research criminal justice system definition

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

The Justice System

What is the sequence of events in the criminal justice system.

  To text description  | To a larger version of the chart  | Download high resolution version (.zip)

The flowchart of the events in the criminal justice system (shown in the diagram) updates the original chart prepared by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice in 1967. The chart summarizes the most common events in the criminal and juvenile justice systems including entry into the criminal justice system, prosecution and pretrial services, adjudication, sentencing and sanctions, and corrections. A discussion of the events in the criminal justice system follows.

The response to crime

The private sector initiates the response to crime

This first response may come from individuals, families, neighborhood associations, business, industry, agriculture, educational institutions, the news media, or any other private service to the public.

It involves crime prevention as well as participation in the criminal justice process once a crime has been committed. Private crime prevention is more than providing private security or burglar alarms or participating in neighborhood watch. It also includes a commitment to stop criminal behavior by not engaging in it or condoning it when it is committed by others.

Citizens take part directly in the criminal justice process by reporting crime to the police, by being a reliable participant (for example, a witness or a juror) in a criminal proceeding and by accepting the disposition of the system as just or reasonable. As voters and taxpayers, citizens also participate in criminal justice through the policymaking process that affects how the criminal justice process operates, the resources available to it, and its goals and objectives. At every stage of the process from the original formulation of objectives to the decision about where to locate jails and prisons to the reintegration of inmates into society, the private sector has a role to play. Without such involvement, the criminal justice process cannot serve the citizens it is intended to protect.

The response to crime and public safety involves many agencies and services

Many of the services needed to prevent crime and make neighborhoods safe are supplied by noncriminal justice agencies, including agencies with primary concern for public health, education, welfare, public works, and housing. Individual citizens as well as public and private sector organizations have joined with criminal justice agencies to prevent crime and make neighborhoods safe.

Criminal cases are brought by the government through the criminal justice system

We apprehend, try, and punish offenders by means of a loose confederation of agencies at all levels of government. Our American system of justice has evolved from the English common law into a complex series of procedures and decisions. Founded on the concept that crimes against an individual are crimes against the State, our justice system prosecutes individuals as though they victimized all of society. However, crime victims are involved throughout the process and many justice agencies have programs which focus on helping victims.

There is no single criminal justice system in this country. We have many similar systems that are individually unique. Criminal cases may be handled differently in different jurisdictions, but court decisions based on the due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution require that specific steps be taken in the administration of criminal justice so that the individual will be protected from undue intervention from the State.

The description of the criminal and juvenile justice systems that follows portrays the most common sequence of events in response to serious criminal behavior.

To contents

The justice system does not respond to most crime because so much crime is not discovered or reported to the police. Law enforcement agencies learn about crime from the reports of victims or other citizens, from discovery by a police officer in the field, from informants, or from investigative and intelligence work.

Once a law enforcement agency has established that a crime has been committed, a suspect must be identified and apprehended for the case to proceed through the system. Sometimes, a suspect is apprehended at the scene; however, identification of a suspect sometimes requires an extensive investigation. Often, no one is identified or apprehended. In some instances, a suspect is arrested and later the police determine that no crime was committed and the suspect is released.

After an arrest, law enforcement agencies present information about the case and about the accused to the prosecutor, who will decide if formal charges will be filed with the court. If no charges are filed, the accused must be released. The prosecutor can also drop charges after making efforts to prosecute (nolle prosequi).

A suspect charged with a crime must be taken before a judge or magistrate without unnecessary delay. At the initial appearance, the judge or magistrate informs the accused of the charges and decides whether there is probable cause to detain the accused person. If the offense is not very serious, the determination of guilt and assessment of a penalty may also occur at this stage.

Often, the defense counsel is also assigned at the initial appearance. All suspects prosecuted for serious crimes have a right to be represented by an attorney. If the court determines the suspect is indigent and cannot afford such representation, the court will assign counsel at the public's expense.

A pretrial-release decision may be made at the initial appearance, but may occur at other hearings or may be changed at another time during the process. Pretrial release and bail were traditionally intended to ensure appearance at trial. However, many jurisdictions permit pretrial detention of defendants accused of serious offenses and deemed to be dangerous to prevent them from committing crimes prior to trial.

The court often bases its pretrial decision on information about the defendant's drug use, as well as residence, employment, and family ties. The court may decide to release the accused on his/her own recognizance or into the custody of a third party after the posting of a financial bond or on the promise of satisfying certain conditions such as taking periodic drug tests to ensure drug abstinence.

In many jurisdictions, the initial appearance may be followed by a preliminary hearing. The main function of this hearing is to discover if there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed a known crime within the jurisdiction of the court. If the judge does not find probable cause, the case is dismissed; however, if the judge or magistrate finds probable cause for such a belief, or the accused waives his or her right to a preliminary hearing, the case may be bound over to a grand jury.

A grand jury hears evidence against the accused presented by the prosecutor and decides if there is sufficient evidence to cause the accused to be brought to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence, it submits to the court an indictment, a written statement of the essential facts of the offense charged against the accused.

Where the grand jury system is used, the grand jury may also investigate criminal activity generally and issue indictments called grand jury originals that initiate criminal cases. These investigations and indictments are often used in drug and conspiracy cases that involve complex organizations. After such an indictment, law enforcement tries to apprehend and arrest the suspects named in the indictment.

Misdemeanor cases and some felony cases proceed by the issuance of an information, a formal, written accusation submitted to the court by a prosecutor. In some jurisdictions, indictments may be required in felony cases. However, the accused may choose to waive a grand jury indictment and, instead, accept service of an information for the crime.

In some jurisdictions, defendants, often those without prior criminal records, may be eligible for diversion from prosecution subject to the completion of specific conditions such as drug treatment. Successful completion of the conditions may result in the dropping of charges or the expunging of the criminal record where the defendant is required to plead guilty prior to the diversion.

Once an indictment or information has been filed with the trial court, the accused is scheduled for arraignment. At the arraignment, the accused is informed of the charges, advised of the rights of criminal defendants, and asked to enter a plea to the charges. Sometimes, a plea of guilty is the result of negotiations between the prosecutor and the defendant.

If the accused pleads guilty or pleads nolo contendere (accepts penalty without admitting guilt), the judge may accept or reject the plea. If the plea is accepted, no trial is held and the offender is sentenced at this proceeding or at a later date. The plea may be rejected and proceed to trial if, for example, the judge believes that the accused may have been coerced.

If the accused pleads not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity, a date is set for the trial. A person accused of a serious crime is guaranteed a trial by jury. However, the accused may ask for a bench trial where the judge, rather than a jury, serves as the finder of fact. In both instances the prosecution and defense present evidence by questioning witnesses while the judge decides on issues of law. The trial results in acquittal or conviction on the original charges or on lesser included offenses.

After the trial a defendant may request appellate review of the conviction or sentence. In some cases, appeals of convictions are a matter of right; all States with the death penalty provide for automatic appeal of cases involving a death sentence. Appeals may be subject to the discretion of the appellate court and may be granted only on acceptance of a defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari. Prisoners may also appeal their sentences through civil rights petitions and writs of habeas corpus where they claim unlawful detention.

After a conviction, sentence is imposed. In most cases the judge decides on the sentence, but in some jurisdictions the sentence is decided by the jury, particularly for capital offenses.

In arriving at an appropriate sentence, a sentencing hearing may be held at which evidence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances is considered. In assessing the circumstances surrounding a convicted person's criminal behavior, courts often rely on presentence investigations by probation agencies or other designated authorities. Courts may also consider victim impact statements.

The sentencing choices that may be available to judges and juries include one or more of the following:

• the death penalty
• incarceration in a prison, jail, or other confinement facility
• probation - allowing the convicted person to remain at liberty but subject to certain conditions and restrictions such as drug testing or drug treatment
• fines - primarily applied as penalties in minor offenses
• restitution - requiring the offender to pay compensation to the victim.

In some jurisdictions, offenders may be sentenced to alternatives to incarceration that are considered more severe than straight probation but less severe than a prison term. Examples of such sanctions include boot camps, intense supervision often with drug treatment and testing, house arrest and electronic monitoring, denial of Federal benefits, and community service.

In many jurisdictions, the law mandates that persons convicted of certain types of offenses serve a prison term. Most jurisdictions permit the judge to set the sentence length within certain limits, but some have determinate sentencing laws that stipulate a specific sentence length that must be served and cannot be altered by a parole board.

Offenders sentenced to incarceration usually serve time in a local jail or a State prison. Offenders sentenced to less than 1 year generally go to jail; those sentenced to more than 1 year go to prison. Persons admitted to the Federal system or a State prison system may be held in prisons with varying levels of custody or in a community correctional facility.

A prisoner may become eligible for parole after serving a specific part of his or her sentence. Parole is the conditional release of a prisoner before the prisoner's full sentence has been served. The decision to grant parole is made by an authority such as a parole board, which has power to grant or revoke parole or to discharge a parolee altogether. The way parole decisions are made varies widely among jurisdictions.

Offenders may also be required to serve out their full sentences prior to release (expiration of term). Those sentenced under determinate sentencing laws can be released only after they have served their full sentence (mandatory release) less any "goodtime" received while in prison. Inmates get goodtime credits against their sentences automatically or by earning them through participation in programs.

If released by a parole board decision or by mandatory release, the releasee will be under the supervision of a parole officer in the community for the balance of his or her unexpired sentence. This supervision is governed by specific conditions of release, and the releasee may be returned to prison for violations of such conditions.

Once the suspects, defendants, or offenders are released from the jurisdiction of a criminal justice agency, they may be processed through the criminal justice system again for a new crime. Long term studies show that many suspects who are arrested have prior criminal histories and those with a greater number of prior arrests were more likely to be arrested again. As the courts take prior criminal history into account at sentencing, most prison inmates have a prior criminal history and many have been incarcerated before. Nationally, about half the inmates released from State prison will return to prison.

For statistics on this subject, see --   Juvenile justice and facts and figures

The juvenile justice system

Juvenile courts usually have jurisdiction over matters concerning children, including delinquency, neglect, and adoption. They also handle "status offenses" such as truancy and running away, which are not applicable to adults. State statutes define which persons are under the original jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in delinquency matters is 17 in most States.

The processing of juvenile offenders is not entirely dissimilar to adult criminal processing, but there are crucial differences. Many juveniles are referred to juvenile courts by law enforcement officers, but many others are referred by school officials, social services agencies, neighbors, and even parents, for behavior or conditions that are determined to require intervention by the formal system for social control.

At arrest, a decision is made either to send the matter further into the justice system or to divert the case out of the system, often to alternative programs. Examples of alternative programs include drug treatment, individual or group counseling, or referral to educational and recreational programs.

When juveniles are referred to the juvenile courts, the court's intake department or the prosecuting attorney determines whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant filing a petition that requests an adjudicatory hearing or a request to transfer jurisdiction to criminal court. At this point, many juveniles are released or diverted to alternative programs.

All States allow juveniles to be tried as adults in criminal court under certain circumstances. In many States, the legislature statutorily excludes certain (usually serious) offenses from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court regardless of the age of the accused. In some States and at the Federal level under certain circumstances, prosecutors have the discretion to either file criminal charges against juveniles directly in criminal courts or proceed through the juvenile justice process. The juvenile court's intake department or the prosecutor may petition the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction to criminal court. The juvenile court also may order referral to criminal court for trial as adults. In some jurisdictions, juveniles processed as adults may upon conviction be sentenced to either an adult or a juvenile facility.

In those cases where the juvenile court retains jurisdiction, the case may be handled formally by filing a delinquency petition or informally by diverting the juvenile to other agencies or programs in lieu of further court processing.

If a petition for an adjudicatory hearing is accepted, the juvenile may be brought before a court quite unlike the court with jurisdiction over adult offenders. Despite the considerable discretion associated with juvenile court proceedings, juveniles are afforded many of the due-process safeguards associated with adult criminal trials. Several States permit the use of juries in juvenile courts; however, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court holding that juries are not essential to juvenile hearings, most States do not make provisions for juries in juvenile courts.

In disposing of cases, juvenile courts usually have far more discretion than adult courts. In addition to such options as probation, commitment to a residential facility, restitution, or fines, State laws grant juvenile courts the power to order removal of children from their homes to foster homes or treatment facilities. Juvenile courts also may order participation in special programs aimed at shoplifting prevention, drug counseling, or driver education.

Once a juvenile is under juvenile court disposition, the court may retain jurisdiction until the juvenile legally becomes an adult (at age 21in most States). In some jurisdictions, juvenile offenders may be classified as youthful offenders which can lead to extended sentences.

Following release from an institution, juveniles are often ordered to a period of aftercare which is similar to parole supervision for adult offenders. Juvenile offenders who violate the conditions of aftercare may have their aftercare revoked, resulting in being recommitted to a facility. Juveniles who are classified as youthful offenders and violate the conditions of aftercare may be subject to adult sanctions.

The structure of the justice system

The governmental response to crime is founded in the intergovernmental structure of the United States

Under our form of government, each State and the Federal Government has its own criminal justice system. All systems must respect the rights of individuals set forth in court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and defined in case law.

State constitutions and laws define the criminal justice system within each State and delegate the authority and responsibility for criminal justice to various jurisdictions, officials, and institutions. State laws also define criminal behavior and groups of children or acts under jurisdiction of the juvenile courts.

Municipalities and counties further define their criminal justice systems through local ordinances that proscribe the local agencies responsible for criminal justice processing that were not established by the State.

Congress has also established a criminal justice system at the Federal level to respond to Federal crimes such a bank robbery, kidnaping, and transporting stolen goods across State lines.

The response to crime is mainly a State and local function

Very few crimes are under exclusive Federal jurisdiction. The responsibility to respond to most crime rests with State and local governments. Police protection is primarily a function of cities and towns. Corrections is primarily a function of State governments. Most justice personnel are employed at the local level.

