency Approaches to Reducing Justice System Intervention

Long-Term Reforms

Establish a Presumption of Pretrial Release

Revise sentencing statutes to ensure proportionality, short-term reforms, cost-benefit analyses of pretrial and sentencing practices.

Immediate changes could be made to reveal the costs across decision points within justice systems to those making decisions, with a goal of ensuring that the incurred costs are equal to the benefits. For pretrial decisions, this means stakeholders would have the information to understand that pretrial detention is not “free,” but instead comes with justice system costs and with collateral costs to the detained, their families, and their communities. If the average cost of a night in jail is $50 or higher 6  and given the collateral costs of pretrial detention, how many nights in jail awaiting trial would be justifiable for someone who is charged with a minor crime that would never result in a sentence of incarceration? Does society benefit if an individual spends many nights in jail because they are unable to post $200 to cover a $2000 bond while they are awaiting trial on minor charges or because they were unable to pay fees and fines from a previous case?

Justice systems should consider monetary and extra-monetary costs alongside the usual considerations of judicial officers as to whether someone will miss court or be arrested for a new crime as well as the costs of these very different events. Missing court is likely less costly than incorrectly detaining many people to avoid the potential for missed court appearances—particularly if inexpensive court reminder systems can more cheaply reduce failures to appear. Many jails reduced their pretrial detained populations significantly as the COVID-19 pandemic began and there is little evidence of effects on crime. This may provide a reset in some communities as they consider that what changed was not the risk posed by the detained individuals but the decision to release, as well as reconsideration of the initial decisions to arrest (rather than cite) and book into jail. To this end, jurisdictions need to move away from reliance on financial conditions for release. Few people are denied bail, but most people detained pretrial are there because they are unable to pay bail—a system that advantages the well-off who have the resources to cover bail at the expense of the poor. If bail cannot be eliminated for most charges, policymakers should revisit the use of private bail bond agencies so that individuals who are released only by securing the services of a bail agency do not end up forgoing the ten percent they pay to cover their bail—an expense they incur even if they appear and meet all pretrial conditions.

Setting Fines and Fees Based on Ability to Pay

Another reform that could be accomplished in the short-term is setting fines and fees based on ability to pay. 7 Just as bail differentially disadvantages the poor over the more well-off individual, so do fixed fine and fee schedules that charge the indigent the same as the millionaire. Fixed fines and fees can trap those with limited means in a cycle of fines, fees, jail for failure to pay, more fines, etc. Fine schedules could be developed that set fines based on multiples of the individual’s daily wage (perhaps setting the minimum at the minimum wage for those intermittently employed—for example, $58 representing eight hours of wage at $7.25). Similarly, fees could be adjusted to reflect ability to pay. Neither of these should preclude the ability of judges to waive fees and fines for those unlikely to ever be able to make the payments. In clear cases of indigence, courts should have the authority to waive all fines, fees, and surcharges.” 8

Policy changes that constrained judicial discretion at sentencing have concomitantly led to increased prosecutorial discretion at charging and plea bargaining. Prosecutors decide whether to file charges that trigger mandatory minimum sentences, life without parole sentences, or habitual offender provisions; whether to dismiss these charges during plea bargaining; and whether to file (and later dismiss) collateral charges that lead to punitive sentence enhancements. An immediate effort needs to be made to hold prosecutors accountable by requiring that they file charges only for offenses for which there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a reasonable likelihood of conviction at trial, and by mandating that plea negotiations be in writing and on the record. Prosecutors also should consider establishing sentencing review units that would identify, evaluate, and rectify sentences deemed excessive and disproportionate.

Reconsider Probation and Parole Practices that Contribute to Mass Incarceration  

Jurisdictions should reconsider probation and parole policies and practices that contribute to mass incarceration. In many jurisdictions, a large proportion of those admitted to jail or prison are individuals who violated the conditions of probation or parole. To rectify this, the conditions imposed on individuals placed on probation or parole should be reasonable (and not designed to set them up for failure), judges should use graduated sanctions in responding to probation/parole violations, and probation or parole should be revoked, and a jail or prison sentence imposed, only for repeated or egregious technical violations or for serious new crimes.

MEDIUM-TERM REFORMS

There should be investment in ongoing performance measurement—across the decision points—so that stakeholders can begin to understand the aggregate impacts of individual decisions. The law at its core is about the individual—the individual victim, the individual defendant, and the individual case. But the decisions that are made individually add up to crowded jails and prisons. These performance measurement systems are not necessarily complex—for example, dashboards to track variation in judicial sentencing or to monitor who is being held in jail provide insight into the overall consequences of the dispensation of justice.

Developing and monitoring these process metrics are simply good business practices. Just as a well-run restaurant knows exactly how many ingredients are needed and how long it takes to process each part of an order, a local justice system should know the details of who is in their jail and why. Prosecutors should know how their offices and individual prosecutors manage caseloads and outcomes. Judges should know how their sentencing stacks up with their peers.

Mid-term improvements require more sophisticated inter-agency approaches by law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts. 9 These agencies have wide discretion to institute diversion programs, problem-solving courts, and other alternatives to incarceration, and they should collaborate with social service agencies and with public health and educational professionals to address underlying issues, such as behavioral health, substance abuse, or homelessness, that lead to local justice system intervention. Such inter-agency approaches to developing programs reflect that the complex needs of individuals caught in the justice system are the responsibility of society more broadly and not of a justice system poorly equipped and financed to address lifetimes of cumulative disadvantage. These programs need to be adequately funded and designed to provide positive pathways forward. One misunderstanding that accompanied the many early reentry programs was the assumption that the programs and services needed to address the needs and deficits of returning prisoners already existed in communities and only needed to be harnessed through planning and case management. Evaluations of some of the largest federally funded reentry grant programs have repeatedly shown that few individuals releasing from prison access services to address their needs—as services are not available or competing demands such as finding and keeping employment or lack of transportation preclude engagement. Emerging support for the hypothesis that desisting from criminal behavior may have different roots than simply addressing deficits correlated with offending like substance use also suggests that these programs should divert to a positive lifestyle through demonstrations and support for alternative identities. 10

LONG-TERM REFORMS

Mass incarceration is the result of several decades of policy decisions, and unwinding mass incarceration will require a long-term approach designed to slow the flow of individuals into jails and prisons and to reduce the lengths of sentences they are serving. Pretrial detention is an important component of mass incarceration; something to consider is restricting the crimes for which individuals are booked into jail and establishing a presumption for release for all but the most serious offenses and the individuals who pose the most serious flight risks.

In the long run, the criminal codes that govern the imposition of punishment in municipal, state, and federal justice systems in the United States need to be reformed to ensure that punishment is commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. This will entail ratcheting downward the sentencing ranges associated with various combinations of offense seriousness and criminal history, enhancing eligibility for probation, reducing sentence enhancements for aggravating circumstances, and increasing sentence discounts for mitigating circumstances. In addition, mandatory minimum sentencing statutes and two- and three-strikes laws should be repealed or, if that proves politically unpalatable, dramatically scaled back to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. Jurisdictions also should revise truth-in-sentencing and life sentencing statutes by reducing the amount of time offenders must serve before being eligible for release and should eliminate life without the possibility of parole sentences for all but the most heinous crimes.

Recommendations for Future Research

Justice requires identifying and confirming more effective and cost-efficient ways of securing appropriate outcomes for society, for victims, and for those charged with and convicted of crimes. Reforms should be surrounded with rigorous research and ongoing performance measurement. Basic research is needed to better understand the relationships between policy alternatives and outcomes, and evaluation is needed to ensure that reforms lead to better outcomes, to identify unintended negative consequences, and to embark on a path of continuous improvement of the justice system.

Researchers studying pretrial systems need to assess the impact of current practices and potential reforms on the crime rate, sentencing punitiveness, mass incarceration, and unwarranted disparity in pretrial detention. First, there needs to be more research on cumulative disadvantage to understand how disparities at earlier stages of the process (i.e., pretrial detention) accumulate across the life course of a criminal case to produce harsher treatment of certain categories of offenders. Second, research on the pretrial process needs to address and answer the following questions:

• Do financial conditions increase court attendance and decrease crime rates compared to release on recognizance (ROR) or non-financial conditions?
• Does the amount of bail affect outcomes?
• How consequential are pretrial decisions in future decisions about conviction and sentencing? And on future criminal behavior?
• What are the factors associated with failure to appear? Is there a relationship between the seriousness of the charged offense or the severity of the prior record and failure to appear?
• How does defense counsel at first appearance affect detention decisions and case outcomes?
• What are the effects of pretrial conditions and supervision practices on failure to appear and new criminal activity?
• How dangerous are pretrial releasees? What is the nature of criminal activity during pretrial release?
• What considerations and conditions need to attend release decisions for special categories of offenders that may pose special risks to victims (e.g., domestic violence cases) or to justice (e.g., defendants that pose special concerns with respect to witness intimidation)?

Sentencing researchers should examine decisions to sentence offenders to life—and especially to life without the possibility of parole; these consequential decisions have not been subjected to the type of empirical scrutiny directed at other sentencing outcomes and thus little is known about the existence of or extent of unwarranted disparities in the application of these punitive punishments. Research is needed to assess the impact of different types of punishment on recidivism rates—that is, to determine whether more punitive sentences lead to higher or lower recidivism rates and whether this relationship varies depending upon the offense of conviction. We know that those sentenced in the United States are more likely to be incarcerated, and for longer terms, than similar individuals in peer countries. What is not known is whether these harsher punishments produce any positive “added value” for society at large.

Research is needed to produce better estimates of the “costs of punishment” across the justice system and society. These estimates should include the explicit costs to local, state, and federal jurisdictions, but also the implicit costs to individuals, their families, and their communities. These efforts should be accompanied by new work to update estimates of the cost of crimes—both the cost to the criminal justice system but also the costs to victims. These sets of studies will provide the foundations for balancing the costs of crime with the costs of punishment.

And, finally, evaluation research should study the process, outcomes, impacts, and costs and benefits of pretrial and sentencing reforms. This research should help to identify what works and what does not work, including identifying unexpected consequences of reform. This research should clearly identify the goals of the reform and then assess how well those goals are met. For example, if changes in detention decisionmaking are intended to reduce racial disparity, a rigorous evaluation should assess the extent to which decisionmaking changes, whether those changes are commensurate with what was envisioned, had an impact on disparity.

Pretrial release and sentencing policies and practices are a root cause of mass incarceration in the United States. Moreover, these inflexible and punitive policies have disparate effects on the poor and people of color, are not cost effective, and often result in punishment that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime. We have outlined a series of short- medium- and long-term reforms designed to slow the flow of people into our nation’s jails and prisons, reduce the number of persons now incarcerated and the lengths of sentences they are serving, and ameliorate unwarranted disparities and unfairness. We also have articulated a series of issues for future research; answers to the questions we pose will be critical to understanding the cost, benefits, and effectiveness of pretrial and sentencing reforms.

RECOMMENDED READING

Clear, Todd R. 2008. “The Effects of High Imprisonment Rates on Communities.” Crime and Justice. 37: 97–132.

