The Experts below are selected from a list of 22554 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Marvin Zalman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Criminal Justice system reform and wrongful conviction
2009Co-Authors: Marvin ZalmanAbstract:This article describes the nature and importance of wrongful conviction as a Criminal Justice Policy issue, the development of an innocence movement to litigate on behalf of potential exonerees and to promote Policy issues, the innocence movement’s Policy and research agenda, and the very small amount of Criminal Justice research on the issue in comparison to legal and psychological inquiry. A research agenda for Criminal Justice Policy scholars is proposed to explore the innocence movement and its research agenda. Research models from political science and sociology regarding the study of public Policy, social movements, and interest groups offer themes and methods that would allow Criminal Justice researchers to expand their understanding of the Criminal Justice system’s capacity for reform. Network analysis and the diffusion of innovation research are suggested as approaches to examine the context and spread of innocence reforms.
-
Criminal Justice system reform and wrongful conviction a research agenda
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2006Co-Authors: Marvin ZalmanAbstract:This article describes the nature and importance of wrongful conviction as a Criminal Justice Policy issue, the development of an innocence movement to litigate on behalf of potential exonerees and...
Sara Mayeux - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
approaches to federal judicial history the federal courts and Criminal Justice
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Sara MayeuxAbstract:Mass incarceration has long constituted not only a sociological fact and a moral disaster in the United States, but also a major sector of the public and private economy; a significant component of ideologies of race, gender, and sexuality; and a distorting influence upon electoral processes and deliberative democracy. What role has the federal judiciary played in this complex history? This short historiographical essay provides a brief and necessarily selective introduction to exemplary scholarship addressing the relationship between the federal courts and Criminal Justice in U.S. history, and seeks to encourage historians of the carceral state—even or especially those who do not define themselves primarily as legal historians—to join the conversation. The essay is structured around three of the most significant ways in which the federal judiciary has historically made and enforced Criminal Justice Policy: by adjudicating federal Criminal prosecutions; by reviewing state-court convictions, via federal habeas jurisdiction; and by reforming state prisons and local jails, via constitutional conditions-of-confinement litigation. This essay was prepared at the invitation of the Federal Judicial History Office for a forthcoming volume.
Natasha A Frost - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
beyond public opinion polls punitive public sentiment Criminal Justice Policy
Sociology Compass, 2010Co-Authors: Natasha A FrostAbstract:The punitive turn in Criminal Justice Policy, epitomized by policies like three-strikes, truth in sentencing, and mandatory minimums, is often attributed in part to demand for harsher Criminal Justice responses from an increasingly punitive public. It has been argued that public opinion, known to be both largely uninformed and often misunderstood, might both indirectly and directly affect Policy. This survey article on punitiveness in public opinion opens with a discussion of competing depictions of the nature of the relationship between a punitive public and increasingly punitive Criminal Justice policies. The article then focuses on some of the most influential explanations for variations in punitiveness within individuals and across groups. A review of what we know about public attitudes toward punishment and a brief explanation of how we know what we know (e.g. the methodologies by which we gauge public opinion) follow. The article concludes with the observation that as methodologies continue to improve and the literature in this area continues to grow, so too does our understanding of punitive public opinion in all of its complexity.
Stephen Farrall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Penal Populism and the Public Thermostat: Crime, Public Punitiveness, and Public Policy
Governance, 2017Co-Authors: Stephen Farrall, Colin Hay, Emily Gray, Will JenningsAbstract:This article makes the case that feedback processes in democratic politics—between crime rates, public opinion, and public Policy—can account for the growth of penal populism in Britain. It argues that the public recognize and respond to rising (and falling) levels of crime, and that in turn public support for being tough on crime is translated into patterns of imprisonment. This contributes to debates over the crime–opinion–Policy connection, unpacking the dynamic processes by which these relationships unfold at the aggregate level. This uses the most extensive data set ever assembled on aggregate opinion on crime in Britain to construct a new over-time measure of punitive attitudes. The analysis first tests the thermostatic responsiveness of punitive attitudes to changes in recorded crime rates as well as self-reported victimization, and then examines the degree to which changes in mass opinion impact on Criminal Justice Policy.
-
not so tough on crime why weren t the thatcher governments more radical in reforming the Criminal Justice system
British Journal of Criminology, 2010Co-Authors: Stephen Farrall, Colin HayAbstract:Despite becoming almost synonymous in the public's imagination with ‘law and order’ and toughness on crime, the Thatcher years (1979-90) would not be characterized by many criminologists as a period of radical reform of the Criminal Justice system. Thatcherism, it seems, was far less radical in the Criminal Policy field than it was in housing, the economy or local government finance. This paper explores the reasons for this seeming paradox. Our argument is that Thatcherite thinking came late to this Policy realm and only started to inform Policy in any consistent and radical way after Thatcher had left office. This we attribute to: (1) the precedence accorded other issue domains more closely associated with the ‘crisis’ to which Thatcherism claimed to provide a response; (2) the power-sharing that Thatcher had to engage in with the more paternalist wing of her party during much of her time in office; and (3) a series of time-lag effects. Crime, being the expression of social and economic forces, did not rise dramatically during the early phase of Thatcherite restructuring. In crime and Criminal Justice Policy, radical Thatcherism post-dated Thatcher. It should be seen as a knock-on effect of the steep rise in unemployment and the social polarization resulting from Policy radicalism in other issue domains exacerbated by the slide into recession from 1990.
-
desistance focused Criminal Justice Policy research introduction to a special issue on desistance from crime and public Policy
Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 2004Co-Authors: Stephen Farrall, Shadd MarunaAbstract:From a very small base of empirical studies in the 1940s and 1950s, the literature on how and why people stop offending has grown rapidly in the last two decades (see Laub and Sampson (2001) for a comprehensive review). Only recently, however, have researchers started to forge links between studies of desistance from crime and 'What Works' in offender management Policy (see especially, Maruna and Immarigeon 2004). This 'coming together' of research into why people stop offending and the (re-)emergence of concerns with effective practice is, like many partnerships, partly the result of good timing, partly the result of fortune, and not without its tensions and struggles. The purpose of this introductory essay, and indeed of this special issue, is to explore these tensions in greater depth than has been possible in previous work.
David E Barlow - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the political economy of Criminal Justice Policy a time series analysis of economic conditions crime and federal Criminal Justice legislation 1948 1987
Justice Quarterly, 1996Co-Authors: David E Barlow, Melissa Hickman Barlow, Wesley W JohnsonAbstract:This study explores correlations between economic conditions, crime rates, and federal Criminal Justice legislation in the United States from 1948 to 1987. We expand on the punishment and social structure literature, inspired by Georg Rusche, by introducing new variables for operationalizing the political economy and Criminal Justice Policy. We conduct a multivariate time-series analysis using various national economic indicators of the conditions of capital and labor over 40 years. The findings provide some support for a relationship between economic conditions and Criminal Justice legislation, even when crime rate is controlled.
-
Long economic cycles and the Criminal Justice system in the U.S.
Crime Law and Social Change, 1993Co-Authors: David E Barlow, Melissa Hickman Barlow, Theodore G. ChiricosAbstract:Long cycles in capitalist development have been utilized as an analytical tool for political economic theory^1 and to explain major shifts in the social structure within capitalist political economies.^2 However, the potential impact that these massive changes in the political economy have on the historical development of Criminal Justice institutions and policies is an area not addressed within the literature. This article explores the relationship between long cycles of capitalist development and the historical formation of Criminal Justice Policy in the United States.