Discretion is exercised throughout the criminal justice system

Discretion is "an authority conferred by law to act in certain conditions or situations in accordance with an official's or an official agency's own considered judgment and conscience." 1  Discretion is exercised throughout the government. It is a part of decision-making in all government systems from mental health to education, as well as criminal justice. The limits of discretion vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Concerning crime and justice, legislative bodies have recognized that they cannot anticipate the range of circumstances surrounding each crime, anticipate local mores, and enact laws that clearly encompass all conduct that is criminal and all that is not. 2  Therefore, persons charged with the day-to-day response to crime are expected to exercise their own judgment within limits set by law. Basically, they must decide -

• whether to take action
• where the situation fits in the scheme of law, rules, and precedent
• which official response is appropriate. 3

To ensure that discretion is exercised responsibly, government authority is often delegated to professionals. Professionalism requires a minimum level of training and orientation, which guide officials in making decisions. The professionalism of policing is due largely to the desire to ensure the proper exercise of police discretion.

The limits of discretion vary from State to State and locality to locality. For example, some State judges have wide discretion in the type of sentence they may impose. In recent years other States have sought to limit the judges discretion in sentencing by passing mandatory sentencing laws that require prison sentences for certain offenses.

1  Roscoe Pound, "Discretion, dispensation and mitigation: The problem of the individual special case," New York University Law Review (1960) 35:925, 926.

2  Wayne R. LaFave, Arrest: The decision to take a suspect into custody (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1964), p. 63-184.

3  Memorandum of June 21, 1977, from Mark Moore to James Vorenberg, "Some abstract notes on the issue of discretion."

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

How Research Is Translated to Policy and Practice in the Criminal Justice System

A recent NIJ-funded study of Florida’s correctional systems has shed new light on the question of how research is translated into policy and practice in the criminal justice system. Researchers found that the most common ways to effectively translate research to policy and practice included making the information easier to understand, more credible and more applicable to local circumstances; instead of presenting information in the academic research format that tends to be more complex and difficult to understand. The findings also indicated that the most successful way to translate research involved regular interactions between researchers and practitioners — specifically, that academics could do more to communicate and collaborate with policymakers and practitioners.

This study was carried out by scholars at Florida State University (FSU). The goal of the study was to describe the use of research and other factors in developing state-level juvenile and adult correctional policy and practice in the state of Florida and answer targeted questions, such as:

• What sources of information do Florida’s correctional policymakers use to make their decisions and how much influence do these factors have?
• What are the primary strategies used to inform policy with research evidence and what methods would help policymakers use evidence-based information in their decision-making process?
• What is the underlying process for research translation in shaping how policymakers assess and respond to problems?

To achieve their goal, the researchers used data from several sources, including:

• Relevant literature on research and public policy in criminal justice.
• Relevant legislative and state agency documents.
• Interviews and web surveys with established academic researchers and key decision makers from state agencies and legislative practitioners and policymakers.
• Observations of archived, pre-recorded legislative public hearings and committee meetings.

Prior literature was examined to identify themes (e.g., barriers, facilitators) for developing the interview and survey instruments that were to be used. An advisory panel of criminology research experts at FSU was then consulted about the project’s research design and methods. A total of eight academic researchers, eight practitioners and four policymakers were interviewed in person to explore “why” and “how” themes (e.g., “why” barriers may get in the way of knowledge translation and “how” certain strategies may help to translate research to policy and practice). Upon completing the interviews, online follow-up surveys were sent to the participants to compare and validate findings from past research about processes underlying research translation. In order to investigate process models of translational criminology, participants were also asked about researcher/practitioner partnerships during the interviews and follow-up surveys. In addition to the data from interviews and surveys, this study also examined four policy cases to assess how research was used in resulting policy/legislation.

Barriers to research translation and other influential factors

During the interviews, participants consistently mentioned six types of barriers or challenges to the research, knowledge and translation process. These barriers/challenges were (in descending order from the most to least frequently mentioned):

• Difficulty in interpreting and using research.
• Lack of support from leadership in using research.
• Differences in training between policymakers/practitioners versus researchers.
• Relationship issues (i.e., distrust, lack of access or lack of engagement between or within agencies or between academics and policymakers/practitioners).
• Budget and fiscal restrictions (e.g., limited research funds).
• Tendency for criminal justice policymaking to be event driven, which may not be compatible with the generally longer research process.

In addition to these barriers in using research, four influential factors other than research that interviewees mentioned as having a significant impact on correctional policy and practice included (in descending order from the most to least frequently mentioned): political ideology, special interest groups (e.g., advocacy), public opinion and the media.

The surveys also highlighted how much influence certain factors have on correctional policy and practice, such as fiscal constraints of correctional organizations, ranked as having the strongest influence, followed by political ideology and growing cost of incarceration. Notably, academic research, public opinion and social media were the three factors identified as having the weakest influence on correctional policy and practice. Lastly, respondents reported that they believed research has more of an influence on juvenile policies (50 percent endorsed) compared to adult policies (28 percent endorsed).

Kinds of evidence and research used by practitioners

Review of the policy case summaries showed that there was little evidence on the use of academic research in official legislative documents and public testimony. However, the interviews with research use, suggesting that official public documents may not be the sole or best resource to turn to when exploring research translation for a given policy.

Interviewee responses identified six main ways that policymakers and practitioners acquired evidence to inform their decision making, which included (in descending order from the most to least frequently mentioned): (1) government-sponsored or conducted research, (2) peer networking (e.g., other state practitioners), (3) intermediary policy and research organizations, (4) policy taskforces and councils, (5) peer reviewed research and (6) expert testimony.

Survey results also showed that researcher/practitioner partnerships were the most effective mechanism of knowledge translation and academic journals and social media were the least effective.

The interaction model: Most successful for research translation

The study’s researchers found that the process model most often linked to successful research knowledge translation in corrections was the interaction model, which involves relationships, partnerships and bidirectional communication between researchers and practitioners. An example of this model is researcher/ practitioner partnerships (RPPs). Participants of the study stated that long-term relationships and RPPs were among the most effective ways to translate research knowledge into correctional policy and practice.

How researchers and practitioners can improve research translation

Six main effective facilitators.

Interview results pointed to six main facilitators that make it easier to increase and improve the use of research to inform policy/practice, which included (in descending order from the most to least frequently mentioned):

• Relationships (e.g., trust, reciprocity).
• Involvement in the evidence-based movement (e.g., focus on using data to figure out best practices).
• Leadership’s support of research use in decision making.
• Research that makes concrete recommendations or is easy to understand (e.g., randomized control trials).
• Scarcity of budget, which pushes policymakers/practitioners to focus on evidence-based methods.
• Cross-training (e.g., researchers, engaging in policy research).

Five effective strategies

The interviews also pointed out five strategies to help improve the use of research, including:

• Increased investment in research.
• Support for research/practitioner partnerships.
• Ongoing task forces comprised of a range of individuals (e.g., researchers, criminal justice agency members and community agency members).
• Academics reaching out to practitioners (e.g., via practitioner- focused conferences).
• Cross-training researchers and practitioners.

Concluding remarks

This study shed light on how research is translated to correctional policy and practice, as well as methods to improve this process, with three important take-away points. First, the study found that government research, peer networking and policy/research organizations were the most frequently used sources for the research translation process, rather than academic publications and expert testimony. This is most likely because the aforementioned types of evidence are easier to understand, seen as more credible and can more easily be applied to local settings. Second, the study found that successful research translation is most likely to occur when researchers and practitioners build meaningful relationships and regularly interact and communicate to establish trust, credibility and reciprocity. Lastly, the study had important policy implications, especially for academics, specifically that academic researchers should be proactive in reaching out and working with policymakers and practitioners, as well as becoming involved in correctional policy and practice (e.g., through graduate courses that train students in conducting policy research).

About this Article

This article is based on research funded under grant 2014-IJ-CX-0035 awarded to the Florida State University. This article is based on the final report, “Translational Criminology — Research and Public Policy: Final Summary Report” (pdf, 44 pages) by George B. Pesta, Javier Ramos, J.W. Andrew Ranson, Alexa Singer, and Thomas G. Blomberg.

About the author

Yunsoo Park is a former visiting fellow at the National Institute of Justice.

Cite this Article

Read more about:, related publications.

• Translational Criminology - Research and Public Policy: Final Summary Report

Related Awards

• Translational Criminology: Research and Public Policy

3.2 Research Methods

It is important to study research methods to determine which method would work best in a particular scenario. Below we will examine the top five research methods used by criminologists today: survey, longitudinal, meta analysis, quasi-experimental research, cross-sectional research methods, and the gold standard of research methods – randomized control trial (RCT) method. (trudi)

3.2.1 Survey Research Method

Survey research is a quantitative and qualitative method with two important characteristics. First, the variables of interest are measured using self-reports. In essence, survey researchers ask their participants (who are often called respondents ) to report directly on their own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Second, considerable attention is paid to the issue of sampling. In particular, survey researchers have a strong preference for large random samples because they provide the most accurate estimates of what is true in the population. In fact, survey research may be the only approach in which random sampling is routinely used. Beyond these two characteristics, almost anything goes in survey research. Surveys can be long or short. They can be conducted in person, by telephone, through the mail, or over the Internet. They can be about voting intentions, consumer preferences, social attitudes, health, or anything else that it is possible to ask people about and receive meaningful answers. Although survey data are often analyzed using statistics, there are many questions that lend themselves to more qualitative analysis.

3.2.2 Meta Analysis Research Method

Meta-analysis is a research method that involves combining data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about a particular research question or topic. The goal of a meta-analysis is to identify consistent patterns or trends across studies, which can provide more reliable and precise estimates of the effects of an intervention or factor than any single study could provide on its own.

To conduct a meta-analysis, researchers typically begin by identifying a research question and a set of studies that have investigated that question. They then use statistical methods to combine the results of those studies, often weighting each study according to its sample size or other factors. By combining the results of multiple studies, meta-analysis can help to identify consistent findings across studies, as well as identify factors that may explain variability in results across studies.

One example of how a criminologist might employ meta-analysis is to examine the effectiveness of a particular intervention aimed at reducing crime, such as a community policing program. By conducting a meta-analysis of studies that have investigated the effectiveness of community policing, a criminologist could identify whether the intervention consistently leads to reductions in crime across different settings, populations, and study designs. They could also identify factors that may moderate the effectiveness of the intervention, such as the quality of implementation, the characteristics of the community, or the nature of the crime problem being addressed. Such findings could help policymakers and practitioners to make more informed decisions about how to allocate resources and implement crime reduction strategies. (chat gpt)

3.2.3 Quasi-Experimental Research Method

The prefix quasi means “resembling.” Thus quasi-experimental research is research that resembles experimental research but is not true experimental research. Although the independent variable is manipulated, participants are not randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Because the independent variable is manipulated before the dependent variable is measured, quasi-experimental research eliminates the directionality problem. But because participants are not randomly assigned—making it likely that there are other differences between conditions—quasi-experimental research does not eliminate the problem of confounding variables. In terms of internal validity, therefore, quasi-experiments are generally somewhere between correlational studies and true experiments.

Quasi-experiments are most likely to be conducted in field settings in which random assignment is difficult or impossible. They are often conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment or program. A criminal justice example of a quasi-experimental research method is the evaluation of a new correctional program in a state prison system. Suppose that a new educational program is implemented in one prison, but not in another prison, due to resource constraints. The correctional system may want to evaluate the impact of the program on the outcomes of the participating prisoners, such as recidivism rates or successful reentry into society after release.

To evaluate the program’s impact, researchers could use a quasi-experimental design by comparing the outcomes of prisoners who participate in the program with those who do not. However, since participation in the program is not randomly assigned, the researchers must take steps to control for other factors that may influence the outcomes, such as prior criminal history or demographic characteristics.

One way to control for these factors is to use statistical techniques, such as regression analysis or propensity score matching, to create comparable groups of participants and non-participants. The researchers can then compare the outcomes of these two groups to evaluate the program’s impact, while accounting for potential confounding factors.

This type of quasi-experimental research design can help correctional systems and policymakers to make informed decisions about the effectiveness of new programs, without requiring the time and resources necessary for a randomized controlled trial. However, it is important to note that quasi-experimental designs may be more prone to bias than randomized controlled trials, and therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution. (trudi / chat gpt)

3.2.4 Cross-Sectional Research Method

A cross-sectional research method is a research design that involves collecting data from a sample of individuals at a single point in time. A criminal justice example of a cross-sectional research method is a survey of public attitudes towards the police. In this study, a sample of individuals from a particular community or region would be selected and asked to complete a survey about their perceptions of the police, their confidence in the police, and their experiences with the police.

The survey would be administered at a single point in time, such as over the course of a week or a month. The data collected from the survey would provide a snapshot of public attitudes towards the police in the community during that period.

The findings from this cross-sectional research method could help law enforcement agencies to understand the perceptions of the public towards their work, identify areas of concern, and develop strategies to improve police-community relations. For example, if the survey reveals that a significant portion of the community does not trust the police, law enforcement agencies may consider implementing programs to improve transparency and accountability, or increase community engagement efforts.

However, it is important to note that cross-sectional research designs can only provide a snapshot of a particular point in time, and cannot provide information about how attitudes and perceptions may change over time. Longitudinal research designs that track changes in attitudes over time may be necessary to fully understand how attitudes towards the police may be influenced by events or interventions. (trudi / chat gpt)

3.2.5 Randomized Control Trial (RCT) Research Method

A Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) is a research method that involves randomly assigning participants to different groups, typically an intervention group and a control group, to test the effectiveness of an intervention or treatment. The goal of an RCT is to minimize bias and establish a causal relationship between the intervention and the outcome being studied.