Gottschalk, Marie. 2015. Caught: The Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mauer, Marc, and Ashley Nellis. 2018. The Meaning of Life: The Case for Abolishing Life Sentences. New York: The New Press.

National Research Council. 2014. The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Pfaff, John F. 2017. Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration—and How to Achieve Real Reform. New York: Basic Books.

Tonry, Michael. 2014. “Remodeling American -Sentencing: A Ten-Step Blueprint for Moving Past Mass Incarceration.” Criminology & Public Policy 13: 503–533.

• At year-end 2019, there were 1.43 million persons incarcerated in state and federal prisons, and the U.S. incarceration rate was 539 per 100,000 individuals 18 and older. (Carson, E.A. October 2020. Prisoners in 2019. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 255115). County and city jails held 738,400 prisoners, mid-year 2018 (Zeng, Z. March 2020. Jail Inmates in 2018 . U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 253044).
• Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. (February 2012). Report to Congress Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In-Sentencing Incentive Formula Grant Program . https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/voitis-final-report.pdf .
• In 1970, the incarceration rate in the U.S. was about 100 individuals per 100,000 population—consistent with what had been observed throughout the 20th The U.S. prison population increased every year from 1975 to 2008, when 1.61 million individuals were in U.S. prisons (a rate of 506 per 100,000). Although the number of persons incarcerated has since declined, in 2019 there were still 1.43 million persons incarcerated in state and federal prisons (a rate of 419 per 100,000). Local jail populations saw similar increases—from 256,615 in 1985 (108 individuals per 100,000 population) to 738,400 in 2018 (226 per 100,000 population). The number of persons on probation also increased, from 923,000 in 1976 to 3.54 million in 2018, suggesting that the increase in incarceration was not driven by diverting individuals from probation to prison. See Minton, T. and Golinelli, D. (2014). Jail inmates at midyear 2013-Statistical tables . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 245350; Zeng, Z. (2020). Jail inmates in 2018 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 253044; and Kaeble, D. and Alper, M. (2020). Probation and parole in the United States, 2017-2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 252072.
• Hyland, S. Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts 2016, Preliminary. NCJ 254126. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6728 .
• Violent offending is rare compared to property and public order crimes (Morgan, R. and Truman, J. (2020). Criminal Victimization. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 255113. Judicial officers express particular concern about releasing those arrested for domestic violence fearing a repeat or escalation of the behavior that led to the arrest.
• The $50 estimate is on the lower end of estimates of average daily jail costs, with many daily jail rates ranging between $150 and $200. In New York City, the Independent Budget Office estimated jail costs at nearly $460 per day, suggesting that it costs taxpayers $168,000 per year to jail one person (New York City Independent Budget Office, 2013).
• Schierenbeck, A. (2018). The constitutionality of income-based fines. The University of Chicago Law Review 85, 8, 1869–1925.
• See p. 278 of Shannon, S., Huebner, B. M, Harris, A., Martin, K., Patillo, M., Pettit, B., et al. (2020). The Broad Scope and Variation of Monetary Sanctions: Evidence From Eight States. UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review, 4(1). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/64t2w833 or Alexes’ work more generally)
• State and local Criminal Justice Coordinating Committees (CJCCs) offer on potential model for inter-agency approaches. There are various configurations for CJCCs which are locally focused but offer lessons that can translate well to other jurisdictions. (See, for example, https://nicic.gov/criminal-justice-coordinating-committees)
• For example, the Prison Cells to Ph.D. or Prison to Professional program https://www.fromprisoncellstophd.org/ .

Governance Studies

Elaine Kamarck

February 29, 2024

Vanessa Williamson, Zach Benzaoui

February 26, 2024

Russell Wheeler

January 10, 2024

Doha Declaration

Education for justice.

