Justice Quarterly

Cavender, Gray

doi: 10.1080/07418828400088001pmid: N/A

Over the past decade in the U.S. and, more recently, in England, there has been extensive criticism of existing penal policy. There has been a movement in both countries to abandon the rehabilitative ideal in favor of the justice model. In this paper we analyze the debate over sanctioning that has emerged in the two countries and suggest some caveats about the implications of the justice model as a basis of penal policy. Additionally, we offer some observations about the general context of sanctioning reform.

Mays, G. Larry; Pincomb, Ronald A.

doi: 10.1080/07418828400088011pmid: N/A

Advances in technology have given law enforcement agencies additional capabilities when performing surveillance activities. One area in particular—aerial surveillance—especially demonstrates the possible intrusiveness of police investigatory activity. One of the most important considerations in the area of aerial surveillance is striking a balance between the necessity of police activities and protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Cases relating to aerial surveillance have sought to develop guidelines for police agencies in this expanding area of search and seizure inquiry.

Konstantin, David N.

doi: 10.1080/07418828400088021pmid: N/A

This article examines FBI reports of all felonious line-of-duty deaths of law enforcement officers in the United States from 1978 through 1980. Three hypotheses are generated and tested. These concern: the manner in which officers became involved in the incidents that led to their deaths, the race and duty status of officers killed, and the types of incidents precipitating killings. These tests indicate, first, that the majority of incidents are initiated by officers themselves, rather than by citizens. Second, it is probable that black officers are victimized at a higher rate than white officers, especially while off-duty and by black assailants. Third, the modal type of precipitating incident is “attempting other arrests (general)”, and not, as commonly thought, domestic disputes. Implications of these findings are then discussed.

Goodstein, Lynne; Kramer, John H.; Nuss, Laura

doi: 10.1080/07418828400088031pmid: N/A

Determinate sentencing has gained in popularity in recent years, yet the specific meaning of determinacy is not universally accepted. Determinacy is viewed as a means for providing prisoners with release certainty, a mechanism for increasing fairness in the sentencing process, or both. The purpose of this paper is to define the components of determinacy and to articulate the conditions of the sentencing and post-adjudication process necessary to fulfill these criteria. The discussion of fairness in sentencing is restricted to issues of procedural equity, or the degree to which sentencing decisions are made reliably. Release predictability involves providing inmates early in their prison stays with knowledge concerning their release dates. Sentencing equity and predictability depend on how the sentencing model is structured to deal with a series of discretionary decisions affecting criminal defendants throughout the judicial and correctional process. Six choice points are considered, three pertaining to the adjudication process and three to the post-adjudication period. Relevant to the adjudication process are: (1) the decision to incarcerate; (2) characteristics of the penalty scaling system, including numbers of penalty ranges and offense categories, and overlap among penalty ranges; and (3) other mechanisms, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances and concurrent and consecutive sentences. The following post-adjudication processes were addressed: (4) the parole review process; (5) the use of good time; and (6) revocation from supervised release. Explication of the criteria for procedural equity and predictability should aid in defining parameters necessary for effective reform.

Walker, Samuel

doi: 10.1080/07418828400088041pmid: N/A

In a recent and provocative article entitled “Broken Windows,” James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling propose a new role orientation for the urban police in America. They argue that the police should replace their current preoccupation with crime control and concentrate instead on dealing with small order maintenance problems. Their argument is based upon a synthesis of recent police research and an analysis of police history. This article critiques the analysis of police history offered by Wilson and Kelling. It disputes their argument that American police officers enjoyed a high degree of legitimacy in the eyes of urban neighborhood residents in the years before the advent of the patrol car. It also offers a different interpretation of the impact of technological innovation upon patterns of police-citizen contacts during the past fifty years.

Williams, Frank P.

doi: 10.1080/07418828400088051pmid: N/A

While there have been some imaginative theoretical works in the past decade, little of that work has become accepted by the criminological field. Instead, the focus has been on the development of methodological and technical tools, even to the extent that theory development itself has been tied to the general movement. The argument presented here is that more useful and insightful theories are products of imagination and speculation. Thus, the current movement is largely useful for testing theories of the past, but not for developing theories of the future. Three general explanations for this state of affairs are provided: the specificity of empirical theory, the implications of the sociologies of the 1960s, and the rise of criminal justice vis-a-vis criminology. The answer to this problem lies in the development of critical and creative thought within our field and graduate schools in particular.

Schneider, Anne Larason

doi: 10.1080/07418828400088061pmid: N/A

The major findings of the study are that the shift to sentencing guidelines and a “just deserts” philosophy for juvenile offenders in the state of Washington did not have a discernable impact on the recidivism rates of juvenile offenders. There are, however, theoretical and methodological complications which prevent conclusions from being drawn about the impact of sentencing per se on reoffending. The patterns of change in sentencing that, from a deterrence perspective, one would expect to be necessary if an impact on recidivism is to occur, were not observed in Washington. Instead, many of the delinquents experienced a simultaneous increase in the certainty of a minor sanction and a decrease in the certainty of a severe sanction. Others experienced an increase in the likelihood of not being referred to court by the police but, if they were referred, they almost certainly faced incarceration. Further complicating the study was the fact that gradual increases in recidivism rates were observed in one jurisdiction and gradual decreases in the other. Either of these could have been produced indirectly by the legislation's impact on juvenile behavior or by changes in law enforcement policies regarding the contact and arrest of juveniles.

Trebach, Arnold S.

doi: 10.1080/07418828400088071pmid: N/A

Talarico, Susette M.

doi: 10.1080/07418828400088081pmid: N/A