• Good randomization will “wash out” any population bias
• Results can be analyzed with established statistical tools
• Populations of participating individuals are clearly identified

Disadvantages

• Expensive in terms of time and money
• Volunteer biases: the population that participates in the study may not be representative of the actual entire population

A criminal justice example of an RCT is the evaluation of a new education program for first-time offenders. In this study, a group of first-time offenders would be randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group. The intervention group would participate in free college courses and research opportunities for college credit as well as other types of support to address the underlying causes of their criminal behavior. The control group, on the other hand, would not receive the education program or support and would continue with the traditional criminal justice process.

After the intervention period, both groups would be assessed for outcomes such as recidivism rates or successful completion of probation. The researchers would then compare the outcomes of the two groups to evaluate the effectiveness of the diversion program.

A RCT in this criminal justice setting would provide strong evidence of the effectiveness of the diversion program, since the random assignment of participants to groups would help to control for other factors that may influence the outcomes. By establishing a causal relationship between the intervention and the outcomes, this RCT could help policymakers and practitioners to make informed decisions about the implementation and expansion of the diversion program to reduce recidivism and improve outcomes for first-time offenders. (trudi / chat gpt)

3.2.6 Impact on People’s Lives

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession. It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

Specifically in the field of criminal justice, research is critical because it provides a scientific and evidence-based approach to understanding and addressing the complex problems and issues that arise in the justice system. Through research, criminal justice professionals can gain a better understanding of the root causes of crime, the effectiveness of different intervention programs, and the impact of various policies and practices on public safety and community well-being.

In addition, research helps to identify and address biases and disparities in the criminal justice system. Through rigorous and objective research, criminal justice professionals can gain a better understanding of the factors that contribute to disparities in policing, sentencing, and other aspects of the justice system, and develop evidence-based solutions to address these issues. The Crime Prevention Science sections of each chapter in this textbook provide examples of such research and these sections are included in every chapter to demonstrate how important research is to the improvement of our criminal justice system.

Overall, research is critical in the field of criminal justice because it helps to promote evidence-based practices, improve outcomes, and ensure that the justice system operates fairly and equitably for all.

3.2.7 Statistics on “Other Groups”

Conducting research relies on gathering accurate and reliable data. When analyzing inequities within the Criminal Justice System, race and ethnicity are two of the variables gathered and considered in the research. However, how race and ethnicity are represented in the research can skew the data and cause challenges. For example, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) disaggregates race into the following categories:

• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Black or African American
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

And ethnicity into the following categories:

• Hispanic or Latino
• Not Hispanic or Latino

Simply using these categories can, in and of itself, cause distention and misinformation in how one self-identifies, in that not everyone feels they fit into these groupings. Over the years, the OMB has conducted reviews of race and ethnicity categories and have made some changes, and yet many still do not feel they fit within these prescribed groups. For example, someone may identify with the ethnicity of Hispanic or Latino but may not identify with any of the prescribed race categories. Thus if they chose to leave the race category blank the data would be incomplete or if the race category was a required field, the person may feel compelled to just choose one of the options, even if they didn’t identify as it, thus providing inaccurate information.

Although researchers have the ability to expand these categories, if they so choose, this too can cause misinformation as some research may have more disaggregated data than others. Researchers are also not required to expand these categories, except in a few specific situations, like those in the state of New York in which in December 2021, Governor Kathy Hochul signed New York State Law S.6639-A/A.6896-A. The law requires state agencies, boards, departments, and commissions to include more disaggregated options for Asian races to include: Korean, Tibetan, and Pakistani as well as more disaggregated options for Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander races to include: Samoan and Marshallese (Governor Hochul Signs Package of Legislation to Address Discrimination and Racial Injustice, 2021).

This has led to a number of researchers including “other” categories, allowing individuals to thus choose if they don’t feel they identify with one of the specific categories. Some researchers have also included the fill-in-the blank model in which respondents then check the “other” box and specify their self-identified race. These two options, although more inclusive to self-identification, can lead to additional data reporting issues, in which researchers are not able to aggregate the data due to too many variations in responses. This same concern can be applied in additional data collection categories as well, when the category options are limited and thus have the potential to exclude certain individuals.

3.2.8 Statistics on Native American and Latinx

According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report in 1999, Native Americans were incarcerated at a rate that was 38% higher than the national average (Greenfield, 1999). More recent data suggest that in jails 9,700 American Indian/Alaskan Native people – or 401 per 100,000 population – were held in local jails across the country as of late June, 2018. That’s almost twice the jail incarceration rates of both white and Hispanic people (187 and 185 per 100,000, respectively) (Zen, 2018). In 19 states, they are more overrepresented in the prison population compared to any other race and ethnicity (Sakala, L., 2010). Between 2010 and 2015, the number of Native Americans incarcerated in federal prisons increased by 27% (Flanigan, 2015). In Alaska, data published by the 2010 US Census revealed that 38% of incarcerated people are American Indian or Alaskan Native despite the fact that they make up only 15% of the total population (Sakala, 2010). Native youth are highly impacted by the US prison system, despite accounting for 1% of the national youth population, 70% of youth taken into federal prison are Native American (Lakota People’s Law Project, 2015). Native American men are admitted to prison at four times the rate of white men, and Native American women are admitted at 6 times the rate of white women(Lakota People’s Law Project, 2015).

Latinos are incarcerated at a rate about 2 times higher than non-Latino whites and are considered one of the fastest-growing minority groups incarcerated (Kopf, Wagner, 2015).

3.2.9 Licenses and Attributions for Research Methods

“3.2 Research Methods” by Trudi Radtke and Megan Gonzalez is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 , except where otherwise noted.

“3.2.1. Survey Research Method” by Trudi Radtke and Megan Gonzalez is partially adapted from “ Overview of Survey Research ” by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang in Research Methods in Psychology – 2nd Canadian Edition , licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 .

“3.2.6. Impact on People’s Lives” by Trudi Radtke and Megan Gonzalez is partially adapted from “ 2.1 Why is Research Important – Introductory Psychology ” by Kathryn Dumper, William Jenkins, Arlene Lacombe, Marilyn Lovett, and Marion Perimutter in Introductory Psychology , licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 .

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System Copyright © by Sam Arungwa. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

Criminal Justice

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 16 December 2023
• Cite this reference work entry

• Kelly Welch 3  

42 Accesses

Introduction

Criminal justice can be conceptualized as an ideology, a system, and a process that aims to reduce crime by achieving certain objectives, such as deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, restitution, and retribution. Criminal justice can have different meanings to different people, under different circumstances, within different cultures and societies globally. Generally speaking, criminal justice refers to the broad range of theories, laws, practices, and institutions that together seek to address the problem of crime in society. It is the delivery of an outcome, most frequently in the form of punishment, for those who have violated the law. But what exactly one believes that outcome should entail is entirely dependent on individual perspective and ideology, both of which are conditioned by historical, geographical, and experiential context as well as the circumstances of any given crime. Crime can be generally defined as an act that violates an established law. And...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Beccaria C (1764/1963) On crimes and punishments. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis

Google Scholar  

Bentham J (1823) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford University Press, New York

Death Penalty Information Center (n.d.) Costs: studies consistently find that the death penalty is more expensive than alternative punishments. Retrieved at https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs

Ellsworth PC, Ross L (1983) Public opinion and capital punishment: a close examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime Delinq 29(1):116–169

Article   Google Scholar  

Foucault M (1977) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Random House, New York

Latessa EJ, Johnson SL, Koetzle D (2020) What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism. Routledge, Oxfordshire

Book   Google Scholar  

National Institute of Justice (2016) Five things about deterrence. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

Oliver WM (2017) August Vollmer: the father of American policing. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

United States. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) The challenge of crime in a free society: a report. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology and Criminology, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

Kelly Welch

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly Welch .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Regents Professor of the University, System of Maryland and Director of the University of Baltimore Center for International and Comparative Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, Baltimore, USA

Mortimer Sellers

Professor for Legal and Social Philosophy, Department of Legal Theory International and European Law, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

Stephan Kirste

Section Editor information

Philosophy Department, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

Sally Scholz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Science + Business Media B.V., Dordrecht.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Welch, K. (2023). Criminal Justice. In: Sellers, M., Kirste, S. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6519-1_1038

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6519-1_1038

Published : 16 December 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-6518-4

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-6519-1

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Law & Society Review
• > Volume 6 Issue 2: Special Issue on the Police
• > Research Models in Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Article contents

Research models in law enforcement and criminal justice.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

A generation ago, one professor at Harvard Law School used to greet his students at the beginning of the semester with an offer to debate them on any subject so long as he was allowed to “state the question.” Any review of the crime, law enforcement, and criminal justice literature produced during the last ten years indicates that there is still as much disagreement over how the “relevant” questions should be stated as there is over the answers to these questions. Despite a strong public demand to “stop crime,” there is little consensus within the research community as to the questions (if any) which, if answered, would assist in the prevention of crime or the improvement of police, court, and correctional processes. Much of the literature “states the question” in terms of the narrowly defined “efficiency” of law enforcement and criminal justice agencies; a second group asks questions concerning the functions assigned to the criminal justice system; and a third set of critics are concerned with the implications of decisions made by the police, judges, and correctional officials for a democratic system of government. While I cannot attempt to review the literature which has been generated under these three models, I will describe each briefly and suggest some of the problems that have risen in research on law enforcement and criminal justice.

Access options

AUTHOR'S NOTE: The opinions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, or the United States Department of Justice.

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 6, Issue 2
• John A. Gardiner (a1)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3052853

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Criminal Justice

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Criminology research methods.

This section provides an overview of various research methods used in criminology and criminal justice. It covers a range of approaches from quantitative research methods such as crime classification systems, crime reports and statistics, citation and content analysis, crime mapping, and experimental criminology, to qualitative methods such as edge ethnography and fieldwork in criminology. Additionally, we explore two particular programs for monitoring drug abuse among arrestees, namely, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM). Finally, the article highlights the importance of criminal justice program evaluation in shaping policy decisions. Overall, this overview demonstrates the significance of a multidisciplinary approach to criminology research, and the need to combine both qualitative and quantitative research methods to gain a comprehensive understanding of crime and its causes.

I. Introduction

• Brief overview of criminology research methods • Importance of understanding different research methods in criminology

II. Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)

• Definition and purpose of DAWN and ADAM • Methodology and data collection process • Significance of DAWN and ADAM data in criminology research

III. Crime Classification Systems: NCVS, NIBRS, and UCR

• Overview and purpose of each system • Differences between the systems • Advantages and limitations of each system

IV. Crime Reports and Statistics

• Sources of crime data and statistics • Limitations of crime data and statistics • Use of crime data and statistics in criminology research

V. Citation and Content Analysis

• Definition and purpose of citation and content analysis • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of citation and content analysis in criminology research

VI. Crime Mapping

• Definition and purpose of crime mapping • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of crime mapping in criminology research

VII. Edge Ethnography

• Definition and purpose of edge ethnography • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of edge ethnography in criminology research

VIII. Experimental Criminology

• Definition and purpose of experimental criminology • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of experimental criminology in criminology research

IX. Fieldwork in Criminology

• Definition and purpose of fieldwork in criminology • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of fieldwork in criminology research

X. Criminal Justice Program Evaluation

• Definition and purpose of criminal justice program evaluation • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of criminal justice program evaluation in criminology research

XI. Quantitative Criminology

• Definition and purpose of quantitative criminology • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of quantitative criminology in criminology research

XII. Conclusion

• Importance of understanding different research methods in criminology • Future directions for criminology research methods

Criminology research methods are crucial for understanding the causes and patterns of crime, as well as developing effective strategies for prevention and intervention. There are various methods used in criminological research, each with its own strengths and limitations. Understanding the different research methods is essential for conducting high-quality research that can inform policies and practices aimed at reducing crime and promoting public safety. This overview provides an overview of some of the most commonly used criminology research methods, including the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM), crime classification systems such as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), and Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), crime reports and statistics, citation and content analysis, crime mapping, edge ethnography, experimental criminology, fieldwork in criminology, and quantitative criminology. The survey highlights the importance of understanding these methods and their applications in criminology research.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) are two important research methods used in criminology to collect data on drug use and abuse among the population.

DAWN is a national public health surveillance system that tracks drug-related emergency department visits and deaths in the United States. The system collects data on drug-related medical emergencies and deaths from a variety of sources, including hospitals, medical examiners, and coroners. The purpose of DAWN is to provide information on drug use trends and the impact of drug use on public health and safety.

ADAM, on the other hand, is a research program that collects data on drug use and drug-related criminal activity among individuals who have been arrested and booked into jail. The program is designed to provide information on the prevalence of drug use and abuse among individuals involved in the criminal justice system.

Both DAWN and ADAM use similar methodology and data collection processes. Data is collected through interviews with individuals who have been involved in drug-related incidents, and through the analysis of drug-related data collected from medical and criminal justice records.

The significance of DAWN and ADAM data in criminology research is twofold. First, the data provides valuable information on drug use trends and patterns, which can inform the development of drug prevention and treatment programs. Second, the data can be used to understand the relationship between drug use and criminal behavior, and to inform criminal justice policies related to drug offenses.

Overall, the use of DAWN and ADAM in criminology research has contributed significantly to our understanding of drug use and abuse among the population, and has helped inform public health and criminal justice policies related to drug offenses.

The classification of crimes is an essential component of criminology research. The three main crime classification systems used in the United States are the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), and the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

The NCVS is a victimization survey that collects data on the frequency and nature of crimes that are not reported to law enforcement. The survey is conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and includes a sample of households and individuals. The NCVS provides valuable insights into crime victimization patterns and trends.

The NIBRS, on the other hand, is a more detailed crime reporting system that provides a comprehensive view of crime incidents. It captures more data than the UCR, including information on the victim, offender, and the circumstances surrounding the crime. The NIBRS is being adopted by law enforcement agencies across the country and is expected to replace the UCR as the primary crime reporting system.

The UCR is the longest-running and most widely used crime reporting system in the United States. It collects data on seven index crimes, including murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. The UCR provides an overview of crime trends and patterns at the national, state, and local levels.