• Agenda Day 1
• Agenda Day 2
• Agenda Day 3
• Agenda Day 4
• Registration
• Breakout Sessions for Primary and Secondary Level
• Breakout Sessions for Tertiary Level
• E4J Youth Competition
• India - Lockdown Learners
• Chuka, Break the Silence
• The Online Zoo
• I would like a community where ...
• Staying safe online
• Let's be respectful online
• We can all be heroes
• Respect for all
• We all have rights
• A mosaic of differences
• The right thing to do
• Solving ethical dilemmas
• UNODC-UNESCO Guide for Policymakers
• UNODC-UNESCO Handbooks for Teachers
• Justice Accelerators
• Introduction
• Organized Crime
• Trafficking in Persons & Smuggling of Migrants
• Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Reform
• Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice & SDGs
• UN Congress on Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice
• Commission on Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice
• Conference of the Parties to UNTOC
• Conference of the States Parties to UNCAC
• Rules for Simulating Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Bodies
• Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice
• Engage with Us
• Contact Us about MUN
• Conferences Supporting E4J
• Cyberstrike
• Play for Integrity
• Running out of Time
• Zorbs Reloaded
• Developing a Rationale for Using the Video
• Previewing the Anti-Corruption Video
• Viewing the Video with a Purpose
• Post-viewing Activities
• Previewing the Firearms Video
• Rationale for Using the Video
• Previewing the Human Trafficking Video
• Previewing the Organized Crime Video
• Previewing the Video
• Criminal Justice & Crime Prevention
• Corruption & Integrity
• Human Trafficking & Migrant Smuggling
• Firearms Trafficking
• Terrorism & Violent Extremism
• Introduction & Learning Outcomes
• Corruption - Baseline Definition
• Effects of Corruption
• Deeper Meanings of Corruption
• Measuring Corruption
• Possible Class Structure
• Core Reading
• Advanced Reading
• Student Assessment
• Additional Teaching Tools
• Guidelines for Stand-Alone Course
• Appendix: How Corruption Affects the SDGs
• What is Governance?
• What is Good Governance?
• Corruption and Bad Governance
• Governance Reforms and Anti-Corruption
• Guidelines for Stand-alone Course
• Corruption and Democracy
• Corruption and Authoritarian Systems
• Hybrid Systems and Syndromes of Corruption
• The Deep Democratization Approach
• Political Parties and Political Finance
• Political Institution-building as a Means to Counter Corruption
• Manifestations and Consequences of Public Sector Corruption
• Causes of Public Sector Corruption
• Theories that Explain Corruption
• Corruption in Public Procurement
• Corruption in State-Owned Enterprises
• Responses to Public Sector Corruption
• Preventing Public Sector Corruption
• Forms & Manifestations of Private Sector Corruption
• Consequences of Private Sector Corruption
• Causes of Private Sector Corruption
• Responses to Private Sector Corruption
• Preventing Private Sector Corruption
• Collective Action & Public-Private Partnerships against Corruption
• Transparency as a Precondition
• Detection Mechanisms - Auditing and Reporting
• Whistle-blowing Systems and Protections
• Investigation of Corruption
• Introduction and Learning Outcomes
• Brief background on the human rights system
• Overview of the corruption-human rights nexus
• Impact of corruption on specific human rights
• Approaches to assessing the corruption-human rights nexus
• Human-rights based approach
• Defining sex, gender and gender mainstreaming
• Gender differences in corruption
• Theories explaining the gender–corruption nexus
• Gendered impacts of corruption
• Anti-corruption and gender mainstreaming
• Manifestations of corruption in education
• Costs of corruption in education
• Causes of corruption in education
• Fighting corruption in education
• Core terms and concepts
• The role of citizens in fighting corruption
• The role, risks and challenges of CSOs fighting corruption
• The role of the media in fighting corruption
• Access to information: a condition for citizen participation
• ICT as a tool for citizen participation in anti-corruption efforts
• Government obligations to ensure citizen participation in anti-corruption efforts
• Teaching Guide
• Brief History of Terrorism
• 19th Century Terrorism
• League of Nations & Terrorism
• United Nations & Terrorism
• Terrorist Victimization
• Exercises & Case Studies
• Radicalization & Violent Extremism
• Preventing & Countering Violent Extremism
• Drivers of Violent Extremism
• International Approaches to PVE &CVE
• Regional & Multilateral Approaches
• Defining Rule of Law
• UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy
• International Cooperation & UN CT Strategy
• Legal Sources & UN CT Strategy
• Regional & National Approaches
• International Legal Frameworks
• International Human Rights Law
• International Humanitarian Law
• International Refugee Law
• Current Challenges to International Legal Framework
• Defining Terrorism
• Criminal Justice Responses
• Treaty-based Crimes of Terrorism
• Core International Crimes
• International Courts and Tribunals
• African Region
• Inter-American Region
• Asian Region
• European Region
• Middle East & Gulf Regions
• Core Principles of IHL
• Categorization of Armed Conflict
• Classification of Persons
• IHL, Terrorism & Counter-Terrorism
• Relationship between IHL & intern. human rights law
• Limitations Permitted by Human Rights Law
• Derogation during Public Emergency
• Examples of States of Emergency & Derogations
• International Human Rights Instruments
• Regional Human Rights Instruments
• Extra-territorial Application of Right to Life
• Arbitrary Deprivation of Life
• Death Penalty
• Enforced Disappearances
• Armed Conflict Context
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• Convention against Torture et al.
• International Legal Framework
• Key Contemporary Issues
• Investigative Phase
• Trial & Sentencing Phase
• Armed Conflict
• Case Studies
• Special Investigative Techniques
• Surveillance & Interception of Communications
• Privacy & Intelligence Gathering in Armed Conflict
• Accountability & Oversight of Intelligence Gathering
• Principle of Non-Discrimination
• Freedom of Religion
• Freedom of Expression
• Freedom of Assembly
• Freedom of Association
• Fundamental Freedoms
• Definition of 'Victim'
• Effects of Terrorism
• Access to Justice
• Recognition of the Victim
• Human Rights Instruments
• Criminal Justice Mechanisms
• Instruments for Victims of Terrorism
• National Approaches
• Key Challenges in Securing Reparation
• Topic 1. Contemporary issues relating to conditions conducive both to the spread of terrorism and the rule of law
• Topic 2. Contemporary issues relating to the right to life
• Topic 3. Contemporary issues relating to foreign terrorist fighters
• Topic 4. Contemporary issues relating to non-discrimination and fundamental freedoms
• Module 16: Linkages between Organized Crime and Terrorism
• Thematic Areas
• Content Breakdown
• Module Adaptation & Design Guidelines
• Teaching Methods
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introducing United Nations Standards & Norms on CPCJ vis-à-vis International Law
• 2. Scope of United Nations Standards & Norms on CPCJ
• 3. United Nations Standards & Norms on CPCJ in Operation
• 1. Definition of Crime Prevention
• 2. Key Crime Prevention Typologies
• 2. (cont.) Tonry & Farrington’s Typology
• 3. Crime Problem-Solving Approaches
• 4. What Works
• United Nations Entities
• Regional Crime Prevention Councils/Institutions
• Key Clearinghouses
• Systematic Reviews
• 1. Introduction to International Standards & Norms
• 2. Identifying the Need for Legal Aid
• 3. Key Components of the Right of Access to Legal Aid
• 4. Access to Legal Aid for Those with Specific Needs
• 5. Models for Governing, Administering and Funding Legal Aid
• 6. Models for Delivering Legal Aid Services
• 7. Roles and Responsibilities of Legal Aid Providers
• 8. Quality Assurance and Legal Aid Services
• 1. Context for Use of Force by Law Enforcement Officials
• 2. Legal Framework
• 3. General Principles of Use of Force in Law Enforcement
• 4. Use of Firearms
• 5. Use of “Less-Lethal” Weapons
• 6. Protection of Especially Vulnerable Groups
• 7. Use of Force during Assemblies
• 1. Policing in democracies & need for accountability, integrity, oversight
• 2. Key mechanisms & actors in police accountability, oversight
• 3. Crosscutting & contemporary issues in police accountability
• 1. Introducing Aims of Punishment, Imprisonment & Prison Reform
• 2. Current Trends, Challenges & Human Rights
• 3. Towards Humane Prisons & Alternative Sanctions
• 1. Aims and Significance of Alternatives to Imprisonment
• 2. Justifying Punishment in the Community
• 3. Pretrial Alternatives
• 4. Post Trial Alternatives
• 5. Evaluating Alternatives
• 1. Concept, Values and Origin of Restorative Justice
• 2. Overview of Restorative Justice Processes
• 3. How Cost Effective is Restorative Justice?
• 4. Issues in Implementing Restorative Justice
• 1. Gender-Based Discrimination & Women in Conflict with the Law
• 2. Vulnerabilities of Girls in Conflict with the Law
• 3. Discrimination and Violence against LGBTI Individuals
• 4. Gender Diversity in Criminal Justice Workforce
• 1. Ending Violence against Women
• 2. Human Rights Approaches to Violence against Women
• 3. Who Has Rights in this Situation?
• 4. What about the Men?
• 5. Local, Regional & Global Solutions to Violence against Women & Girls
• 1. Understanding the Concept of Victims of Crime
• 2. Impact of Crime, including Trauma
• 3. Right of Victims to Adequate Response to their Needs
• 4. Collecting Victim Data
• 5. Victims and their Participation in Criminal Justice Process
• 6. Victim Services: Institutional and Non-Governmental Organizations
• 7. Outlook on Current Developments Regarding Victims
• 8. Victims of Crime and International Law
• 1. The Many Forms of Violence against Children
• 2. The Impact of Violence on Children
• 3. States' Obligations to Prevent VAC and Protect Child Victims
• 4. Improving the Prevention of Violence against Children
• 5. Improving the Criminal Justice Response to VAC
• 6. Addressing Violence against Children within the Justice System
• 1. The Role of the Justice System
• 2. Convention on the Rights of the Child & International Legal Framework on Children's Rights
• 3. Justice for Children
• 4. Justice for Children in Conflict with the Law
• 5. Realizing Justice for Children
• 1a. Judicial Independence as Fundamental Value of Rule of Law & of Constitutionalism
• 1b. Main Factors Aimed at Securing Judicial Independence
• 2a. Public Prosecutors as ‘Gate Keepers’ of Criminal Justice
• 2b. Institutional and Functional Role of Prosecutors
• 2c. Other Factors Affecting the Role of Prosecutors
• Basics of Computing
• Global Connectivity and Technology Usage Trends
• Cybercrime in Brief
• Cybercrime Trends
• Cybercrime Prevention
• Offences against computer data and systems
• Computer-related offences
• Content-related offences
• The Role of Cybercrime Law
• Harmonization of Laws
• International and Regional Instruments
• International Human Rights and Cybercrime Law
• Digital Evidence
• Digital Forensics
• Standards and Best Practices for Digital Forensics
• Reporting Cybercrime
• Who Conducts Cybercrime Investigations?
• Obstacles to Cybercrime Investigations
• Knowledge Management
• Legal and Ethical Obligations
• Handling of Digital Evidence
• Digital Evidence Admissibility
• Sovereignty and Jurisdiction
• Formal International Cooperation Mechanisms
• Informal International Cooperation Mechanisms
• Data Retention, Preservation and Access
• Challenges Relating to Extraterritorial Evidence
• National Capacity and International Cooperation
• Internet Governance
• Cybersecurity Strategies: Basic Features
• National Cybersecurity Strategies
• International Cooperation on Cybersecurity Matters
• Cybersecurity Posture
• Assets, Vulnerabilities and Threats
• Vulnerability Disclosure
• Cybersecurity Measures and Usability
• Situational Crime Prevention
• Incident Detection, Response, Recovery & Preparedness
• Privacy: What it is and Why it is Important
• Privacy and Security
• Cybercrime that Compromises Privacy
• Data Protection Legislation
• Data Breach Notification Laws
• Enforcement of Privacy and Data Protection Laws
• Intellectual Property: What it is
• Types of Intellectual Property
• Causes for Cyber-Enabled Copyright & Trademark Offences
• Protection & Prevention Efforts
• Online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
• Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment
• Cyberbullying
• Gender-Based Interpersonal Cybercrime
• Interpersonal Cybercrime Prevention
• Cyber Organized Crime: What is it?
• Conceptualizing Organized Crime & Defining Actors Involved
• Criminal Groups Engaging in Cyber Organized Crime
• Cyber Organized Crime Activities
• Preventing & Countering Cyber Organized Crime
• Cyberespionage
• Cyberterrorism
• Cyberwarfare
• Information Warfare, Disinformation & Electoral Fraud
• Responses to Cyberinterventions
• Framing the Issue of Firearms
• Direct Impact of Firearms
• Indirect Impacts of Firearms on States or Communities
• International and National Responses
• Typology and Classification of Firearms
• Common Firearms Types
• 'Other' Types of Firearms
• Parts and Components
• History of the Legitimate Arms Market
• Need for a Legitimate Market
• Key Actors in the Legitimate Market
• Authorized & Unauthorized Arms Transfers
• Illegal Firearms in Social, Cultural & Political Context
• Supply, Demand & Criminal Motivations
• Larger Scale Firearms Trafficking Activities
• Smaller Scale Trafficking Activities
• Sources of Illicit Firearms
• Consequences of Illicit Markets
• International Public Law & Transnational Law
• International Instruments with Global Outreach
• Commonalities, Differences & Complementarity between Global Instruments
• Tools to Support Implementation of Global Instruments
• Other United Nations Processes
• The Sustainable Development Goals
• Multilateral & Regional Instruments
• Scope of National Firearms Regulations
• National Firearms Strategies & Action Plans
• Harmonization of National Legislation with International Firearms Instruments
• Assistance for Development of National Firearms Legislation
• Firearms Trafficking as a Cross-Cutting Element
• Organized Crime and Organized Criminal Groups
• Criminal Gangs
• Terrorist Groups
• Interconnections between Organized Criminal Groups & Terrorist Groups
• Gangs - Organized Crime & Terrorism: An Evolving Continuum
• International Response
• International and National Legal Framework
• Firearms Related Offences
• Role of Law Enforcement
• Firearms as Evidence
• Use of Special Investigative Techniques
• International Cooperation and Information Exchange
• Prosecution and Adjudication of Firearms Trafficking
• Teaching Methods & Principles
• Ethical Learning Environments
• Overview of Modules
• Module Adaption & Design Guidelines
• Table of Exercises
• Basic Terms
• Forms of Gender Discrimination
• Ethics of Care
• Case Studies for Professional Ethics
• Case Studies for Role Morality
• Additional Exercises
• Defining Organized Crime
• Definition in Convention
• Similarities & Differences
• Activities, Organization, Composition
• Thinking Critically Through Fiction
• Excerpts of Legislation
• Research & Independent Study Questions
• Legal Definitions of Organized Crimes
• Criminal Association
• Definitions in the Organized Crime Convention
• Criminal Organizations and Enterprise Laws
• Enabling Offence: Obstruction of Justice
• Drug Trafficking
• Wildlife & Forest Crime
• Counterfeit Products Trafficking
• Falsified Medical Products
• Trafficking in Cultural Property
• Trafficking in Persons
• Case Studies & Exercises
• Extortion Racketeering
• Loansharking
• Links to Corruption
• Bribery versus Extortion
• Money-Laundering
• Liability of Legal Persons
• How much Organized Crime is there?
• Alternative Ways for Measuring
• Measuring Product Markets
• Risk Assessment
• Key Concepts of Risk Assessment
• Risk Assessment of Organized Crime Groups
• Risk Assessment of Product Markets
• Risk Assessment in Practice
• Positivism: Environmental Influences
• Classical: Pain-Pleasure Decisions
• Structural Factors
• Ethical Perspective
• Crime Causes & Facilitating Factors
• Models and Structure
• Hierarchical Model
• Local, Cultural Model
• Enterprise or Business Model
• Groups vs Activities
• Networked Structure
• Jurisdiction
• Investigators of Organized Crime
• Controlled Deliveries
• Physical & Electronic Surveillance
• Undercover Operations
• Financial Analysis
• Use of Informants
• Rights of Victims & Witnesses
• Role of Prosecutors
• Adversarial vs Inquisitorial Legal Systems
• Mitigating Punishment
• Granting Immunity from Prosecution
• Witness Protection
• Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
• Sentencing Options
• Alternatives to Imprisonment
• Death Penalty & Organized Crime
• Backgrounds of Convicted Offenders
• Confiscation
• Confiscation in Practice
• Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA)
• Extradition
• Transfer of Criminal Proceedings
• Transfer of Sentenced Persons
• Module 12: Prevention of Organized Crime
• Adoption of Organized Crime Convention
• Historical Context
• Features of the Convention
• Related international instruments
• Conference of the Parties
• Roles of Participants
• Structure and Flow
• Recommended Topics
• Background Materials
• What is Sex / Gender / Intersectionality?
• Knowledge about Gender in Organized Crime
• Gender and Organized Crime
• Gender and Different Types of Organized Crime
• Definitions and Terminology
• Organized crime and Terrorism - International Legal Framework
• International Terrorism-related Conventions
• UNSC Resolutions on Terrorism
• Organized Crime Convention and its Protocols
• Theoretical Frameworks on Linkages between Organized Crime and Terrorism
• Typologies of Criminal Behaviour Associated with Terrorism
• Terrorism and Drug Trafficking
• Terrorism and Trafficking in Weapons
• Terrorism, Crime and Trafficking in Cultural Property
• Trafficking in Persons and Terrorism
• Intellectual Property Crime and Terrorism
• Kidnapping for Ransom and Terrorism
• Exploitation of Natural Resources and Terrorism
• Review and Assessment Questions
• Research and Independent Study Questions
• Criminalization of Smuggling of Migrants
• UNTOC & the Protocol against Smuggling of Migrants
• Offences under the Protocol
• Financial & Other Material Benefits
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Criminal Liability
• Non-Criminalization of Smuggled Migrants
• Scope of the Protocol
• Humanitarian Exemption
• Migrant Smuggling v. Irregular Migration
• Migrant Smuggling vis-a-vis Other Crime Types
• Other Resources
• Assistance and Protection in the Protocol
• International Human Rights and Refugee Law
• Vulnerable groups
• Positive and Negative Obligations of the State
• Identification of Smuggled Migrants
• Participation in Legal Proceedings
• Role of Non-Governmental Organizations
• Smuggled Migrants & Other Categories of Migrants
• Short-, Mid- and Long-Term Measures
• Criminal Justice Reponse: Scope
• Investigative & Prosecutorial Approaches
• Different Relevant Actors & Their Roles
• Testimonial Evidence
• Financial Investigations
• Non-Governmental Organizations
• ‘Outside the Box’ Methodologies
• Intra- and Inter-Agency Coordination
• Admissibility of Evidence
• International Cooperation
• Exchange of Information
• Non-Criminal Law Relevant to Smuggling of Migrants
• Administrative Approach
• Complementary Activities & Role of Non-criminal Justice Actors
• Macro-Perspective in Addressing Smuggling of Migrants
• Human Security
• International Aid and Cooperation
• Migration & Migrant Smuggling
• Mixed Migration Flows
• Social Politics of Migrant Smuggling
• Vulnerability
• Profile of Smugglers
• Role of Organized Criminal Groups
• Humanitarianism, Security and Migrant Smuggling
• Crime of Trafficking in Persons
• The Issue of Consent
• The Purpose of Exploitation
• The abuse of a position of vulnerability
• Indicators of Trafficking in Persons
• Distinction between Trafficking in Persons and Other Crimes
• Misconceptions Regarding Trafficking in Persons
• Root Causes
• Supply Side Prevention Strategies
• Demand Side Prevention Strategies
• Role of the Media
• Safe Migration Channels
• Crime Prevention Strategies
• Monitoring, Evaluating & Reporting on Effectiveness of Prevention
• Trafficked Persons as Victims
• Protection under the Protocol against Trafficking in Persons
• Broader International Framework
• State Responsibility for Trafficking in Persons
• Identification of Victims
• Principle of Non-Criminalization of Victims
• Criminal Justice Duties Imposed on States
• Role of the Criminal Justice System
• Current Low Levels of Prosecutions and Convictions
• Challenges to an Effective Criminal Justice Response
• Rights of Victims to Justice and Protection
• Potential Strategies to “Turn the Tide”
• State Cooperation with Civil Society
• Civil Society Actors
• The Private Sector
• Comparing SOM and TIP
• Differences and Commonalities
• Vulnerability and Continuum between SOM & TIP
• Labour Exploitation
• Forced Marriage
• Other Examples
• Children on the Move
• Protecting Smuggled and Trafficked Children
• Protection in Practice
• Children Alleged as Having Committed Smuggling or Trafficking Offences
• Basic Terms - Gender and Gender Stereotypes
• International Legal Frameworks and Definitions of TIP and SOM
• Global Overview on TIP and SOM
• Gender and Migration
• Key Debates in the Scholarship on TIP and SOM
• Gender and TIP and SOM Offenders
• Responses to TIP and SOM
• Use of Technology to Facilitate TIP and SOM
• Technology Facilitating Trafficking in Persons
• Technology in Smuggling of Migrants
• Using Technology to Prevent and Combat TIP and SOM
• Privacy and Data Concerns
• Emerging Trends
• Demand and Consumption
• Supply and Demand
• Implications of Wildlife Trafficking
• Legal and Illegal Markets
• Perpetrators and their Networks
• Locations and Activities relating to Wildlife Trafficking
• Environmental Protection & Conservation
• CITES & the International Trade in Endangered Species
• Organized Crime & Corruption
• Animal Welfare
• Criminal Justice Actors and Agencies
• Criminalization of Wildlife Trafficking
• Challenges for Law Enforcement
• Investigation Measures and Detection Methods
• Prosecution and Judiciary
• Wild Flora as the Target of Illegal Trafficking
• Purposes for which Wild Flora is Illegally Targeted
• How is it Done and Who is Involved?
• Consequences of Harms to Wild Flora
• Terminology
• Background: Communities and conservation: A history of disenfranchisement
• Incentives for communities to get involved in illegal wildlife trafficking: the cost of conservation
• Incentives to participate in illegal wildlife, logging and fishing economies
• International and regional responses that fight wildlife trafficking while supporting IPLCs
• Mechanisms for incentivizing community conservation and reducing wildlife trafficking
• Critiques of community engagement
• Other challenges posed by wildlife trafficking that affect local populations
• Global Podcast Series
• Apr. 2021: Call for Expressions of Interest: Online training for academics from francophone Africa
• Feb. 2021: Series of Seminars for Universities of Central Asia
• Dec. 2020: UNODC and TISS Conference on Access to Justice to End Violence
• Nov. 2020: Expert Workshop for University Lecturers and Trainers from the Commonwealth of Independent States
• Oct. 2020: E4J Webinar Series: Youth Empowerment through Education for Justice
• Interview: How to use E4J's tool in teaching on TIP and SOM
• E4J-Open University Online Training-of-Trainers Course
• Teaching Integrity and Ethics Modules: Survey Results
• Grants Programmes
• E4J MUN Resource Guide
• Library of Resources