Each system has its advantages and limitations. For example, the NCVS provides valuable information on crime victimization that is not captured by the UCR or NIBRS. The NIBRS provides more detailed information on crimes than the UCR but requires more resources to implement. The UCR is widely used and provides long-term trends but does not capture detailed information on each crime incident.

Understanding the differences and similarities between these classification systems is important for criminology research and policy development.

Crime reports and statistics are essential sources of data for criminology research. Law enforcement agencies, criminal justice systems, and government agencies collect and analyze crime data to develop policies and strategies to reduce crime rates. However, crime data and statistics have several limitations that researchers should consider when interpreting and using them in research.

One limitation of crime data and statistics is that they rely on the accuracy and completeness of reported crimes. Not all crimes are reported to law enforcement, and those that are reported may not be accurately recorded. Additionally, the police may have biases in their reporting practices, which can affect the accuracy of the data.

Another limitation of crime data and statistics is that they do not always provide a complete picture of crime. For example, crime data may not capture crimes that occur in private places or are committed by people who are not typically considered criminals, such as white-collar criminals.

Despite these limitations, crime data and statistics are still valuable sources of information for criminology research. They can help researchers identify patterns and trends in crime rates and understand the factors that contribute to criminal behavior. Crime data can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs.

Researchers should be cautious when using crime data and statistics in their research and acknowledge the limitations of these sources. They should also consider using multiple sources of data to triangulate their findings and develop a more comprehensive understanding of crime trends and patterns.

Citation and content analysis are research methods that are increasingly used in criminology. Citation analysis involves the systematic examination of citations in published works to determine patterns of authorship, influence, and intellectual relationships within a given field. Content analysis, on the other hand, involves the systematic examination of written or visual material to identify patterns or themes in the content.

In criminology research, citation and content analysis can be used to study a wide range of topics, including the evolution of criminological theories, the impact of specific research studies, and the representation of crime and justice issues in the media. These methods can also be used to identify gaps in the literature and to develop new research questions.

The methodology for citation analysis involves gathering data on citations from published works, including books, articles, and other sources. This data is then analyzed to determine patterns in the citations, such as which works are cited most frequently and by whom. Content analysis involves the systematic examination of written or visual material, such as news articles or social media posts, to identify patterns or themes in the content. This process may involve coding the content based on specific categories or themes, or using machine learning algorithms to identify patterns in the data.

Citation and content analysis are important tools in criminology research because they provide a way to examine the influence of research and ideas over time, as well as the representation of crime and justice issues in the media. However, these methods also have limitations, such as the potential for bias in the selection of sources or the coding of content.

Overall, citation and content analysis are valuable research methods in criminology that can provide insights into the evolution of criminological theories, the impact of specific research studies, and the representation of crime and justice issues in the media.

Crime mapping is a criminology research method that visualizes the spatial distribution of crime incidents. Crime mapping involves the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other digital mapping tools to display crime data. The purpose of crime mapping is to provide researchers and law enforcement agencies with a better understanding of the spatial patterns of criminal activity in a given area.

Methodology and data collection process for crime mapping involve the collection of crime data and the use of GIS software to display the data in a visual format. Crime data can be collected from a variety of sources, such as police reports, victim surveys, and self-report surveys. Once the data is collected, it is geocoded, or assigned a geographic location, using a global positioning system (GPS) or address information.

The applications of crime mapping in criminology research are numerous. Crime mapping can be used to identify crime hotspots, or areas with a high concentration of criminal activity, which can help law enforcement agencies allocate resources more effectively. Crime mapping can also be used to identify crime patterns and trends over time, which can help researchers and law enforcement agencies develop strategies to prevent crime. Additionally, crime mapping can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of crime prevention and intervention strategies.

In conclusion, crime mapping is a valuable criminology research method that can provide researchers and law enforcement agencies with important insights into the spatial patterns of criminal activity. By using GIS and other digital mapping tools, crime mapping can help researchers and law enforcement agencies develop effective crime prevention and intervention strategies.

Edge ethnography is a criminology research method that focuses on studying the behaviors and social interactions of people on the fringes of society. It is often used to explore deviant or criminal behaviors in subcultures and marginalized groups. Edge ethnography involves immersive fieldwork, where the researcher actively participates in the activities of the group being studied to gain a deeper understanding of their values, beliefs, and practices.

The data collection process in edge ethnography involves participant observation, in-depth interviews, and document analysis. The researcher spends a considerable amount of time in the field to gain the trust and respect of the group members and to observe their behaviors and social interactions in a naturalistic setting. The researcher may also collect artifacts, such as photos and videos, to provide additional insights into the group’s activities.

Edge ethnography has many applications in criminology research. It can be used to explore the social and cultural contexts of criminal behaviors, as well as the experiences of marginalized groups in the criminal justice system. It can also be used to identify emerging trends and subcultures that may be associated with criminal activities.

However, edge ethnography also has limitations. It can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring the researcher to spend a considerable amount of time in the field. It may also raise ethical concerns, particularly if the researcher is studying criminal activities or subcultures that engage in illegal behaviors. Therefore, it is important for researchers to carefully consider the ethical implications of their research and to take steps to protect the privacy and safety of their subjects.

Experimental criminology refers to the use of scientific experimentation to test theories related to crime and deviance. The goal is to isolate the effects of specific factors on criminal behavior by manipulating one variable while holding others constant. Experimental criminology can involve lab experiments, field experiments, and quasi-experiments.

The methodology involves randomly assigning participants to different groups, manipulating the independent variable, and measuring the dependent variable. The data collected can be both quantitative and qualitative.

Experimental criminology has been used to test a variety of theories related to crime, including deterrence theory, social learning theory, and strain theory. It has also been used to evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions, such as drug treatment programs and community policing initiatives.

Despite the potential benefits of experimental criminology, there are limitations to its use. For example, it can be difficult to generalize the findings of a lab experiment to real-world situations, and ethical concerns may arise when manipulating variables related to criminal behavior. However, experimental criminology remains a valuable tool in the criminology research arsenal.

Fieldwork is an integral part of criminology research that involves researchers immersing themselves in the settings they are studying to gather firsthand information about the social and cultural dynamics of the phenomenon being studied. Fieldwork in criminology can be conducted through various methods such as participant observation, ethnography, case studies, and interviews.

The purpose of fieldwork in criminology is to gain a deeper understanding of the social and cultural factors that contribute to criminal behavior, victimization, and the criminal justice system. Fieldwork also provides insights into the lived experiences of those involved in the criminal justice system and how they perceive and experience law enforcement, punishment, and rehabilitation.

The methodology and data collection process in fieldwork in criminology involve a range of activities, including developing research questions, selecting research sites, building relationships with research participants, conducting observations and interviews, collecting data, and analyzing data. Researchers may also use various tools such as field notes, audio and video recordings, photographs, and maps to document their observations and experiences.

Fieldwork in criminology has various applications, including exploring the social and cultural dynamics of crime and criminal justice, evaluating criminal justice programs and policies, and understanding the experiences of victims, offenders, and criminal justice professionals. Fieldwork is particularly useful in gaining insights into the perspectives and experiences of marginalized and vulnerable populations, such as those living in poverty, incarcerated individuals, and communities that experience high rates of crime.

Overall, fieldwork in criminology is a valuable research method that provides rich and detailed information about the social and cultural dynamics of crime, victimization, and the criminal justice system. It allows researchers to gain insights into the experiences and perspectives of those involved in the criminal justice system and provides opportunities to evaluate and improve criminal justice policies and programs.

Criminal justice program evaluation refers to the systematic assessment of programs and policies implemented within the criminal justice system to determine their effectiveness in achieving their intended goals. The evaluation process involves collecting and analyzing data to assess the program’s impact, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency. Program evaluation is an essential tool for policymakers and practitioners to make informed decisions about criminal justice policies and programs.

The methodology used in program evaluation varies depending on the program or policy being evaluated. However, the process typically involves identifying the program’s goals and objectives, determining the program’s theory of change, identifying the target population, developing measures to evaluate the program, collecting and analyzing data, and reporting the findings.

Criminal justice program evaluation can be used to assess a wide range of programs, including correctional programs, law enforcement initiatives, and community-based programs. Evaluation findings can be used to determine the effectiveness of the program in reducing recidivism, improving public safety, or achieving other goals.

In recent years, criminal justice program evaluation has gained increasing attention as policymakers and practitioners seek evidence-based solutions to address the challenges facing the criminal justice system. The use of program evaluation has been instrumental in identifying effective interventions and programs, as well as those that are ineffective or even counterproductive.

Overall, criminal justice program evaluation is a critical tool for improving the effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs. By providing policymakers and practitioners with evidence-based information, program evaluation can help to ensure that resources are used efficiently and effectively to promote public safety and reduce crime.

Quantitative criminology is a research method that involves the use of statistical data and techniques to analyze and understand crime patterns and behavior. It focuses on measuring and analyzing crime trends and patterns, identifying risk factors, and evaluating the effectiveness of crime prevention and intervention programs.

Quantitative criminology involves the use of numerical data to understand crime and its correlates. The purpose of this research method is to test theories and hypotheses about the causes and consequences of crime, identify patterns and trends, and evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs.

Quantitative criminology uses a variety of research methods and data collection techniques, including surveys, experiments, observations, and secondary data analysis. Researchers use statistical analysis to identify patterns, trends, and relationships among variables, such as crime rates, demographic characteristics, and socioeconomic factors.

Quantitative criminology has been used to study a wide range of topics, including the relationship between crime and social inequality, the effectiveness of community policing programs, and the impact of incarceration on recidivism. It has also been used to develop and test theories of crime, such as social disorganization theory and strain theory.

Quantitative criminology has contributed significantly to our understanding of crime and criminal behavior. It has provided valuable insights into the causes and consequences of crime and helped to inform the development of effective crime prevention and intervention programs.

The study of criminology is a complex field that requires a variety of research methods to understand and analyze the causes and patterns of crime. This article has provided an overview of several important criminology research methods, including the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM), crime classification systems such as NCVS, NIBRS, and UCR, crime reports and statistics, citation and content analysis, crime mapping, edge ethnography, experimental criminology, fieldwork, and criminal justice program evaluation. Each research method has its unique strengths and limitations, making it important for criminologists to choose the appropriate method for their research question.

As the field of criminology continues to evolve, it is important for researchers to consider new and innovative research methods. Future directions in criminology research may include advances in technology, such as the use of big data analytics and machine learning algorithms, as well as an increased emphasis on interdisciplinary collaborations between criminologists and experts in fields such as psychology, sociology, and public health.

Overall, the study of criminology requires a diverse range of research methods to fully understand the complex nature of crime and its causes. By utilizing these methods and continuing to explore new avenues for research, criminologists can make important contributions to our understanding of crime and help inform policies and interventions aimed at reducing crime and promoting public safety.

References:

• Aebi, M. F., Tiago, M. M., & Burkhardt, C. (2018). The future of crime and crime control between tradition and innovation. Cham: Springer.
• Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (2013). Environmental criminology. In The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 387-408). Oxford University Press.
• Clarke, R. V. (2017). Situational crime prevention. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 124-136). Routledge.
• Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American sociological review, 44(4), 588-608.
• Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2017). Criminal justice research methods: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Dantzker, M. L., & Hunter, R. D. (2017). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (10th ed.). Routledge.
• Eck, J. E. (2017). Problem-oriented policing. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 137-150). Routledge.
• Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. (2015). What is problem-oriented policing?. Crime and justice, 44(1), 1-54.
• Felson, M. (2017). Routine activity theory. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 79-92). Routledge.
• Fox, J. A. (2015). Trends in drug use and related criminal behavior. In Drugs and crime (pp. 19-47). Springer.
• Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
• Hagan, F. E., & Foster, H. (2017). Crime and inequality. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 47-62). Routledge.
• Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2009). Crime, policing and social order: On the expressive nature of public confidence in policing. British Journal of Sociology, 60(3), 493-521.
• Kelling, G. L., & Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. Simon and Schuster.
• Maguire, M., & Snider, L. (2017). Understanding criminal justice. Routledge.
• Mazerolle, L., & Rombouts, S. (2017). Experimental criminology. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 93-107). Routledge.
• Mazerolle, L., & Roehl, J. (2008). Policing, crime, and hot spots policing. Crime and justice, 37(1), 315-363.
• National Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Crime mapping research center. Retrieved from https://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/maps/Pages/welcome.aspx
• Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Morash, M. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of criminological theory. Oxford University Press.
• Weisburd, D., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Evidence-Based Practices in the Criminal Justice System: An Annotated Bibliography

“What Is the Evidence?"

Evidence-based policy and practice is focused on reducing offender risk, which in turn reduces new crime and improves public safety. Of the many available approaches to community supervision, a few core principles stand out as proven risk reduction strategies. Though not all of the principles are supported by the same weight of evidence, each has been proven to influence positive behavior change.

To organize the research, these core principles have been compiled... into the 8 Principles of evidence-based practice in corrections. This bibliography is not a complete list of “EBP” citations, but a mere selection based on questions we receive at the Information Center.

They are organized according to: Introduction;

• In the Beginning;
• Principles 1 and 3. Assess Risk and Needs and Target Interventions--Risk, Need, Responsivity (RNR), and Dosage;
• Principle 2. Enhance Motivation to Change;
• Principle 4. Skill Training with Directed Practice (CBT);
• Principle 5. Increase Positive Reinforcement (See Incentives and Sanctions/Contingency Management);
• Principle 6. Engage Ongoing Community Support;
• Principles 7 & 8. Measure Relevant Processes and Practices and Measurement Feedback;
• Blueprints Programs; Caseload Size; Evaluated Programs, including Core Correctional Practices (CCP); Incentives and Sanctions/Contingency Management; Juveniles; Pretrial Services; Prisons; Sex Offenders; Specialized Assessment; Specialty Courts; Supervision by Risk Level; Women Offenders; Training Materials/Presentations; Websites; and Agency Reports.

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

criminal justice

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• The Balance Careers - Learn About Criminal Justice
• Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Criminal Justice

criminal justice , interdisciplinary academic study of the police , criminal courts , correctional institutions (e.g., prisons ), and juvenile justice agencies, as well as of the agents who operate within these institutions. Criminal justice is distinct from criminal law , which defines the specific behaviours that are prohibited by and punishable under law , and from criminology , which is the scientific study of the nonlegal aspects of crime and delinquency , including their causes, correction, and prevention.

The field of criminal justice emerged in the United States in the second half of the 20th century. As the Supreme Court of the United States gradually expanded the rights of criminal defendants on the basis of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution , the gap between the actual performance of criminal justice agencies and what was legally required and legitimately expected of them began to grow. In the 1970s, as part of a broader effort to improve these agencies, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice provided grants for college study to thousands of criminal justice personnel, resulting in the creation of numerous criminal justice courses and programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. By the end of the 20th century, many colleges and universities offered bachelor’s degrees in criminal justice, and some offered master’s and doctoral degrees.

Research in criminal justice developed rapidly in the 1980s and ’90s, a result of the increasing number of academics interested in the field and the growing availability of government funding. At first, such studies consisted of qualitative descriptive analyses written by individual scholars and based on observations of particular criminal justice agencies. As the discipline matured, research gradually became broader and more quantitative. Many scholars focused on evaluating the effectiveness of specific criminal justice policies in combating crime. Some studies, for example, examined whether the arrest of a physically abusive spouse tended to prevent future incidents of battering or whether prison rehabilitation programs reduced rates of recidivism . Other studies compared the effectiveness of different programs aimed at the same result—e.g., sending youthful offenders to “boot camps” or to more-traditional juvenile institutions.

Since the 1980s, criminal justice policy in the United States has been profoundly influenced by scholarly research in the field. For example, community policing, a strategy designed to prevent crime and improve citizens’ overall quality of life by assigning officers to permanent neighbourhood patrols, originated in the recommendations of criminal justice scholars. Criminal justice research also influenced the widespread restructuring of sentencing and parole decisions in the 1980s and ’90s. Formerly, judges and parole boards had a great degree of discretion in making such decisions, which gave rise to disparities in sentences. Sentencing and parole guidelines reduced this disparity, but it also contributed to large increases in imprisonment. In the early 21st century a report in the United States on programs that proved effective in preventing crimes, commissioned by the U.S. Congress and published by the National Institute of Justice, generated support for the notion that such programs should be “evidence-based” (i.e., proven effective through systematic research and evaluation).

Not all criminal justice research has produced fruitful results. For example, in the 1980s and ’90s numerous studies attempted to develop methods for predicting which offenders were most likely to commit future crimes. The premise was that those most likely to become habitual offenders should be incarcerated for longer periods, if not indefinitely. However, attempts to establish which offenders were likely to commit future crimes proved unsuccessful. It also was problematic because it appeared to be inconsistent with the constitutional rights of offenders, punishing them for what they might do in the future rather than for what they had actually done in the past. Outside the United States, criminal justice researchers are more closely tied to existing criminal justice agencies (i.e., tied to police agencies, courts, or correctional systems), helping to implement their policies rather than independently researching them.

Partnership

Sole proprietorship, limited partnership, compare businesses, employee rights, osha regulations, labor hours, personal & family, child custody & support, guardianship, incarceration, civil and misdemeanors, legal separation, real estate law, tax, licenses & permits, business licenses, wills & trusts, power of attorney, last will & testament, living trust, living will.

• Share Tweet Email Print

INCARCERATION

The purpose of learning research in criminal justice.

By Annie Sisk, J.D.

January 08, 2020

Reviewed by Michelle Seidel, B.Sc., LL.B., MBA

Learn About Our Review Process

Our Review Process

We write helpful content to answer your questions from our expert network. We perform original research, solicit expert feedback, and review new content to ensure it meets our quality pledge: helpful content – Trusted, Vetted, Expert-Reviewed and Edited. Our content experts ensure our topics are complete and clearly demonstrate a depth of knowledge beyond the rote. We are incredibly worried about the state of general information available on the internet and strongly believe our mission is to give voice to unsung experts leading their respective fields. Our commitment is to provide clear, original, and accurate information in accessible formats. We have reviewed our content for bias and company-wide, we routinely meet with national experts to educate ourselves on better ways to deliver accessible content. For 15 years our company has published content with clear steps to accomplish the how, with high quality sourcing to answer the why, and with original formats to make the internet a helpful place. Read more about our editorial standards .

• Research Methods for Criminology & Criminal Justice

Research is the primary tool for advancing any body of knowledge, including the field of criminal justice. Research helps students, scholars, criminal justice professionals and government policymakers identify what works in the areas of law enforcement, corrections and crime prevention.

Learning research in criminal justice helps students think critically and ultimately aids in the formulation of evidence-based criminal justice policies and practices. Solid research skills in the criminal justice profession, especially among those new to the field, can help eliminate the gap between the practice of criminal justice professions and the advancements in knowledge that flow from properly conducted research. As a result, laws and policies should tend to evolve to become more effective and efficient over time.

Types of Research Education in Criminal Justice Programs

Because criminal justice is a branch of the social sciences, research in this field uses the same tools and methods that are utilized by researchers in sociology, political science, economics and other social sciences. Undergraduate and graduate programs in criminal justice include among their coursework requirements at least one class in social science research methods. Often, these programs require students to complete at least one statistics course, as well. Read More: What's Criminal Justice?

Benefits to Criminal Justice Students

Learning research in academic criminal justice studies confers a number of benefits to students. First, learning research methods develops critical thinking and analytical skills. Learning to conduct proper research helps instill in students a procedurally and intellectually sound approach to evaluating and analyzing evidence of any kind.

Second, students learn to challenge implicit biases and assumptions by looking objectively at data and factual information. This is the essence of research, but it is also at the core of professional obligations in the criminal justice field. Uncovering the truth in an investigation, evaluating physical and forensic evidence and working with offenders to prevent recidivism all benefit from an objective, fact-based approach to analysis.

These abilities benefit the student not only educationally and personally, but professionally as well. Knowing how to analyze and make sense of data and information from multiple sources is a valuable skill in the criminal justice field and any profession.

Improving Criminal Justice Policymaking and Procedure

An important link often exists between research and policy-making. Criminal justice researchers attempt to study issues of crime and justice scientifically. They select areas of interest to research, present their studies at conferences, publish their findings in criminology and criminal justice journals, and communicate their research in such a way that law enforcement officials and government policymakers can translate it into more effective anti-crime policy.

Currently, some experts have observed a failure among policymakers to fully implement the lessons learned through research-backed evidence into the causes, contexts and risk factors for criminal behavior. Empirical research into practical aspects of criminology – what systems and approaches produce the most effective diversions from criminal behavior, for example, or the relative utility of early and developmental crime prevention interventions – helps these policymakers make better, more cost-efficient choices as to where to spend public funds for the most positive overall impact.

Role of Research Skills in the Criminal Justice Context

Research can undoubtedly aid in forming sound and more effective policies and procedures in the criminal justice system. However, it is arguably just as important for professionals operating in law enforcement, corrections and other criminal justice contexts.

When police officers, detectives, correctional officers and parole officers understand the basic concepts, principles and methods used in criminal justice research, they are more capable of identifying sound evidence-based developments and implementing them safely in their daily job duties. Ultimately, these skills also help criminal justice professionals support and aid in the development of new policies and procedures. In this way, research helps identify more effective approaches to law enforcement and the administration of justice.

Limitations of Criminal Justice Research

Studies in the field of criminal justice are sometimes filled with qualifications and reservations, just as may be true for any social science research studies. Criminal justice research will not and does not seek to identify a “cure” for criminal behavior. Instead, reliable and properly documented criminal justice studies concede at the outset the strengths and weaknesses inherent in their underlying methodology.

As a result, when students are exposed to the various types of inquiry and methodologies used in criminal justice research, they become more sophisticated consumers of research. In time, this academic foundation becomes a professional skill set by helping them identify the strengths and weaknesses of specific studies, allowing them to improve their own job performance and work toward the improvement of the criminal justice system as well.

• National Institute of Justice: How Research Is Translated to Policy and Practice in the Criminal Justice System
• InPublicSafety: The Importance of Collaborative Research in the Criminal Justice Field
• Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice: Use of Research Evidence by Criminal Justice Professionals
• National Institute of Justice: Geography and Crime
• National Criminal Justice Reference Service

Annie Sisk is a freelance writer who lives in upstate New York. She holds a B.A. in Speech from Catawba College and a J.D. from USC. She has written extensively for publications and websites in the business, management and legal fields.

Related Articles

• Importance of Victimology
• Classical Theories in Criminal Justice
• The Differences Between Criminology & Forensic Science

6 Chapter 6: Qualitative Research in Criminal Justice

Case study: exploring the culture of ?urban scrounging? 1.

Research Purpose

To describe the culture of urban scrounging, or dumpster diving, and the items that can be found in dumpsters and trash piles.

Methodology

This field study, conducted by Dr. Jeff Ferrell, currently a professor of sociology at Texas Christian University, began in 2002. In December of 2001, after resigning from an academic position in Arizona, Ferrell returned home to Fort Worth, Texas. An avid proponent for and participant in field research throughout his career, he decided to use the next eight months, prior to the 2002 academic year beginning, to explore a culture in which he had always been interested, the urban underground of �scrounging, recycling, and secondhand living� (p. 1). Using the neighborhoods of central Fort Worth as a backdrop, Ferrell embarked, often on his bicycle, into the fife of a dumpster diver. While he was not completely homeless at the time, he did his best to fully embrace the lifestyle of an urban scrounger and survive on what he found. For this study, Ferrell was not only learning how to survive off of the discarded possessions of others, he was systematically recording and describing the contents of the dumpsters and trash piles he found and kept. While in the field, Ferrell was also exploring scrounging as a means of economic survival and the social aspects of this underground existence. A broader theme of Ferrell�s research emerged as he encountered the number and vast array of items he found discarded in trash piles and dumpsters. This theme concerns the �hyperconsumption� and �collective wastefulness� (pp. 5�6) by American citizens and the environmental destruction created by the accumulating and discarding of so many material goods.

Results and Implications

Ferrell�s time spent among the trash piles and dumpsters of Fort Worth resulted in a variety of intriguing yet disturbing realizations regarding not only material excess but also social and personal change. While encounters with others were kept to a minimum, as they generally are for scroungers, Ferrell describes some of the people he met along the way and their conversations. Whether food, clothes, building materials, or scrap metal, the commonality was that scroungers could usually find what they were looking for among the trash heaps and alleyways. Throughout his book, Ferrell often focuses on the material items that he discovered while scrounging. He found so much, he was able to fill and decorate a home with perfectly good items that had been discarded by others, including the bicycle he now rides and a turquoise sink and bathtub. He found books and even old photographs and other mementos meant to document personal history. While discarded, these social artifacts tell the stories of society and often have the chance to find altered meaning when possessed by someone new.

Beyond the things found and people met, Ferrell discusses the boundary shift that has taken urban scrounging from deviant to criminal as lines are often blurred between public access and ownership. Not only do these urban scroungers face the stigma associated with their scrounging activities, those who dive in dumpsters and dig through trash piles can face criminal charges for trespassing. While this makes scrounging more challenging, due to basic survival or interest, the wealth of items and artifacts to be found are often worth the risk. Ultimately, Ferrell�s experiences as an urban scrounger provide not only a description of this subculture but also a critique on American consumption and wastefulness, a theme that becomes more important as Americans and others continue in economically tenuous times.

In This Chapter You Will Learn

To explain what it means for research to be qualitative

To describe the advantages of field research

To explain the challenges of field studies for researchers

To provide examples of field research in the social sciences

To discuss the case study approach

Introduction

In Chapter 2, you read about the differences between quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Whereas methods that are quantitative in nature focus on numerical measurements of phenomena, qualitative methods are focused on developing a deeper understanding regarding groups of people, or subcultures, about which little is known. Using detailed description, findings from qualitative research are generally more sensitizing, providing the research community and the interested public information about these generally elusive groups and their behaviors. A debate rages between criminologists as to which type of research should be achieved and referenced more often. The truth is that both have something valuable to offer regarding the study of deviance, crime, and victimization.

Field Research

Qualitative methodologies involve the use of field research, where researchers are out among these groups collecting information rather than studying participant behavior through surveys or experiments that have been developed in artificial settings. Field research provides some of the most fascinating reading because the researcher is observing closely or acting as part of the group and is therefore able to describe in depth not only the subjects� behaviors, but also consider the motivations that drive their behaviors. This chapter focuses on the use of qualitative methods in the social sciences, particularly the use of participant observation to study deviant, and sometimes criminal, behaviors. The many challenges as well as advantages of conducting this type of research will be discussed as will well-known examples of past field research and suggestions for conducting this type of research. First, however, it is important to understand what sets qualitative field research apart from the other methodologies discussed in this text.

The Study of Behavior

It is common for criminal justice researchers to rely on survey or interview methodologies to collect data. One advantage of doing so is being able to collect data from many respondents in a short period of time. Technology has created other advantages with survey methodology. For example, Internet surveys are a convenient, quick, and inexpensive way to reach respondents who may or may not reside nearby. Researchers often survey community residents and university students, but may also focus specifically on offender or victim samples. One significant limitation of using survey methodologies is that they rely on the truthfulness of the respondents. If researchers are interested in attitudes and behaviors that may be illegal or otherwise controversial, it could be that respondents will not be truthful in answering the questions placed before them. Survey research has focused on past or current drug use (see the Monitoring the Future Program), past victimization experiences (see the National Criminal Victimization Survey), and prison sexual assault victimization (see the Prison Rape Elimination Act data collection procedures conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics), just to name a few. If a student uses marijuana but does not want anyone to know, they may choose to falsify their survey responses when asked about marijuana use. If a citizen or prison inmate has been sexually assaulted but is too ashamed or afraid to tell anyone, they may be untruthful when asked about such victimization experiences on a survey. The point is, although researchers attempt to better understand the attitudes and behaviors of a certain population through the use of surveys, there is one major drawback to consider: the disjunction between what people say and what they actually do. As mentioned previously, a student may be a drug user but not admit to it. Someone may be a gang member, but say they are not when asked directly about it. Someone may respond that they have never committed a crime or been victimized when in fact they have. In short, people sometimes lie and there are many potential reasons for doing so. Perhaps the offender or drug user has not yet been caught and does not want to be caught. Whatever the reason, this is a hazard of measuring attitudes and behaviors through the use of surveys. One way to overcome the issue of untruthfulness is to conduct research using various forms of actual participation or observation of the behaviors we want to study. By observing someone in their natural environment (or, �the field�), researchers have the ability to observe behaviors firsthand, rather than relying on survey responses. These research strategies are generally known as participant observation methods.