Module 3: Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings

• {{item.name}} ({{item.items.length}}) items
• Add new list

E4J University Module Series: Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

Introduction and learning outcomes.

• Topic 1.  Introduction to the international standards and norms
• Topic 2.  Identifying the need for legal aid, and the benefits and costs of legal aid
• Topic 3.  Key components of the right of access to legal aid
• Topic 4.  Access to legal aid for those with specific needs
• Topic 5.  Models for governing, administering and funding legal aid
• Topic 6.  Models for delivering legal aid services
• Topic 7.  Roles and responsibilities of legal aid providers, and other criminal justice officials
• Topic 8.  Quality assurance and legal aid services

Case studies

Possible class structure, core reading, advanced reading, student assessment, additional teaching tools, guidelines to develop a stand-alone course.

• First published in January 2019

  This module is a resource for lecturers  

The case studies in this section are designed to provide students with an opportunity to evaluate access to legal aid in practice, and to constructively assess strategies for improving access to legal aid in different jurisdictions. Discussion questions relating to these case studies are presented in the Exercises section.

Pre-Class Case Study

A few weeks ago, you were visiting a friend in another part of town. About five minutes after you left your friend's house, you were stopped in the street by a police officer, arrested and taken to a police station. The police told you that you had been identified by a woman who told them that you had assaulted her about 30 minutes before you were stopped by the police officer. At that time, you had been with your friend, but when you tried to explain this to the police, they were not interested. You are now being prosecuted for assault and have to attend court next week.

The questions related to this pre-class case study are mentioned in the Exercises section.

In-Class Case Study of "Sami"

Sami is a girl aged 14 years. She grew up in a poor district of the capital city, but when she was 13 she was snatched from the street by a criminal gang and taken to a town in another part of the country. She does not speak the language used in that part of the country and does not really have a very clear idea of where it is in relation to the city that she came from. Several girls and boys are kept by the gang, and every day they are sent out to steal. They are often watched by a member of the gang, and severely punished if they are seen trying to talk to anyone, or seen to go outside of the area of the town that they are told to operate in. Sami has been beaten on several occasions and is often threatened with violence by gang members. Sometimes, she is made to have sex with men.

One day she was caught by the person she tried to steal from, who called the police. She was taken to the police station.

The questions related to this in-class case study are mentioned in the Exercises section.

Additional Case Study 

A 25-year-old man is arrested and detained by police officers on suspicion that he has stolen a car. He was identified by a neighbour of the owner of the car, who says he went to the same school as him, and who reported it to the police. The police take the man to the local police station, where they intend to interrogate him about the suspected offence.

Having regard to the law and practice in your jurisdiction:

(1) Assess whether -

(a) he has a right to a lawyer and, if so, at what point in the process that right applies

(b) he is likely, in practice, to have a lawyer and, if so, at what point in the process, and

(c) he is eligible for the lawyer to be paid under legal aid whilst he is held at the police station.

(2) Assume that the man is prosecuted for theft of the car. Assess whether -

(a) he has a right to a lawyer for the trial

(b) he is likely, in practice, to have a lawyer, and

(c) he is eligible for the lawyer to be paid under legal aid for the court proceedings.

Next: Possible class structure

Back to top, supported by the state of qatar, 60 years crime congress.

• --> Login or Sign Up

Shop by Author

• Sabrineh Ardalan
• Robert Bordone
• Robert Clark
• John Coates
• Susan Crawford
• Alonzo Emery
• Heidi Gardner
• Philip B. Heymann
• Howell E. Jackson
• Wendy Jacobs
• Adriaan Lanni
• Jeremy McClane
• Naz Modirzadeh
• Catherine Mondell
• Ashish Nanda
• Charles R. Nesson
• John Palfrey
• Bruce Patton
• Todd D. Rakoff
• Lisa Rohrer
• Jeswald W. Salacuse
• James Sebenius
• Joseph William Singer
• Holger Spamann
• Carol Steiker
• Guhan Subramanian
• Lawrence Susskind
• David B. Wilkins
• Jonathan Zittrain

Shop by Brand

• Howell Jackson
• Ashish Nanda and Nicholas Semi Haas

Chad M. Carr

• John Coates, Clayton Rose, and David Lane
• Ashish Nanda and Lauren Prusiner
• Ashish Nanda and Lisa Rohrer
• Ashish Nanda and Monet Brewerton
• View all Brands
• $0.00 - $1.00
• $1.00 - $2.00
• $2.00 - $4.00
• $4.00 - $5.00
• $5.00 - $6.00

Criminal Law

• Published Old-New
• Published New-Old

The Case of the Smoking Tenant

Joseph William Singer and Esme Caramello

Prosecutorial Discretion in Charging and Plea Bargaining: The Aaron Swartz Case (B)

Elizabeth Moroney, under the supervision of Adriaan Lanni and Carol Steiker

Prosecutorial Discretion in Charging and Plea Bargaining: The Aaron Swartz Case (A)

Elizabeth Moroney, under supervision of Adriaan Lanni and Carol Steiker

The Case of Cross-Deputization

Joseph William Singer, Jeremy McClane, and Nicholas Price

Balloon Boy

Todd D. Rakoff, Alex Whiting, and Kyle Virgien

Cyrus Vance and Dominique Strauss-Kahn: Dilemmas in a High-Profile Prosecution (B) and (C)

Philip Heymann, Lisa Brem, Emily Balter, and Michael Noveck

Cyrus Vance and Dominique Strauss-Kahn: Dilemmas in a High-Profile Prosecution (A)

The WikiLeaks Incident: Background, Details, and Resources

Alan Ezekiel, under supervision of John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain

The Case of the Federal Defender's Advice

David Abrams

The Final Furlough

The Case of the Section 8 Housing Vouchers

Todd D. Rakoff, Paul Radvany, and Rebecca Goldberg

• Bachelor’s Degrees
• Master’s Degrees
• Doctorate Degrees
• Certificate Programs
• Nursing Degrees
• Cybersecurity
• Human Services
• Science & Mathematics
• Communication
• Liberal Arts
• Social Sciences
• Computer Science
• Admissions Overview
• Tuition and Financial Aid
• Incoming Freshman and Graduate Students
• Transfer Students
• Military Students
• International Students
• Early Access Program
• About Maryville
• Our Faculty
• Our Approach
• Our History
• Accreditation
• Tales of the Brave
• Student Support Overview
• Online Learning Tools
• Infographics

Home / Online Bachelor’s Degree Programs / Accredited Online Criminal Justice & Criminology Degree / Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice Resources / What Is Criminology? The Study of Crime and Criminal Minds

What is criminology? The study of crime and the criminal mind What is criminology? The study of crime and the criminal mind What is criminology? The study of crime and the criminal mind

Take your next brave step.