Types of Field Research: A Continuum

Participant observation strategies involve researchers studying groups or individuals in their natural setting. Think of participant observation as a student internship. Students may read about law enforcement in their textbooks and discuss law enforcement issues in class, but only through an internship with a law enforcement agency will a student have a chance to understand how things actually happen from firsthand observation. Field strategies were first developed for social science, and particularly crime, research in the 1920s by researchers working within the University of Chicago�s Department of Sociology. The �Chicago School,� as this group of researchers is commonly known, focused on ethnographic research to study urban crime problems. Emerging from the field of anthropology, ethnographic research relies on field research methodologies to scientifically examine human culture in the natural environment. Significant theoretical developments within the field of criminology, such as social disorganization, which focused on the impact of culture and environment, were advanced at this time. For example, researchers such as Shaw and McKay, Thrasher, and others used field research to study the activities of subcultures, particularly youth gangs, as well as areas of the city that were most impacted by crime. These researchers were not interested in studying these problems from afar. Instead, they were interested in understanding social problems, including the impact of environmental disintegration, from the field.

There are various ways to conduct field research, and these can be placed on a continuum from most to least invasive and also from more qualitative to more quantitative. In attempting to understand phenomena from the standpoint of the actors, a researcher may participate fully in the behaviors of the group or may instead choose to observe from afar as activities unfold. The most invasive, and also most qualitative, form of participant observation is complete participation. The least invasive, and also most quantitative, is complete observation. In between these two are participant as observer and observer as participant. Each of these strategies will now be discussed in more detail.

Complete participation, sometimes referred to as disguised observation, is a method that involves the researcher becoming a full-fledged member of a particular group. For example, if a researcher is interested in understanding the culture of correctional officers, she may apply to be hired on as a correctional officer. Once hired on, the researcher will wear the uniform and obtain firsthand experience working in a prison environment. To study urban gangs, a researcher may attempt to be accepted as a member or associate of the gang. In complete participation, the true identity of the researcher is not known to the members of the group. Therefore, they are ultimately just like any other member of the group under study. Not only will the researcher have the ability to observe the group from the inside, he can also manipulate the direction of group activity through participation or through the use of confederates. This method is considered the most qualitative because, as a complete participant, the researcher will be fully sensitized to what it is like to be a member of the group under study, and will fully participate in the group�s activities. The researcher can then share the information he has gathered on the group�s inner workings, motivations, and activities from the perspective of a group member.

Researchers utilizing the participant as observer method will also participate in the activities of the group under study. The difference between the complete participant strategy and participant as observer strategy is that in the participant as observer method, the researcher reveals herself as a researcher to the group. Her presence as a researcher is known. Accordingly, the researcher does not overtly attempt to influence the direction of group activity. While she does participate, the researcher is more interested in observing the group�s activity and corresponding behaviors as they occur naturally. So, if a researcher wanted to examine life as a homeless person, she might go to where a group of homeless persons congregate. The researcher would introduce herself as such but, if safe, stay one or many days and nights out with the homeless she meets in order to conduct observations and participate in group activities.

The third participant observation strategy is observer as participant. As with the participant as observer method, researchers using the observer as participant method reveal themselves to the group as a researcher. Here again, their presence as a researcher is known. What makes this strategy different from the first two is that the researcher does not participate in the group�s activities. While he may interact with the participants, he does not participate. Instead, the researcher is there only to observe. An example of this method would be a researcher who conducts �ride-alongs� in order to study law enforcement behavior during traffic stops. The researcher will interact with the officers, but he will not participate or even exit the car during the traffic stops being observed.

The least invasive participant observation strategy is complete observation. As you will learn in Chapter 7, this is a totally unobtrusive method; the research subjects are not aware that they are being observed for purposes of research. Think of a law enforcement officer being on a stakeout. These officers generally sit in unmarked vehicles down the street as they observe the movements and activities of a certain person or group of people. Researchers who are complete observers work much the same way. While being the least invasive, complete observation is also the least qualitative. Studying an individual or group from afar means that there is no interaction with that individual. Without this interaction, researchers are unable to gain a more sensitized understanding of the motivations of the group. This strategy is considered to be more quantitative because researchers must rely on counts of activities or movements. For example, if you are a researcher interested in studying how many drivers run a stop sign on campus, you may sit near the intersection and observe driver behavior. In collecting the data, you will count how many drivers make a complete stop, how many come to a rolling stop, and how many run the stop sign altogether. Now, although you may have these counts, you will not know why drivers stopped or not. It could be that one driver had a sick passenger who he was rushing to the hospital and that is why he did not come to a complete stop. As with most quantitative research, as a complete observer, questions of �why?� often go unanswered.

FIGURE 6.1 | Differences among Participant Observation Methods

Advantages and Disadvantages of Field Research by Method

As with any particular research method, there are advantages and disadvantages to conducting field research. Some of these are specific to the type of field research a researcher decides to conduct. One general advantage to participant observation methods is that researchers are able to study �hard to reach� populations. A disadvantage is that these groups may be difficult to study for a number of reasons. It could be that the group is criminal in nature, such as a youth gang, a biker gang, or the Mafia. While perhaps not criminal, the individual or group may be involved in deviant behaviors that they are unwilling to discuss even with people they know. An additional disadvantage is that there could be administrative roadblocks to conducting such research. If a researcher wants to understand the correctional officer culture but the prison will not allow the researcher to conduct the study, she may have to get hired on and conduct the research as a full participant. Examples of research involving each of these situations will be discussed later in this chapter.

Another challenge for field researchers is the ability to maintain objectivity. In Chapter 2, the importance of objectivity for scientific research was discussed. If data gathered is subjective or biased in some way, research findings will be impacted by this subjectivity and will therefore not be reflective of reality. While objectivity would be easier to maintain from afar, the closer a researcher becomes to a group and its members, the easier it may be to lose objectivity. This is true particularly for complete participants. For researchers who participate as members of the group under study, it may become difficult not to begin to identify with the group. When this occurs, and the researcher loses sight of the research goals in favor of group membership, it is called � going native. � This is a hazard of field research in which the researcher spends a significant amount of time, perhaps years, within a group. The researcher may begin to see things from the group�s perspective and therefore not be able to objectively complete the intended study. To balance this possible hazard of complete participation is the advantage of not having reactivity. Because the research subjects do not know they are being observed, they will not act any differently than they would under normal circumstances. Researchers therefore avoid the Hawthorne Effect when conducting field research as a complete participant.

There is the possibility that a researcher who incorporates the participant as observer strategy may also go native. Although his presence as a researcher is known, he is interacting with the group and participating in group activities. Therefore, it is possible he may begin to lose objectivity due to an attachment to or identification with the group under study. Whereas complete participants can avoid the Hawthorne Effect, participants as observers do not have this luxury. Even though these researchers may be participating in group activities, because their presence as a researcher is known, it can be expected that the group may in some way alter their behavior because they are being observed. An additional disadvantage to this strategy is that it may take time for a researcher to be accepted by group members who are aware of the researcher�s presence. If certain group members are uncomfortable with the researcher�s presence, they may make it difficult for the researcher to interact with other members or join in group activities.

Researchers on the observing end of the participant observation continuum face some similar and some unique challenges. Those who conduct observer as participant field studies will also face reactivity, or the Hawthorne Effect, because their presence as a researcher is known to the group under study. As in the ride-along example discussed previously, if a patrol officer knows she is being observed, she may alter her behavior in such a way that the researcher is not observing a realistic traffic stop. Additionally, these researchers may face difficulties gaining access or being accepted into the group under study, especially since they are there only to observe and not to participate with the group. In this case, the researcher may be ostracized even further by the group because she is not acting as one of them.

Researchers acting as complete observers to gather data on an individual or group are not limited by reactivity. Because the research subjects are unaware they are being observed, the Hawthorne Effect will not impact study findings. The advantage is that this method is totally unobtrusive, or noninvasive. The main disadvantage here is that the researcher is too far away to truly understand the group and their behaviors. As mentioned previously, at this point, the research becomes quite quantitative because the researcher can only observe and count movements and interactions from afar. Lacking in context, these counts may not be as useful in understanding a group as findings would be from the use of another participant observation method.

Costs One of the more important factors to consider when determining whether field research is the best option is the demand such research may place on a researcher. If you remember from the opening case study, Ferrell spent months in the field to collect information on urban scrounging. Researchers may spend weeks, months, and even years participating with and/or observing study subjects. Due to this, they may experience financial, personal, and sometimes professional costs. Time away from family and friends can take a personal toll on researchers. If the researcher is funding his own research or otherwise not able to earn a salary while undergoing the field study, he may suffer financially. Finally, also due to time away and perhaps due to activities that may be considered unethical, fieldwork can have a negative impact on a researcher�s career. While these demands are very real, past researchers have found ways to successfully navigate the world of field research resulting in fascinating findings and ultimately coming out unscathed from the experience.

Gaining Access Gaining access to populations of interest is also a difficult task to accomplish as these populations are often small, clandestine groups who generally keep out of the public eye. Field research is unlike survey research in that there is not a readily available list of gang members or dumpster divers from which you can draw a random sample. Instead, researchers often rely on the snowball sampling technique. If you remember from Chapter 3, snowball sampling entails a researcher meeting one or a handful of group members and receiving introductions to other group members from the initial members. One member leads you to the next, who then leads you to the next.

When gathering information as an observer as participant, a researcher should be straightforward and announce her intentions to group members immediately. It may be best to give a detailed explanation of her presence and purpose to group leaders or other decision-makers. If this does not happen, when the group does find out a researcher is in their presence, they may feel the researcher was trying to hide something. If the identity of the researcher is known, it is important that the researcher be a researcher, and that she not pretend to be one of the group, as this may also cause problems. It may be disconcerting to group members if an outsider thinks she is closer to the group than members are willing to allow her to be.

While complete participant researchers may be introduced to one or more members, this does not mean that they will be readily accepted as part of the group. This is true even if they are acting as full participants. There are some things researchers can do to increase their chances of being accepted. First, researchers should learn the argot, or language, of the group under study. Study subjects may have a particular way of speaking to one another through the use of slang or other vernacular. If a researcher is familiar with this argot and is able to use it convincingly, he will seem less of an outsider. It is also important to time your approach. A researcher should be aware, as much as possible, about what is happening in the group before gaining access. If a researcher is studying drug dealers and there was just a big drug bust or if a researcher is studying gangs and there was recently a fight between two gangs, it may not be the best time to gain access as members of these groups may be immediately suspicious of people they do not know.

Researchers often must find a gatekeeper in order to join a group. Gatekeepers are those individuals who may or may not know about the researcher�s true identity, who will vouch for the researcher among the other group members and who will inform the researcher about group norms, territory, and the like. Gatekeepers may lobby to have a researcher become a part of the group or to be allowed access to the place where the group gathers. While this is helpful for the researcher, it can be dangerous for the gatekeeper, especially if something goes wrong. If the researcher is attempting to be a full participant but her identity as a researcher is exposed, the gatekeeper may be held responsible for allowing the researcher in. This may be the case even if the gatekeeper was not aware of the researcher�s true identity. If a researcher does not want to enter the group himself, he may find an indigenous observer, or a member of the group who is willing to collect information for him. The researcher may pay or otherwise remunerate this person for her efforts as she will be able to see and hear what the researcher could not. A similar problem may arise, however, if this person is caught. There may be negative consequences to pay if it is found out that she is revealing information about the group. Additionally, the researcher must be careful when analyzing the information provided as it may not be objective, or may not even be factual at all.

Maintaining Objectivity Once a researcher gains access, there is another issue she must face. This is the difficulty of remaining an outsider while becoming an insider. In short, the researcher must guard against going native. Objectivity is necessary for research to be scientific. If a researcher becomes too familiar with the group, she may lose objectivity and may even be able to identify with and/or empathize with the group under study. If this occurs, the research findings will be biased and not an objective reflection of the group, what drives the group, and the activities in which the group members participate. For these reasons, it is not suggested that a researcher conduct field research among a group of which he is a member. If a researcher has been a member of a social organization for many years and is friends, or at least acquaintances, with many of the members, it would be very difficult for her to objectively study the group. The researcher may consider the group and the group�s activities as normal and therefore miss out on interesting relationships and behaviors. This is also why external researchers are often brought in to evaluate agency programs. If employees of that program are tasked with evaluating it, they may�consciously or not�design the study in such a way that findings are sure to be positive. This may be because they feel that a negative evaluation will mean an end to the program and ultimately an end to their jobs. Having such a stake in the findings of research is sure to impact the objectivity of the person tasked with conducting the study. While bringing in external researchers may ensure objectivity, these researchers face their own challenges. Trulson, Marquart, and Mullings 3 offer some tips for breaking in to criminal justice agencies, specifically prisons, as an external researcher. The first two tips pertain to obtaining access through the use of a gatekeeper. The third tip focuses on the development and cultivation of relationships within the agency in order to maintain access. The remaining tips describe how a researcher can make a graceful exit once the research project is completed while still maintaining those relationships, as well as building new ones, for potential future research endeavors.