Receive information about the benefits of our programs, the courses you'll take, and what you need to apply.

Tables of Contents

• Criminology Definition and History
• Criminology Theories
• Criminology vs. Criminal Justice

Careers in Criminology: Salary and Job Outlook

• Crime Statistics and Key Insights

In a time when the U.S. criminal justice system is under a microscope, criminologists are playing a key role in establishing a more equitable, science-based understanding of crime, policy, and social justice. Applying their theoretical knowledge and practical experience, professionals in this field support and strengthen the work of law enforcement agencies and legal professionals.

But what is criminology, really? This article will explore the many components of this rapidly evolving discipline and offer insights on how to pursue a variety of criminology careers.

Criminology definition and history

Criminology is the study of crime and criminal behavior, informed by principles of sociology and other non-legal fields, including psychology, economics, statistics, and anthropology.

Criminologists examine a variety of related areas , including:

• Characteristics of people who commit crimes
• Reasons why people commit crimes
• Effects of crime on individuals and communities
• Methods for preventing crime

Origins of criminology

The  roots of criminology  trace back to a movement to reform criminal justice and penal systems more than 200 years ago. The first collection and use of crime statistics in the 19th century then laid the groundwork for generations of increasingly sophisticated tools and methods, leading to our modern use of descriptive statistics, case studies, typologies, and predictive analytics.

18th-century origins of criminal theory

Cesare Beccaria’s “On Crime and Punishments,” published in 1764, called for  fitting the punishment to the severity of the crimes , as explained by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

• Punishments for crimes should be “public, prompt, necessary, the minimum possible under the given circumstances, and established by law.”
• Punishments are intended to deter the offender from further criminal activity.
• Severity is based on the level of harm caused by the offense rather than the intent of the offender.

The legal reference website JRank highlights the work of Beccaria and Jeremy Benthem: The motivation for people’s choices is to seek pleasure or avoid pain.  Punishment for a crime  should deter potential choices to break the law by ensuring that the pain of potential punishment is greater than the pleasure derived from committing the crime. This idea spurred the first efforts in the U.S. and Europe to codify and standardize the law.

Mid-20th century development of modern criminology

The mid-20th century development of  “modern” criminology  involved seeking to understand crime’s causes by studying sociological, psychological, and economic conditions. The American Law Institute’s work on the  Model Penal Code  was a 10-year effort completed in 1962. The code established new standards of criminal liability that considered the mental elements of crime.

The code served as a model for penal code revisions in several states. It was also instrumental in charting the federal penal code for the first time. The code inspired other efforts to reform criminal law through criminology research application.

“New Criminology” and the impact of social upheaval on crime

In the 20th century, new approaches to criminology focused on the causes of crime, such as  conflicts between social and economic classes leading to social upheaval , as JRank explains. Social-process criminology emphasizes criminal behavior as something people learn through interaction with others, usually in small groups.

In contrast, control theory focuses on training people to behave appropriately by encouraging law-abiding behavior. Control theory’s basis is the belief that personal bonds give rise to our internal controls, such as conscience and guilt, and our external controls, such as shame, that deter us from breaking the law.

A multidisciplinary approach to criminology

In their research, criminologists consider many perspectives on crime’s causes and effects. This  multidisciplinary approach of criminologists  accepts there is no single answer to why people commit crimes. JRank notes attempts to control bad behavior date back to the earliest civilizations. Today, factors may be biological, psychological, economic, or social. Criminals are motivated by greed, anger, jealousy, pride, and other emotions. They seek material gain; they want control, revenge, or power.

Potential causes of or motivations for criminal activity include:

• Parental relations
• Hereditary and brain activity
• Peer influence
• Drugs and alcohol
• Easy opportunity

Criminology and the legal perspective

Criminologists study crime as an illegal action society punishes through the government’s legal system. Researchers focus on the causes, prevention, and correction of crime generally. By contrast, the legal industry’s perspective of crime emphasizes specific crimes and punishments governed by statutes and regulations, as well as established legal processes.

The legal definition of a crime is  an offense against public law , as UpCounsel explains. To qualify as a crime, the offense must be punishable, whether by fine, loss of freedom, or other method.  Criminologists have broadened the definition of crime  to include conduct that doesn’t violate existing law, as JRank reports. This includes economic exploitation, racial discrimination, and unsafe or unhealthy work environments.

Criminology resources

• The Internet Journal of Criminology  — Links to government organizations, national and international organizations, academic institutions, and other criminology resources
• Critical Criminology  — A compilation of resources that examine law, crime, and justice from the perspective of people of color, women, restorative efforts, and community justice
• S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Intelligence Resource Center  — Links to criminal justice professional associations and groups that assist law enforcement in establishing policies, standards, training, and education

Back To Top

Criminology Theories: Classical, Positivist, and Chicago School

Research into criminology theories is primarily sociological or psychological.  Sociological theories of criminology  perceive crime as a normal human response to social conditions that are “abnormal and criminogenic,” according to JRank.

Psychological theories of criminology  date back to Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. Crime results from a failure to form healthy and loving attachments to parents. Behavioral psychology introduced the concept of rewards and punishments: A rewarded crime is repeated; a punished crime is not.

Three principal approaches to criminology

Today, three criminology theories predominate: the Classical, Positivist, and Chicago schools.

• The Classical School argues that people freely choose to engage in crime.  Bentham’s utilitarianism theory  states they are driven either by a desire for pleasure or by aversion to pain, as the Oxford University Press states.
• The Positivist School applies scientific theory to criminology. It focuses on factors that compel people to commit crimes.
• The Chicago School states that crime results from “ social disorganization ,” which is defined in the Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice as “the inability of a community to realize common values and maintain effective social controls.”

Criminology’s impact on reducing and preventing crimes

Two statistical programs run by the DOJ demonstrate the  impact that criminological studies have had on responding to, reducing, and preventing crimes .

• The Uniform Crime Reporting program (UCR) collects information from law enforcement agencies across the country on dozens of crimes. It is intended to assist researchers in studying crime among neighboring jurisdictions and those with similar populations or other characteristics.
• The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) analyzes crime incidents, victims, and trends. It collects data on reported and unreported crimes and provides researchers with demographic data on perpetrators and victims.

Research conducted by the Minnesota House Research Department  studied the effectiveness of the theory of criminal deterrence , which dates back to the 18th century. It reached three conclusions:

• Deterrence is most effective for preplanned crimes.
• Making already-long prison sentences even longer does little to deter crime.
• Increasing the likelihood of getting caught is a more effective crime deterrent than increasing punishment.

Criminology and society’s treatment of criminals and victims

Little attention was paid to the needs of crime victims until the 1970s, when the DOJ’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) determined that a  primary reason for unsuccessful prosecutions  was the poor treatment of witnesses and victims by the criminal justice system. Since that time, legislation and law enforcement programs, including the Violence Against Women Act of 1990, have worked to protect and assist victims and witnesses.

Similarly, criminology research has affected how criminals are treated in custody. The American Bar Association (ABA) has developed  Standards on Treatment of Prisoners  that describe correctional policies and professional standards that comply with constitutional and statutory law.

Criminology has also highlighted the real cost of crimes on individuals, families, and communities. The 2017 report  “Costs of Crime”  from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that new study methods will improve the accuracy of crime cost estimates, particularly in the area of compensating victims for their pain and suffering.

Criminology theory resources

• “Predicting Pathways into Criminal Behavior: The Intersection of Race, Gender, Poverty, Psychological Factors”  investigates the factors involved in women’s involvement in criminal activity, including economic disadvantage related to education and employment.
• The National Institute of Justice discusses mapping in law enforcement in this paper:  “From Crime Mapping to Crime Forecasting: The Evolution of Place-Based Policing” .

Criminology vs. criminal justice: what’s the difference?

The  primary distinction when it comes to criminology vs criminal justice  is the former’s emphasis on the study of crime and the latter’s focus on society’s response to crime, as the Balance Careers explains. Criminal justice applies principles and concepts developed by criminologists to enforcing laws and investigating crimes, as well as to the trial, punishment, and rehabilitation of criminals.

Criminal justice definition

The Legal Dictionary  defines criminal justice  as a set of procedures:

• Investigating criminal conduct
• Gathering evidence of the crime
• Making arrests
• Bringing charges in court
• Raising defenses
• Conducting trials
• Rendering sentences
• Carrying out punishments

By contrast, its definition of criminology emphasizes the scientific and academic aspects of the field’s study of crime, criminal behavior, and law enforcement. Criminal justice includes the work of:

• Criminal courts
• Prisons and other correctional institutions
• Juvenile justice systems

Criminal justice and effective law enforcement

In the 20th century, the  field of criminal justice arose  as an effort to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement in light of expanding due process and other rights for criminal defendants, as Encyclopedia Britannica explains. The study of criminal justice expanded in the 1980s and 1990s in the form of qualitative descriptive analyses of the operations of specific criminal justice agencies.

More recent research in criminal justice emphasizes quantitative studies about the effectiveness of particular crime-fighting strategies and approaches. Researchers have studied whether an abusive spouse’s arrest prevents future incidents of abuse, and whether prison rehabilitation programs are effective in reducing recidivism.

One area of criminal justice research proven to be ineffective is the effort to predict which offenders are most likely to commit other crimes. Not only were models unable to identify habitual offenders, but researchers were questioned about whether such efforts violated people’s constitutional rights. The fear is that offenders may be punished not for what they had done but for what they might do in the future.

Such issues are at the forefront of modern discussions about the relationships between civil rights and law enforcement. With numerous  studies indicating a need to address systemic racism  in many corners of the justice system, future criminologists will play an important part in creating a more equitable framework for crime prevention.

Criminology and criminal justice work together to fight crime

Criminal justice and criminology are distinct fields, but they’re closely linked, theoretically and practically. From the viewpoint of potential criminologists and law enforcement professionals, the big difference is criminology’s focus on science and research, and criminal justice’s emphasis on application and administration.

For example, criminologists respond to a rise in homicides by studying underlying economic, sociological, and psychological conditions. By contrast, criminal justice officials respond by working to prevent future homicides and capture the perpetrators.

The two fields merge in  applied criminology , which studies “real-world” problems relating to crime and criminal justice. It applies criminology concepts to actual criminal justice policy and practice. The goal is to make criminology relevant in addressing crime, victimization, and the relationship between “governmental agendas and knowledge production.”

Criminologists promote crime-fighting efforts via tools such as the  New York Police Department’s CompStat system , which is now used by police departments across the country to  combine crime analysis and geographic information system technologies . Their work suggests innovative ways to improve law enforcement and instill trust in the criminal justice system.

Criminology vs. Criminal Justice: Additional Resources

• Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
• International Journal Of Criminal Justice Sciences, List of World Agencies/Organizations in Criminal Justice/Criminology
• The Balance Careers, “The Difference Between Careers in Criminology and Criminal Justice”

Typical  employers of criminologists  include law enforcement and other government agencies, university research labs, and other research institutions, as PayScale.com explains. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)  defines criminologists  or penologists as sociologists who specialize in the study of crime. They investigate the social influences of crime on individuals, groups, and organizations.

Career options for criminologists

The Balance Careers  distinguishes criminology positions  as being more academic than those in criminal justice, although there is a great degree of overlap between the two fields. For example, people typically earn a bachelor’s degree in criminology followed by a master’s degree in criminal justice, or vice versa.

Among the daily tasks of criminologists are collecting and examining evidence, visiting crime scenes, attending autopsies, and exploring the psychological aspects of a crime from investigation through conviction and rehabilitation. These tasks require the ability to organize data and evidence, conduct statistical analysis, and write reports.

The range of  positions available to criminologists  include jobs with federal, state, and local law enforcement, as well as public and private research organizations, think tanks, legislative bodies, and public policy bodies, as the Balance Careers reports. Criminologists strive to improve police operations via innovative programs, such as community-oriented policing and predictive policing.

Criminology Positions: Salaries and Employment Outlook

The BLS forecasts that the number of jobs for all sociologists, the category that includes criminologists, will increase by 9% between 2018 and 2028, which is faster than the average growth projected for all occupations. PayScale.com reports that the median annual criminology salary is around $44,000.

These are among the career options available to criminologists.

Forensic Science Technician

Forensic science technicians  assist in criminal investigations . They collect and analyze evidence, including fingerprints, weapons, and body fluids. They photograph and sketch crime scenes, and they catalog and preserve evidence before it is transferred to crime labs. They also work in labs, investigate possible suspects, and consult with experts in forensic medicine.

The BLS reports that the median annual salary of forensic science technicians as of May 2019 was $59,150. The number of jobs is forecast to increase by 14% between 2018 and 2028, which is much faster than the average projected for all occupations.

Probation and Community Control Officer

According to BLS figures, the  median annual salary for probation officers and correctional treatment specialists  was $54,290 as of May 2019. The number of jobs for the position is forecast to increase by 3% between 2018 and 2028, which is lower than the average projected for all occupations.

Probation and community control officers help former offenders transition to productive lives after incarceration. The Balance Careers lists the  duties of probation and community control officers .

• Supervise probationers and parolees, including visiting their homes and meeting with their families
• Collaborate with church groups and community organizations
• Monitor probationers and parolees electronically
• Perform pretrial investigations, submit sentencing recommendations, and testify in court
• Prepare status reports on probationers and parolees, and assist them in job training and job searches

Police Officer

The median annual salary for police officers and detectives as of May 2019 was $65,170, according to the BLS. Jobs for police officers and detectives are expected to increase by 5% between 2018 and 2028, which is equal to the average projected for all occupations.

Police officers are tasked with protecting the lives and property of community residents. The BLS explains the  duties of police officers :

• Respond to emergency and nonemergency situations
• Patrol specific areas
• Issue citations and conduct traffic stops
• Use computers in the field to search for warrants and vehicle registrations
• Conduct investigations at crime scenes
• Collect and secure evidence
• Prepare cases and testify in court

Corrections Officer

The median annual salary of corrections officers as of May 2019 was $47,830, according to BLS figures. The number of positions for corrections officers is forecast to decline by 7% between 2018 and 2028 as a result of expected reductions in prison populations.

Corrections officers oversee people who have been arrested and are awaiting a hearing or trial, as well as people who have been convicted and sentenced to serve time in jail or prison. The BLS notes the  duties of corrections officers :

• Maintain order in jails and prisons by enforcing rules
• Inspect facilities to ensure they meet safety and security standards
• Supervise inmate activities and search them for contraband
• Escort and transport inmates, and report on inmate conduct

Loss Prevention Manager

PayScale.com reports the median annual salary for loss prevention managers is around $52,000. The most common tasks of loss prevention managers are security risk management, safety compliance, inventory control, theft prevention, and security policies and procedures.

A loss prevention manager’s primary responsibility is to  prevent business losses due to internal or external theft, fraud, accidents, mishandling, or other causes , as PayScale.com explains. Other  duties of loss prevention managers  appear on O*Net Online:

• Investigate employee theft and other violations of the company’s loss-prevention policies
• Develop and implement programs to manage inventory, promote safety, and minimize losses
• Ensure that prevention exception reports and cash discrepancies follow corporate guidelines
• Train staff and managers on loss prevention strategies and techniques
• Interview people suspected of shoplifting and other forms of theft

Detective/Criminal Investigator

Also referred to as detectives, criminal investigators are  police officers who gather facts and collect evidence in criminal cases . The BLS notes that criminal investigators often specialize in a single category of crime, such as fraud or homicide. These are the primary duties of criminal investigators:

• Conduct interviews with crime victims, witnesses, suspects, and relevant experts
• Examine police and other records
• Monitor the activities of suspects and participate in raids and arrests
• Write reports, prepare cases for trial, and testify during court proceedings

The median annual salary for detectives and criminal investigators as of May 2019 was $83,170, according to BLS figures. The number of jobs for police officers and detectives is forecast to increase by 5% between 2018 and 2028, which is equal to the average for all occupations.

Fish and Game Warden

The BLS reports that the median annual salary for fish and game wardens as of May 2019 was $57,500. The number of jobs for fish and game wardens is expected to increase by 2% between 2018 and 2028, which is below the average projected for all occupations.

Fish and game wardens are  responsible for enforcing laws related to hunting, fishing, and boating , as the BLS describes. These are among their primary duties:

• Conduct interviews with complainants, witnesses, and suspects
• Patrol fishing and hunting areas
• Participate in search and rescue efforts
• Monitor people suspected of violating regulations relating to fishing and hunting
• Educate the public about laws governing outdoor activities

Private Investigator

The median annual salary for private detectives and investigators as of May 2019 was $50,510, according to BLS figures. The number of jobs for private investigators is forecast to grow by 8% between 2018 and 2028, which is faster than the average growth projected for all occupations.

The work done by private investigators for businesses and individuals mirrors that done by criminal investigators for public law enforcement agencies. These professionals examine records and conduct other research relating to legal, financial, and personal matters. The BLS lists the  duties of private detectives and investigators :

• Conduct criminal and other background checks and verify statements made by individuals
• Interview suspects, witnesses, and experts and perform other research into missing persons
• Search for evidence in online, public, and court records
• Perform surveillance and collect other evidence for clients

Insurance Fraud Investigator

The BLS reports that the median annual salary for claims adjusters, examiners, and investigators was $66,790 as of May 2019. The agency expects the number of jobs for the category to decline by 4% between 2018 and 2028 due to automation of claims processing.

The position of insurance fraud investigator is included in the broad category of claims adjusters, appraisers, examiners, and investigators who evaluate insurance claims. These are among the  principle duties of insurance fraud investigators , as listed by the BLS:

• Examine and research insurance claims to confirm that they are legitimate
• Conduct interviews with claimants’ doctors, employers, and others to review suspicious claims
• Work with attorneys and other legal professionals to verify information related to claims
• Perform surveillance to identify fraudulent claims resulting from staged accidents, arson, unnecessary medical treatments, and other criminal activity

Crime statistics and key insights

An important role played by criminologists is compiling and reporting on crime statistics.  The New Yorker  highlights both the importance of crime statistics in formulating crime-prevention strategies and enforcement policies and the  difficulty criminologists encounter in accurately measuring crime .

The article describes the challenge in determining whether cannabis use increases or reduces crime levels. Various analyses of crime rate trends in states where cannabis has been legalized have come to conflicting conclusions, pointing to the complexity of arriving at a definitive answer about what contributes to criminal activity. Criminologists use a variety of sources and techniques to try to provide statistics that can accurately portray crime trends and inform criminal policies.

How criminologists support law enforcement

Two of the DOJ’s most effective statistical analysis tools for assisting local crime-fighting efforts are the FBI’s UCR system and Bureau of Justice Statistics’ NCVS, both of which are described above. The systems share a shortcoming: Local jurisdictions disagree on what constitutes a crime. Some jurisdictions only report offenses that involve incarceration, while others include fined infractions.

Criminologists have developed a range of statistics-based tools that support federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

• The City-Level Survey of Crime Victimization and Citizen Attitudes analyzes surveys conducted by the DOJ’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to  determine people’s perceptions of community policing and issues in their neighborhoods .
• Emergency Room Statistics on Intentional Violence surveys a sample of hospital emergency rooms throughout the U.S. to  identify instances of domestic violence, rape, child abuse, and other intentional injuries .
• The Police-Public Contact Survey interviews a representative sample of people across the country who either reported a crime or were detained in a traffic stop to  gauge their perceptions of the police’s conduct and response during the encounter .

Other organizations involved in the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information about police activities include the Center for Policing Equity’s  COMSTAT for Justice , which is intended to identify bias in policing, and the  U.S. Commission on Civil Rights , whose 2019 report titled  “Police Use of Force: An Examination of Modern Policing Practices”  recommended that  more data on the use of force by police  be made available to law enforcement agencies, and that police be trained in de-escalation techniques, cultural differences, and anti-bias mechanisms.

Criminology’s impact by the numbers

Many of the statistics used and shared by the DOJ and the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention are compiled by the  U.S. Census Bureau .

• The Annual Survey of Jails reports on the  number of inmates in regional, county, city, and private jails , as well as demographic and criminal justice statistics of the jail population, among other areas related to incarceration.
• The Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities gathers information on the  operation of the prisons and jails, and the conditions of confinement , such as capacity and crowding, court orders, staff workloads, and safety and security.
• The Survey of Sexual Victimization (formerly the Survey of Sexual Violence) collects data on  sexual assaults in correctional facilities , including state prisons, state juvenile correction facilities, federal prisons, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities, and the U.S. military.  

Other sources of information on the impact of criminology research in law enforcement include the  Historical Violence Database  maintained by Ohio State University Criminal Justice Research Center, the University of Michigan’s  National Archive of Criminal Justice Data , the  National Criminal Justice Reference Service , and the University at Albany’s  Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics .

Criminologists: Serving Communities and Society

The work of criminologists touches nearly all aspects of social life. Crime investigation calls for specialized skills and training, sophisticated number-crunching ability, and a great deal of fieldwork interacting with colleagues within and outside criminal justice, and with the public.

Infographic Sources

The Balance Careers, “What Does a Criminologist Do?”

PayScale, “Average Criminologist Salary”

PayScale, “Average FBI Agent Salary”

PayScale, “Average Forensic Scientist Salary”

PayScale, “Average Police Detective Salary”

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics, “Detectives and Criminal Investigators”

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, “Forensic Science Technicians”

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, “Police and Detectives”

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, “Sociologists”

Bring us your ambition and we’ll guide you along a personalized path to a quality education that’s designed to change your life.