? Tip #1: Get a Contact

? Tip #2: Establish Yourself and Your Research

? Tip #3: Little Things Count

? Tip #4: Make Sense of Agency Data by Keeping Contact

? Tip #5: Deliver Competent Readable Reports on Time

? Tip #6: Request to Debrief the Agency

? Tip#7: Thank Everyone

? Tip #8: Deal with Adversity by Planning Ahead

? Tip #9: Inform the Agency of Data Use

? Tip #10: Maintain Trust by Staying in for the Long Haul (pp. 477�478)

CLASSICS IN CJ RESEARCH

Youth Violence and the Code of the Street

Research Study

Based on his ethnography of African American youth living in poor, inner-city neighborhoods, Elijah Anderson 2 developed a comprehensive theory regarding youth violence and the �code of the street.� Anderson explains that, stemming from a lack of resources, distrust in law enforcement, and an overall lack of hope, aggressive behavior is condoned by the informal street code as a way to resolve conflict and earn respect. Anderson�s detailed description and analysis of this street culture provided much needed awareness regarding the context of African American youth violence. Like other research discussed in this chapter, these populations could not be sent an Internet survey or be surveyed in a classroom. The only way for Anderson to gain this knowledge was to go out to the streets and observe and interact with the youth himself. To do this, he conducted four years of field research in both the inner city and the more suburban areas of Philadelphia. During this time, he conducted lengthy interviews with youth and acted as a direct observer of their activities. Anderson�s research is touted for bringing attention to and understanding of inner-city life. Not only does he describe the �code of the street,� but, in doing so, he provides answers to the problem of urban youth violence.

Documenting the Experience Researchers must also decide how best to document their experiences for later analysis. There is a Chinese Proverb that states, �the palest ink is better than the best memory.� Applied here, researchers are encouraged to document as much as they can, as giving a detailed account of things that have occurred from memory is difficult. When taking notes, it is important for researchers to be as specific as possible when describing individuals and their behaviors. It is also important for researchers not to ignore behaviors that may seem trivial at the time, as these may actually signify something much more meaningful.

Particularly as a complete participant, researchers are not going to have the ability to readily pull out their note pad and begin taking notes on things they have seen and heard. Even careful note taking can be dangerous for a researcher who is trying to hide his identity. If a researcher is found to be documenting what is happening within the group, this may breed distrust and group members may become suspicious of the researcher. This suspicion may cause the group members to act unnaturally around the researcher. Even if research subjects are aware of the researcher�s identity, having someone taking notes while they are having a casual conversation can be disconcerting. This may make subjects nervous and unwilling to participate in group activities while the researcher is present. Luckily, with the advance of technology, documentation does not have to include a pen and a piece of paper. Instead, researchers may opt for audio and/or visual recording devices. In one-party consent states, it is legal for one person to record a conversation they are having with another. Not all states are one-party consent states, however, so researchers must be careful not to break any laws with their plan for documentation.

WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS: IMPACTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE OPERATIONS

Application of Field Research Methods in Undercover Investigations

Participant observation research not only informs criminal justice operations, but police and other investigative agencies use these methods as well. Think about an undercover investigation. While the purpose of going undercover for a law enforcement officer is to collect evidence against a suspect, the officer�s methods mirror those of an academic researcher who joins a group as a full participant. In the 1970s, FBI agent Joe Pistone 4 went undercover to obtain information about the Bonnano family, one of the major Sicilian organized crime families in New York at the time. Assuming the identity of Donnie Brasco, the jewel thief, Pistone infiltrated the Bonnano family for six years. Using many of the techniques discussed here�learning the argot and social mores of the group, finding a gatekeeper, documenting evidence through the use of recording devices�by the early 1980s, Pistone provided the FBI with enough evidence to put over 100 Mafioso in prison for the remainder of their lives. Many of you may recognize his alias, as Pistone�s experiences as an undercover agent were brought to the big screen with the release of Donnie Brasco, starring Johnny Depp. Depp�s portrayal of Pistone showed not only his undercover persona but also the difficulties he had maintaining relationships with his loved ones. Now, more than 30 years later, people are still interested in Pistone�s experiences as Brasco. As recently as 2005, the National Geographic Channel premiered Inside the Mafia, a series focused on Pistone�s experiences as Brasco. While this is a more well-known example of an undercover operation, undercover work goes on all the time. Whether making drug busts, infiltrating gangs or other trafficking organizations, or conducting a sting operation on one of their own, investigators employ many of the same techniques as field researchers rely upon.

Ethical Dilemmas for Field Researchers

As you can tell, field research poses unique complications for researchers to consider prior to and while conducting their studies. Ethical issues posed by field research, particularly field research in which the researcher�s identity is not known to research subjects, include the use of deception, privacy invasion, and the lack of consent. How can a researcher obtain informed consent from research subjects if she doesn�t want anyone to know research is taking place? Is it ethical to include someone in a research study without his or her permission? When the first guidelines for human subjects research were handed down, they caused a huge roadblock for field researchers. Later, however, it was determined that social science poses less risk to human subjects, particularly those being observed in their natural setting. Because it was recognized that the risk for harm was significantly less, field researchers were allowed to conduct their studies without conditions involving informed consent. The debate remains, however, as to whether it is truly ethical to conduct research on individuals without them knowing. A related issue is confidentiality and anonymity. If researchers are living among study subjects, anonymity is impossible. One way field researchers protect their subjects in this regard is through the use of pseudonyms. A pseudonym is a false name given to someone whose identity needs to be kept secret. In writing up their study findings, researchers will use pseudonyms instead of the actual names of study subjects.

Beyond the ethical nature of the research itself, field studies may introduce other ethical dilemmas for the researcher. For example, what if the researcher, as a participating member of a group, is asked to participate in an illegal activity? This may be a nonviolent activity like vandalism or graffiti, or it may be an activity that is more sinister in nature. Researchers, as full participants, have to decide whether they would be willing to commit the crime in question. After all, if caught and arrests are made, �I was just doing research,� will not be a justification the researcher will be able to use for his participation. Even if not a full participant, a researcher may observe some activity that is unlawful. The researcher will then have to decide whether to report this activity or to keep quiet about it. If a researcher is called to testify, there could be consequences for not cooperating. Depending on what kind of group is being studied, these dilemmas may occur more or less frequently. It is important that researchers understand prior to entering the field that they may have to make difficult decisions that like the research itself, could have great costs to them personally and professionally.

RESEARCH IN THE NEWS

Field Research Hits Prime Time

In 2009, CBS aired a new reality television series, Undercover Boss, 5 in which corporate executives go �undercover� to experience life as an employee of their company. Fully disguised, the executives are quickly thrown into the day-to-day operations of their workplaces. From the co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, to the CEO of Norwegian Cruise Line, to the mayor of Cincinnati, these executives conduct field research on camera to gain a better understanding of how their company, or city administration, runs from the bottom up. Often, they find hard-working, talented employees who are deserving of recognition, which is given as the episode comes to a close and the executive reveals himself and his undercover activities to his employees. Other times, they find employees that are not so good for business. Ultimately, the experience provides these executives with awareness they did not have prior to going undercover, and they hope to be able to utilize this knowledge to position their workplaces for continued success. Not only has this show benefited the companies and other workplaces profiled, with millions of viewers each week, it has certainly brought the adventures of field research into prime time.

Examples of Field Research in Criminal Justice

If you recall from Chapter 2, Humphreys� Tea Room Trade is an example of field research. Humphreys participated to an extent, acting as a �watchqueen� so that he could observe the sexual activities taking place in public restrooms and other public places. Another study exploring clandestine sexual activity was conducted by Styles. 6 Styles was interested in the use of gay baths, places where men seeking to have sexual relationships with other men could have relatively private encounters. While Styles was a gay man attempting to study other gay men, at the outset his intention was to be a nonparticipant observer. Having a friend vouch for him, he easily gained access into the bath and began figuring out how to best observe the scene. After observing and conducting a few interviews, Styles was approached by another man for sexual activity. Although he was resolved to only observe, this time he gave in. From this point on, he began attending another bath and collecting information as a complete participant. Styles� writing is informative, not only for the description regarding this group�s activity, but also for the discussion he provides about his travels through the world of field research, beginning as an observer and ending as a complete participant. His writing on insider versus outsider research resulted in four main reflections for readers to consider:

There are no privileged positions of knowledge when it comes to scrutinizing human group life;

All research is conditioned by value biases and factual preconceptions about the group being studied;

Fieldwork is a process of building up images from one�s biases, preconceptions, and new information, testing these images against one�s observations and the reports of informants, and accepting, modifying, or discarding these images on the basis of what one observes and what one has been told; and

Insider and outsider researchers will differ in the ways they go about building and testing their images of the group they study. (pp. 148�150)

Reviewing the literature, one finds that field researchers often choose sexual deviance as a topic for their field studies. Tewksbury and colleagues have researched gender differences in sex shop patrons 7 and places where men have been found to have anonymous sexual encounters 8 such as sex shop theaters. 9 Another interesting field study was conducted by Ronai and Ellis. 10 For this study, Ronai acted as a complete participant, drawing from her past as a table dancer and also gaining access as an exotic dancer in a Florida strip bar for the purpose of her master�s thesis research. Building on Ronai�s experiences and her interviews with fellow dancers, the researchers examined the interactional strategies used by dancers, both on the stage and on the floor, to ensure a night where the dancers were well paid for their services. In conducting these studies, these researchers were able to expose places where many are either unwilling or afraid to go, or perhaps afraid to admit they go.

In their study of women who belong to outlaw motorcycle gangs, Hopper and Moore 11 used participant observation methods as well as interviews to better understand the biker culture and where women fit into this culture. Moore provided access, as he was once a member and president of Satan�s Dead, an outlaw biker club in Mississippi. Like Styles, Hopper and Moore discuss the challenges of conducting research among the outlaw biker population. Having to observe quietly while bikers committed acts opposite to their personal values and not being able to ask many questions or give uninvited comments were just some of the hurdles the researchers had to overcome in order to conduct their study. The male bikers were, at the least, distrustful of the researchers, and the women bikers even more so. While these challenges existed, Hopper and Moore were able to ascertain quite a bit about the female experience as relates to their role in or among the outlaw biker culture.

Ferrell has been one of the most active field researchers of our time. He is considered a founder and remains a steadfast proponent of cultural criminology, 12 a subfield of criminology that examines the intersections of cultural activities and crime. Not only did he conduct the ethnography on urban scrounging discussed at the beginning of this chapter, he has spent more than a decade in the field studying subcultural groups who defy social norms. Crossing the United States, and the globe, Ferrell has explored the social and political motivations of urban graffiti artists, 13 anarchist bicycle group activists, and outlaw radio operators, 14 just to name a few. The research conducted by Ferrell, and others discussed here, has been described as edgework, or radical ethnography. This means that, as researchers, Ferrell and others have gone to the �edge,� or the extreme, to collect information on subjects of interest. Ferrell and Hamm 15 have put together a collection of readings based on edgework, as have Miller and Tewksbury. 16 While dangerous and wrought with ethical challenges, their research has shed light on societal groups who, whether by choice or not, often reside in the shadows.

Although ethnographers have spent years studying criminal and other deviant activities, field research has not been limited to those groups. Other researchers have sought to explore what it�s like to work in criminal justice from the inside. In the 1960s, Skolnick 17 conducted field research among police officers to better understand how elements of their occupation impacted their views and behaviors. He wrote extensively about the �working personality� of police officers as shaped by their occupational environment, including the danger and alienation they face from those they are sworn to protect, and the solidarity that builds from shared experiences. Beyond law enforcement, there have also been a variety of studies focused on the prison environment. When Ted Conover, 18 a journalist interested in writing from the correctional officer perspective, was denied permission from the New York Department of Correctional Services to do a report on correctional life, he instead applied and was hired on as an actual correctional officer. In Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing, Conover offers a compelling account of his journalistic field research, which resulted in a one-year stint as a corrections officer. From his time in training until his last days working in the galleries, Conover�s experiences provide the reader a look into the challenges faced by correctional officers, stemming not only from the inmates but the correctional staff as well.

Prior to Conover�s writing, Marquart was also interested in correctional work and strategies utilized by prison guards to ensure control over the inmate population. Specifically, in the 1980s, Marquart 19 examined correctional officials� use of physical coercion and Marquart and Crouch 20 explored their use of inmate leaders as social control mechanisms. In order to conduct this field study, Marquart, with the warden�s permission, entered a prison unit in Texas and proceeded to work as a guard from June 1981 until January 1983. He was able to work in various posts within the institution so that he could observe how prison guards interacted with inmates. Marquart not only observed the prison�s daily routine, he examined institutional records, conducted interviews, and also developed close relationships with 20 prison guards and inmate leaders, or building tenders, whom he relied on for their insider knowledge of prison life and inmate control. Based on his fieldwork, Marquait shared his findings regarding the intimidation and physical coercion used by prison guards to discipline inmates. This fieldwork also provided a fascinating look into the building tender system that was utilized as a means of social control in the Texas prison system prior to that system being discontinued.

In the early 1990s, Schmid and Jones 21 used a unique strategy to study inmate adaptation from inside the prison walls. Jones, an offender serving a sentence in a prison located in the upper midwestern region of the United States, was given permission to enroll in a graduate sociology course focused on methods of research. This course was being offered by Schmid and led to collaborative work between the two men to study prison culture. They specifically focused on the experiences of first-time, short-term inmates. With Jones acting as the complete participant and Schmid acting as the complete observer, the pair began their research covertly. While they were aware of Jones�s meeting with Schmid for purposes of the research methods course in which he was enrolled, correctional authorities and other inmates perceived Jones to be just another inmate. In the 10 months that followed, Jones kept detailed notes regarding his daily experiences and his personal thoughts about and observations of prison life. Also included in his notes was information about his participation in prison activities and his communications with other similar, first-time, short-term inmates. Once his field notes were prepared, Jones would mail them to Schmid for review. Over the course of these letters, phone calls, and intermittent meetings, new observation strategies and themes began to develop based on the observations made by Jones. Upon his release from prison and their analyzing of the initial data, Jones and Schmid reentered the prison to conduct informed interviews with 20 first-time, short-term inmates. Using these data, Schmid and Jones began to write up their findings, which focused on inmate adaptations over time, identity transformations within the prison environment, 22 and conceptions of prison sexual assault, 23 among other topics. Schmid and Jones discussed how their roles as a complete observer and a complete participant allowed them the advantage of balancing scientific objectivity and intimacy with the group under study. The unfettered access Jones had to other inmates within the prison environment as a complete participant added to the unusual nature of this study yielding valuable insight into the prison experience for this particular subset of inmates.