CRCJ 2334 Intro to Criminal Justice System

• Thinking critically about crime statistics
• Data and Statistics Sources
• Find More Resources
• Research Process :: How-To This link opens in a new window

Multidisciplinary Librarian

How to think about crime statistics

Questions to ask yourself when thinking about statistics:

• Who is likely or unlikely to participate in this survey?  Or who is likely to be counted or not counted by this data gathering method? 
• Would factors like gender identity, cultural shame, economic disadvantage, racial bias, citizenship status, or other contextual elements affect the way this crime is documented or reported?
• What area, demographic, region, etc. does this method or survey cover? 
• College campuses (ex. UTA)
• Transportation systems (ex. DART)
• Counties (ex. Tarrant)
• Cities (ex. City of Arlington)
• Military Bases (ex. Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth)
• State-wide law enforcement agencies (ex. Texas Rangers, Texas Game Wardens)
• Nationwide-law enforcement agencies (ex. FBI, United States Postal Inspection Service)  
• Texas Game Warden Field Notes Before you look at this site, think about what laws you think a game warden (a wildlife officer) might enforce and what kinds of crimes they encounter. Does your idea of what a game warden does match these reports?
• Florida Medical Clinic Owner and Pharmacy Technician Sentenced to Prison in Clinical Trial Fraud Scheme Not all crime is violent crime. This is a recent example of a fraud case that was investigated by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), a federal enforcement agency. Where would you find statistics for crimes investigated by the FDA?

Crime Statistics- Background Reading

• Measuring Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence (book chapter) A major portion of this chapter evaluates the potential of various data sources to inform our understanding of the extent of domestic violence. The chapter presents a variety of facts related to domestic and intimate partner violence and ways to evaluate their validity, accuracy and reliability. These sources reflect both official and unofficial measures, including self-report surveys, family violence surveys, national violence against women surveys, national crime victimization surveys, uniform crime reports, national incident-based reports and UCR supplemental homicide reports, among others.
• Examining the Paradox of Crime Reporting: Are Disadvantaged Victims More Likely to Report to the Police? This study uses an intersectional approach to examine the "paradox" that disadvantaged victims often mobilize the police, despite their distrust and lack of confidence in the law. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (1994–2016) were analyzed using logistic regression to model the predicted probabilities of police notification by victims of crime. Examining the intersectional differences across social groups shows that reporting behavior is not just a function of one attribute but rather is a function of multiple identities and structural inequalities.
• The Future of Crime Data In this article, we describe the nation's move to a crime-reporting system that is exclusively incident based. Such a change presents challenges for the 'crime-reporting pipeline' and for researchers in managing and analyzing these more intricate data. We highlight the shortcomings of the dominant system, the Uniform Crime Reporting Program's Summary Reporting System (SRS), and argue that the advantages of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) qualify it to replace the SRS as one of the nation's primary sources for tracking and measuring crime. NIBRS is also discussed in light of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), a source that complements a system that relies on law-enforcement-generated crime data.

Non-Scholarly Sources

The sites listed below include non-profits, media sites, and books written for a general audience- they are NOT scholarly sources .  Crime is a topic with serious personal and political implications, and you will often see it discussed in ways meant to provoke an emotional response.  You must use critical thinking to decide how accurate or well-supported their arguments are: 

• What is the mission statement or goal of the organization?
• Who compiled the information?  What are their credentials or area of expertise?
• What kinds of sources do they cite?  Academic?  News articles?  Do they not provide citations at all?
• Can you find the raw data they used to make their claims?  Is it clear what they did with the data to come to their conclusions?
• Thurgood Marshall Institute- The truth behind crime statistics
• Vera- Understanding national crime data
• The Brennan Center- Understanding the FBI's 2021 crime data
• CNN- How crime stats lie and what you need to know to understand them
• Dallas Express- FBI's National Crime Data Paints an Incomplete Picture

• Next: Data and Statistics Sources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 1, 2024 9:30 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/c.php?g=1388514

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Analysis & Opinion

Why Inclusive Criminal Justice Research Matters

Why Inclusive Criminal Justice Research Matters

Engaging with impacted community leaders can help contextualize data and drive solutions.

• Accurate Crime Data
• Social & Economic Harm

A new Brennan Center study of recent trends and persistent racial disparities in New York City’s misdemeanor enforcement system showcases the benefits of taking an  inclusive approach  to criminal justice research and policymaking. In addition to examining court data between 2016 and 2022, researchers conducted in-depth qualitative engagements with 166 stakeholders, including law enforcement and impacted Black and Latino community leaders, to understand the context behind the numbers. Working with people impacted by the criminal justice system as collaborators and integrating their expertise throughout the research process strengthened our data analysis and allowed us to craft actionable recommendations for improving approaches to minor offenses.

Although these practices have long been used in fields like  public health ,  education , and  democracy , inclusive research approaches have now expanded to criminal justice, specifically to address the  structural factors  that drive  racial disparities  in the criminal justice system. These are also known as  community-engaged research  or  participatory action research . For example, recent studies about  youth gun culture ,  prosecutorial reforms , and  prisons  engage community members with lived experience as fellow experts to collaboratively conduct research and develop recommendations. In contrast, traditional research methods have historically treated  marginalized groups , including justice-involved people, as subjects in need of intervention. This has also led to the exploitation of community knowledge — where members are too often  pathologized  — without accountability and transparency from research institutions.

In studying minor offenses, Brennan Center researchers adopted three core inclusive research strategies. First, we worked to forge connections with a wide range of key stakeholders, especially community leaders most impacted by the justice system who are typically excluded from research. Strong relationships cannot be formed overnight. Rather, community partnerships require long-term and sustained efforts in active listening, transparency, and mutual exchange. To develop our skills, we facilitated ongoing trainings and debriefs on qualitative interviewing and analysis,  cultural humility ,  community engagement , and  research accountability  practices. These tools allowed us to grapple with the responsibility and privilege of being outside researchers invited into programs and communities. They also ensured that we were able to accurately capture stakeholders’ experiences and recommendations.

Second, participants were compensated for their time and expertise — a core principle of this research approach. This builds on a standard research practice that enjoins researchers to reimburse people for any significant study contributions, including feedback from subject matter experts. Impacted community leaders are no exception. We also accommodated individuals’ needs and preferences in study participation, such as arranging virtual or in-person discussions and scheduling to accommodate work, childcare, and other commitments. Additionally, host organizations received compensation for recruitment and meeting spaces used for qualitative engagement. Showing stakeholders that they are valued facilitates participation and stronger partnerships with community experts.

Finally, as a critical part of the methodology, some community stakeholders reviewed the quantitative data to help researchers understand the experiences behind the numbers. Resulting themes identified by stakeholders support growing research that highlights how structural factors like housing instability, poorer health, and lack of economic opportunity — referred to as the  social determinants of justice  — are likely what drive interactions with New York City’s minor offense system.

Participants also recommended solutions to tackle some of these factors. As highlighted in an  accompanying Brennan Center resource , these included better addressing structural needs related to health and housing, such as specialized court  diversion programs  (e.g., for mental health and substance use),  alternative responses  for behavioral health crises, more  supportive housing  for justice-involved people, and community-led  prevention models . Of note, researchers found common ground across community, nonprofit, and government stakeholders in expanding solutions that more substantively address community safety. A common frustration among community leaders is how government officials and nonprofits do not consult people most impacted by the justice system when developing and implementing programs and policy reforms, despite their proximity to and knowledge of the issues in their communities.

Adopting an inclusive research approach with a wide range of stakeholders, especially with members of impacted communities, led to more robust findings. However, challenges remain in applying the approach more broadly. Inclusive research requires significant time and resources to build trusting relationships with community-based partners. Furthermore, the location of research, whether courts, jails, or prisons, may be challenging for this approach. That is because security mandates, restrictive conditions, and intense surveillance are obstacles to ensuring confidentiality.

While not all studies may be able to implement a full participatory methodology, it is important, nonetheless, to grow organizational capacity for inclusive research approaches. Maintaining long-term relationships with community partners and incorporating community-informed analyses, for example, can be a boon in better ensuring that communities are connected, represented, and invested in the research. We recommend that such approaches be more widely adopted in criminal justice policymaking and research in the future.

Related Issues:

• Social & Economic Harm

Related Resources

Misdemeanor Enforcement Trends in New York City, 2016–2022

Cases have declined, yet low-income Black and Latino New Yorkers continue to disproportionately face charges.

Josephine Wonsun Hahn

Ram Subramanian

Tiffany Sanabia

The Hidden Toll of New York City’s Misdemeanor System

Caseloads are shrinking but remain a burden on communities and government resources.

Myth vs. Reality: Trends in Retail Theft

Despite spikes in some cities, crime data doesn’t show a nationwide increase in shoplifting and other forms of retail theft.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Speech on Crime and Immigrants

Trump misleads about crime and public safety, again, criminal justice reforms aren’t driving rising crime, analyzing the fbi’s national crime data on 2022 — with an eye toward 2023 trends, crime trends in 2021–22: what we know so far, informed citizens are democracy’s best defense.

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

CRJ 502 - Case Study

What You Need to Know About Becoming a Criminal Justice and Corrections Major

A criminal justice major learns research methods for criminology, criminological theory and the psychology behind criminal behavior.

Becoming a Criminal Justice Major

Getty Images

A criminal justice major gives students an understanding of the three main elements of the justice system: the courts, policing and corrections. The study of criminal justice and corrections involves research methods for criminology, criminological theory and the psychology behind criminal behavior. Those in this field work to help society operate safely and effectively.

What Is a Criminal Justice and Corrections Major?

A criminal justice major provides students with a liberal arts and social sciences-focused education in addition to criminal justice and corrections-specific training. Areas of study for this major include juvenile justice, criminal law, corrections, the judicial process, administration theory and evaluations, and crime prevention. The major draws on topics from history, political science, communications, psychology and sociology to supplement students’ coursework. Students can choose to specialize in an area of criminal justice like law enforcement, forensic science, homeland security, crisis management, or corrections and case management. For example, a law enforcement specialization likely focuses on police interactions with the community throughout the levels of the justice system. Courses for that particular speciality might cover law enforcement ethics, the structure of police organizations and daily administrative operations of the police. Those who are unsure can choose to be a generalist in criminal justice and corrections. Field experience and internships with the FBI or police are ways for students to take the theories outside of the classroom and use their knowledge in agency situations. Study abroad is an option through some programs as an opportunity to learn how other countries approach issues in criminal justice.

Common Coursework Criminal Justice and Corrections Majors Can Expect

Many of the required courses for this major are in the areas of criminal justice and criminology, psychology, political science and sociology. The foundational courses in these areas include introduction to criminal justice; problems of law enforcement; introduction to sociology; introduction to social research; the American political system; and statistics for criminology and criminal justice. More advanced courses are focused on topics like social psychology; constitutional law; civil liberties: equal protection; problems of corrections; courts and sentencing; crime and delinquency prevention; and contemporary criminological theory. For example, in the course titled “Problems of Corrections,” students learn an overview of the American corrections system, current problems with the system, philosophy of punishment, the prison experience, alternatives to incarceration and more. These broad areas of study give students exposure to the elements of the field and allow them to decide on an area of interest. No matter what career path students choose, understanding the law, policing ethics, human behavior and best practices in the field will be helpful to succeed.

How to Know if This Major Is the Right Fit for You

When choosing this major, students can think about what sparked their interest in this area of study and choose a speciality based on that answer. This major is right for students who are interested in the law, have great people skills and want to help people by serving society. People who work in criminal justice are often subjected to tough decision-making situations, so they must be calm and professional under pressure. Whether it’s working with law-abiding citizens to make progress in the community, rehabilitating convicted criminals to help them rejoin society, advocating for victims or overseeing offenders on parole or probation, this area of study can result in a rewarding career path.

Pick the Perfect Major

Discover the perfect major for you based on your innate wiring. The Innate Assessment sets you up for success by pairing you with majors, colleges and careers that fit your unique skills and abilities.

What Can I Do With a Criminal Justice and Corrections Major?

Those with a criminal justice and corrections degree have a range of career options in law enforcement and other law-related professions. The undergraduate degree sets a foundation for students who want to go to law school or into other graduate degree programs. Criminal justice majors can work for the government as a federal agent, in the private sector as a private investigator or in other jobs like a court reporter, court administrator, and criminal justice educator or researcher. In addition, criminal justice majors can become parole or probation officers, juvenile court counselors, correctional administrators, social workers, federal law enforcement officers, or police officers on the municipal, county or state level. Some of these careers involving counseling, psychology and social work require advanced degrees or licensing. An added perk to working in the criminal justice system or in law enforcement: Employees are known to receive favorable health and retirement benefits.

Schools Offering a Criminal Justice Major

Check out some schools below that offer criminal justice majors and find the full list of schools here that you can filter and sort.

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

College Admissions: Get a Step Ahead!

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

Ask an Alum: Making the Most Out of College

You May Also Like

How to decide if an mba is worth it.

Sarah Wood March 27, 2024

What to Wear to a Graduation

LaMont Jones, Jr. March 27, 2024

FAFSA Delays Alarm Families, Colleges

Sarah Wood March 25, 2024

Help Your Teen With the College Decision

Anayat Durrani March 25, 2024

Toward Semiconductor Gender Equity

Alexis McKittrick March 22, 2024

March Madness in the Classroom

Cole Claybourn March 21, 2024

20 Lower-Cost Online Private Colleges

Sarah Wood March 21, 2024

How to Choose a Microcredential

Sarah Wood March 20, 2024

Basic Components of an Online Course

Cole Claybourn March 19, 2024

Can You Double Minor in College?

Sarah Wood March 15, 2024

Hilbert College Global Online Blog

Criminal justice vs. criminology: what’s the difference, written by: hilbert college   •  mar 19, 2024.

Criminal Justice vs. Criminology What’s the Difference? ¶

For individuals seeking legal career pathways, understanding criminal justice vs. criminology is an important first step. Criminal justice focuses on addressing procedural facets of law enforcement and legal systems, while criminology explores the social and psychological roots of crime, providing insight into how to prevent crime and the motives for illegal activities.

A criminal justice vs. criminology comparison also reveals notable intersections. For example, criminology practices can help shape criminal law, influencing and informing criminal justice policies. By delving into what the disciplines are and their career paths, those looking to enter these fields can determine which is right for them.

What’s Criminal Justice? ¶

The criminal justice system, designed to uphold law and order, encompasses the legal mechanisms for managing crime and protecting the rights of affected parties, including suspects, convicts and victims. It consists of law enforcement officers, who enforce laws and arrest offenders; the court system, which prosecutes cases and protects participants; and corrections, which handles  the incarceration, punishment and rehabilitation of offenders. 

Criminal justice professionals benefit from critical thinking, communication and problem-solving skills for roles in crime reduction, rehabilitation and support. A background in crime theory, justice system operations, corrections, law and justice, research methods, ethics, and criminology theory can provide a broad foundation for various careers in the criminal justice field.

What’s Criminology? ¶

Criminology, as the scientific study of crime, explores why certain individuals are more predisposed to committing crimes, incorporating analysis that delves into the social, psychological and legal factors influencing criminal behavior and its impact on society. Unlike criminal justice, which applies legal measures to crime, criminology seeks to understand the root causes. It examines the effects on victims and communities, as well as on law enforcement practices, and it’s useful for creating prevention strategies such as community-oriented policing. 

Criminology is a multidisciplinary field that focuses on the complexities of crime and contributes to an understanding of its resolution and prevention. It integrates psychology, sociology and law to explore the origin and effects of crime, criminal behavior, societal impact, victimology and correctional strategies. 

Criminal Justice vs. Criminology: Careers and Salaries ¶

In exploring criminal justice vs. criminology, it’s clear that both fields offer a wide array of career opportunities, but with distinct focuses and potential earnings. 

Careers in Criminal Justice ¶

Earning a degree in criminal justice provides a pathway into enforcement and prevention roles that can extend well beyond traditional roles. Graduates can explore various sectors, each offering unique job positions and responsibilities. For those investigating what to do with a criminal justice degree , below are some of the career paths and opportunities available.

Police and Law Enforcement ¶

Police officers and law enforcement workers focus on maintaining public safety, undertaking various tasks, from patrolling and enforcing laws to collecting evidence and solving crimes. Their responsibilities extend to detailed report writing, case preparation and courtroom testimony. Police officers may work in special units depending on their experience and the size of their departments. For example, they may work as uniformed patrol officers, transit officers, mounted police officers, or Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) officers.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that the median annual salary for police officers was $69,160 as of May 2022, while law enforcement workers in general earned $61,680.

Detectives and Criminal Investigators ¶

Detectives and criminal investigators delve into suspected legal infractions to prevent or solve crimes, employing diverse methods to gather information, solve problems and document their findings. Their investigative work includes interviewing witnesses and suspects, securing crime scenes and preserving evidence for further examination. This role demands effective communication with both internal teams and external entities, ensuring thoroughness in investigative processes. 

The BLS reports that the median annual salary for detectives and criminal investigators was $86,280 as of May 2022.

Forensic Science Technicians ¶

Forensic science technicians are pivotal in criminal investigations, specializing in evidence collection and analysis. Their expertise spans both crime scene investigation and laboratory work, involving evidence documentation, preservation and analysis to aid in crime resolution. In addition to a degree in criminal justice, individuals can benefit from natural sciences or engineering coursework, especially for those focusing on digital forensics. 

The BLS reports that the median annual salary for forensic science technicians was $63,740 as of May 2022.

Careers in Criminology ¶

Since criminology is a social science, a background in criminology can lead to careers centered on research and policy development. Criminology encompasses diverse career paths across law enforcement, research and academia, offering individuals a broad spectrum of opportunities beyond traditional roles. Here are some of the career pathways.

Criminologists ¶

Criminologists leverage data and statistics to understand and prevent crime, drawing on sociology and psychology alongside criminal justice. The field’s multidisciplinary approach facilitates contributions to policy analysis, forensic psychology and more. 

The BLS reports that sociologists, including criminologists, earned a median annual salary of $98,590 as of May 2022.

Policy Analysts ¶

Policy analysts scrutinize policies and their impacts for various stakeholders. In the field of criminology, they use studies and data to forecast policy effects. Their research supports government and organization efforts in criminal justice policy planning and execution. 

The BLS reports that policy analysts, which the bureau categorizes under the role of political scientist, earned a median annual salary of $128,020 as of May 2022.

Forensic Psychologists ¶

Forensic psychologists collaborate with legal professionals to explore the psychological dimensions of legal cases. Through data collection and analysis, they provide courts with insights into psychological factors relevant to legal issues. This profession employs diverse methodologies for evaluation and therapy in criminal, civil and family court settings. 

The BLS reports that the median annual salary for psychologists was $85,330 as of May 2022.

Prepare for a Career That Prioritizes Equity and Justice ¶

A criminal justice vs. criminology comparison reveals the impacts of both fields on law enforcement, policymaking and social order. For those interested in advancing equity and justice and making an impact on society, Hilbert College Global’s online Bachelor of Science (BS) in Criminal Justice program prepares individuals with skills in criminology, ethics, diversity and more. Graduates of the program develop critical thinking and leadership skills focused on equity and justice. 

Discover how to contribute to a just society through Hilbert College Global’s online BS in Criminal Justice program.

Recommended Readings

What Is a Victim Advocate?

Racial Disparities in Sentencing and Criminal Justice Reform

Self-Defense Techniques for Women

Indeed, 9 Different Types of Police Officers (With Job Duties)

Indeed, “10 Criminal Justice Majors and Jobs You Can Pursue”

Indeed, What Is a Criminologist? (With Sample Job Description)”

O-NET OnLine, Detectives and Criminal Investigators

Psychology Today , “What Exactly Does a Forensic Psychologist Do?”

ThoughtCo, “Criminology Definition and History”

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Detectives and Criminal Investigators

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Forensic Science Technicians

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Police and Detectives

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Political Scientists

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Psychologists

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Sociologists

Recent Articles

How to Become a Juvenile Probation Officer

Hilbert college, feb 9, 2024.

Jan 24, 2024

Learn more about the benefits of receiving your degree from hilbert college.

Why Augustana University brought back its criminal justice major after 35 years

A ugustana University has had five students declare their major as criminal justice this spring, the first full semester the major's been available after a 35-year hiatus.

The major was officially approved by the Higher Learning Commission in October, the university's communications director Jill Wilson said. The program is part of the university’s list of interdisciplinary academic programs being developed in its strategic plan, “ Viking Bold: The Journey to 2030 ,” which is responsive to new and emerging student interest, and community needs.

Augustna’s first criminal justice program was a partnership with the University of Sioux Falls starting in 1969, with funds from the Law Enforcement Administration Program (LEAP) and Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP), according to a university press release. The program later dissolved, and Augustana transitioned to a minor in sociology — criminology and deviance, which is still available.

Adam Heinitz, associate vice president of enrollment management, said the major will keep Augustana on the college search list for prospective students interested in criminal justice. He added there are well-documented shortages of law enforcement professionals across the U.S. including in the region.

More: NYT columnist David Brooks speaks about Trump, Biden and democracy in danger at Boe Forum

Seven criminal justice courses and extra courses in sociology, criminal law and statistics are part of the renewed major, which can pair well with majors in government & international affairs, sociology, anthropology, and the pre-law track, the university stated in a press release.

William Swart, professor of sociology and coordinator of the criminal justice program, stated in the release that the program builds in core courses with a “critical edge,” like criminological theory, policing and society, criminal justice procedures and systems, and some creative electives.

Swart also said the major takes a deeper dive into the criminal justice system than a normal criminal justice major would, asking questions about what’s right or needs improvement in criminal justice, what initiatives are working well and “where are the pitfalls and trapdoors of past practices that we could bring new ideas to,” he stated in the press release.

Faculty will work with students to tailor the major to their interests and future plans. In the past, students have interned at the Minnehaha County Regional Juvenile Detention Center, Second Circuit Probation Services and Sequel Transition Academy.

More: USD School of Medicine celebrates 50 years of granting doctor of medicine degrees

“If a student wants to go into probation, I'm going to say, ‘I think you need an internship in a probation office to get that experience coupled with your criminal justice coursework,’” Swart said in the release. “If a student's interested in going on to grad school or wants to study criminological theory or teach a criminal justice program, that may mean internships are not the right thing — maybe it's doing an independent research project.”

Amelia Jibben was one of the first students at the university to add criminal justice as a major. She’s also majoring in anthropology, and said her interest was piqued by watching a documentary about prisons in her Sociology 110 class, according to the release by the college.

“That class changed my perspective on the criminal justice system and made me so much more interested in its potential,” Jibben said in the release. “My interests in the criminal justice system lie within federal policies and organizations, the prison systems and tribal police, however, all my classes bring in something new and compelling.”

This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Why Augustana University brought back its criminal justice major after 35 years