Case Studies

Beyond field research, case studies provide an additional means of qualitative data. While more often conducted by researchers in other disciplines, such as psychology, or by journalists, criminologists also have a rich history of case study research. In conducting case studies, researchers use in-depth interviews and oral/life history, or autobiographical, approaches to thoroughly examine one or a few illustrative cases. This method often allows individuals, particularly offenders, to tell their own story, and information from these stories, or case studies, may then be extrapolated to the larger group. The advantage is a firsthand, descriptive account of a way of life that is little understood. Disadvantages relate to the ability to generalize from what may be an atypical case and also the bias that may enter as a researcher develops a working relationship with their subject. Most examples of case studies involving criminological subjects were conducted more than 20 years ago, which may be due to criminologists� general inclination toward more quantitative research during this time period.

The earliest case studies focused on crime topics were conducted in the 1930s. Not only was the Chicago School interested in ethnographic research, these researchers were also among the first to conduct case studies on individuals involved in criminal activities. Shaw�s The Jack Roller (1930) 24 and Sutherland�s The Professional Thief (1937) 25 are not only the oldest but also the most well-known case studies related to delinquent and criminal figures. Focused on environmental influences on behavior, Shaw profiled an inner city delinquent male, �Stanley� the �jack roller,� who explained why he was involved in delinquent behavior, specifically the crime of mugging intoxicated men. Fifty years later, Snodgrass 26 updated Shaw�s work, following up with an elderly �Stanley� at age 70. Sutherland�s case study, resulting in the publication of The Professional Thief, was based on �Chic Conwell�s� account of his personal life and professional experience surviving off of what could be stolen or conned from others. The 1970s and 1980s witnessed numerous publications based on case studies. Researchers examined organized crime figures and families, 27 heroin addicts, 28 thieves, 29 and those who fence stolen property. 30 As with participant observation research, case studies have not been relegated to offenders only. In fact, more recently the case study approach has been applied to law enforcement and correctional agencies. 33 These studies have examined activities of the New York City Police Department, 34 the New Orleans Police Department�s response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, 35 and Rhode Island�s prison system. 36

As with field research, the case study approach can provide a deeper understanding of individuals or groups of individuals, such as crime families, who live outside of the mainstream. Case studies inform us about the motivations for why individuals or groups behave the way they do and how those experiences or activities were either beneficial or detrimental for them. The same goes for agency research. One department or agency can learn from the experiences of another department or agency. With more recent research utilizing the case study approach, it could be that this methodology will be seen more often in the criminal justice literature.

Making Critical Choices as a Field Researcher

In conducting field studies, researchers often must make decisions that impact the viability of their research. Sometimes, researchers don�t make the best choices. In the 1990s, Dr. Ansley Hamid was an esteemed anthropologist, well-known for his field research focused on the drug subculture. 31 Based on his previous success as a researcher documenting the more significant trends in drug use and addiction, he, through his position as a university professor, was awarded a multimillion-dollar federal research grant to examine heroin use on the streets of New York. It was not long after the grant was awarded, however, that Hamid was accused of misusing the funds provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, even going so far as to use the funds to purchase heroin for his own use and the use of his research subjects. While the criminal charges were eventually dismissed, Hamid paid the ultimate professional price for his behavior, particularly his use of the drug, which was documented in his handwritten field notes. 32 As of 2003, the professor was no longer connected to John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York. In fact, Hamid is no longer working in higher education at all due to the accusations and accompanying negative publicity. Instead, he owns a candle shop in a small Brooklyn neighborhood. He does not plan to stop researching and writing though. His book, Ganja Complex: Rastafari and Marijuana, was published in 2002. This case is a prime example of what can happen when researchers cross the boundary of objectivity. Hamid�s brief experience in the shoes of a heroin user led to his ultimate downfall as an objective and respected researcher.

Chapter Summary

Qualitative research strategies allow researchers to enter into groups and places that are often considered off limits to the general public. The methods and studies discussed here provide excellent examples of the use of field research to discover motivations for the development and patterns of behavior within these groups. These qualitative endeavors offer a unique look into the lives of those who may live or work on the fringes of modern society. As it would be nearly impossible to conduct research on these groups using methods such as experiments, surveys, and formal interviews, participant observation techniques extend the ability of researchers to study activities beyond the norm by participating with and observing subjects in their natural environment and later describing in detail their experiences in the field.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What are the advantages to using a more qualitative research method?

2. Compare and contrast the four different participant observation strategies.

3. What must a researcher consider before conducting field research?

4. What did Styles learn about conducting research as an insider versus an outsider?

5. How has the case study approach been applied to criminal justice research?

case study: In-depth analysis of one or a few illustrative cases

complete observation: A participant observation method that involves the researcher observing an individual or group from afar

complete participation: A participant observation method that involves the researcher becoming a full-fledged member of a particular group; sometimes referred to as disguised observation

confederates: Individuals, who are part of the research team, used to speed up the events of interest when observations are being made

edgework: This refers to researchers going to the �edge,� or the extreme, to collect information on subjects of interest

ethnographic research: Relies on field research methodologies to scientifically examine human culture in the natural environment

field research: Research that involves researchers studying individuals or groups of individuals in their natural environment

gatekeeper: A person within the group under study whom the researcher can use to learn about and access the group

going native: A challenge to field research in which the researcher loses her identity as a researcher and begins to identify more with her role as a member of the group under study

Hawthorne Effect: Based on a study of worker productivity, this term refers to changes in behavior caused by being observed

indigenous observer: A person within the group under study who is willing to collect information about the group for compensation

journalistic field research: Field research conducted by journalists and used to write books or articles about a certain topic of interest

observer as participant: A participant observation strategy in which the researcher is known to the group and is only there to observe

oral/life history: Methods used to conduct case studies; similar to an autobiographical account

participant as observer: A participant observation strategy in which the researcher will participate with the group but his identity as a researcher is known

participant observation strategies: First used for social science in the 1920s, these are research methodologies that involve participation and/or observation with the group under study; there are four such strategies

pseudonym: A false name given to someone whose identity needs to be kept secret

reactivity: The problem of having research subjects change their natural behavior in reaction to being observed or otherwise included in a research study

1 Ferrell, J. (2006). Empire of scrounge: Inside the urban underground of dumpster diving, trash picking, and street scavenging. New York: New York University Press.

2 Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

3 Trulson, C., J. Marquait, & J. Mullings. (2004). �Breaking in: Gaining entry to prisons and other hard-to-access criminal justice organizations.� Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15(2), 451�478.

4 Lovgren, S. (2005, June 10). �FBI Agent �Donnie Brasco� recalls life in the Mafia.� Retrieved March 7, 2012 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/34063528 .html.

5 See series website, http://www.cbs.com/shows /undercover_boss/.

6 Styles, J. (1979). �Outsider/insider: Researching gay baths.� Urban Life, 8(2), 135�152.

7 McCleary, R., & R. Tewksbury. (2010). �Female patrons of porn.� Deviant Behavior, 31, 208�223.

8 Tewksbury, R. (2008). �Finding erotic oases: Locating the sites of men�s same-sex anonymous sexual encounters.� Journal of Homosexuality, 55(1), 1�19.

9 Douglas, B., & R. Tewksbury. (2008). �Theaters and sex: An examination of anonymous sexual encounters in an erotic oasis.� Deviant Behavior, 29(1), 1�17.

10 Ronai, C. R., & C. Ellis. (1989). �Turn-ons for money: Interactional strategies of the table dancer.� Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18, 271�298.

11 Hopper, C. B., & J. Moore. (1990). �Women in outlaw motorcycle gangs.� Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18(4), 363�387.

12 Ferrell, J., & C. Sanders (Eds.). (1995). Cultural criminology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

13 Ferrell, J. (1996). Crimes of style: Urban graffiti and the politics of criminality. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

14 Ferrell, J. (2002). Tearing down the streets: Adventures in urban anarchy. New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.

15 Ferrell, J., & M. Hamm (Eds.). (1998). Ethnography at the edge: Crime, deviance, and field research. Boston: Northeastern University Press

16 Miller, J., & R. Tewksbury (Eds.). (2001). Extreme methods: Innovative approaches to social science research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

17 Skolnick, J. (1966). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in a democratic society. New York: Wiley & Sons.

18 Conover, T. (2000). Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing. New York: Random House, Inc.

19 Marquart, J. (1986). �Prison guards and the use of physical coercion as a mechanism of prisoner control.� Criminology, 24(2), 347�366.

20 Marquart, J. & B. Crouch. (1984). �Coopting the kept: Using inmates for social control in a southern prison.� Justice Quarterly, 1(4), 491�509.

21 Schmid, T. J., & R. S. Jones. (1993). �Ambivalent actions: Prison adaptation strategies of first-time, short-term inmates.� Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 21(4), 439�463.

22 Schmid, T. J., & R. S. Jones. (1991). �Suspended identity: Identity transformation in a maximum security prison.� Symbolic Interaction, 14, 415�432.

23 Jones, R. S., & T. J. Schmid. (1989). �Inmates� conceptions of prison sexual assault.� Prison Journal, 69, 53�61.

24 Shaw, C. (1930). The jack-roller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

25 Sutherland, E. (1937). The professional thief. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

26 Snodgrass, J. (1982). The jack-roller at seventy: A fifty year follow-up. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

27 Abadinsky, H. (1983). The criminal elite: Professional and organized crime. Wesport, CT: Greenwood Press.; Anderson, A. (1979). The business of organized crime. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.; Ianni, F., & E. Reuss-Ianni. (1972). A family business: kinship and social control in organized crime. New York: Russell Sage.

28 Agar, M. (1973). Ripping and running: A formal ethnography of urban heroin users. New York: Seminar Press.; Rettig, R., M. Torres, & G. Garrett. (1977). Manny: A criminal addict � s story. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

29 Chambliss, W. (1972). Boxman: A professional thief � s journal, with Harry King. New York: Harper and Row.; King, H., & W. Chambliss. (1984). Harry King: A professional thief � s journal. New York: Wiley.

30 Klockars, C. (1974). The professional fence. New York: Free Press; Steffensmeier, D. (1986). The fence: In the shadow of two worlds. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.

31 Forero, J. (1999, November, 1). �Charges unravel drug-use scholar�s career.� The New York Times Archives. Retrieved March 7, 2012 from http://www.nytimes .com/1999/11/01/nyregion/charges-unravel-drug-use-scholar-s-career.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm.

32 Smallwood, S. (2002, October 25). �Crossing the line: A heroin researcher partakes and pays the price.� The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved March 7, 2012 from http://chronicle.com/article /Crossing-the-Line/2839.

33 Travis, L. III (1983). �The case study in criminal justice research: Applications to policy analysis.� Criminal Justice Review, 8, 46�51.

34 Eterno, J. (2003). Policing within the law: A case study of the New York City Police Department. Westport, CT: Praeger.

35 Wigginton, M. (2007). �The New Orleans police emergency response to Hurricane Katrina: A case study.� A Dissertation completed for the University of Southern Mississippi.

36 Carroll, L. (1998). Lawful order: A case study of correctional crisis and reform. New York: Garland.

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

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 20 th 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

Russell Wheeler

June 20, 2024

Norman Eisen

June 14, 2024

Elaine Kamarck

May 31, 2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

How to Think about Criminal Justice Reform: Conceptual and Practical Considerations

Charis e. kubrin.

Social Ecology II, University of California, Room 3309, Irvine, CA 92697-7080 USA

Rebecca Tublitz

How can we improve the effectiveness of criminal justice reform efforts? Effective reform hinges on shared understandings of what the problem is and shared visions of what success looks like. But consensus is hard to come by, and there has long been a distinction between “policy talk” or how problems are defined and solutions are promoted, and “policy action” or the design and adoption of certain policies. In this essay, we seek to promote productive thinking and talking about, as well as designing of, effective and sustainable criminal justice reforms. To this end, we offer reflections on underlying conceptual and practical considerations relevant for both criminal justice policy talk and action.

Across the political spectrum in the United States, there is agreement that incarceration and punitive sanctions cannot be the sole solution to crime. After decades of criminal justice expansion, incarceration rates peaked between 2006 and 2008 and have dropped modestly, but consistently, ever since then (Gramlich, 2021 ). Calls to ratchet up criminal penalties to control crime, with some exceptions, are increasingly rare. Rather, where bitter partisanship divides conservatives and progressives on virtually every other issue, bipartisan support for criminal justice reform is commonplace. This support has yielded many changes in recent years: scaling back of mandatory sentencing laws, limiting sentencing enhancements, expanding access to non-prison alternatives for low-level drug and property crimes, reducing revocations of community supervision, and increasing early release options (Subramanian & Delaney, 2014 ). New laws passed to reduce incarceration have outpaced punitive legislation three-to-one (Beckett et al., 2016 , 2018 ). Rather than the rigid “law and order” narrative that characterized the dominant approach to crime and punishment since the Nixon administration, policymakers and advocates have found common ground in reform conversations focused on cost savings, evidence-based practice, and being “smart on crime.” A “new sensibility” prevails (Phelps, 2016 ).

Transforming extensive support for criminal justice reform into substantial reductions in justice-involved populations has proven more difficult, and irregular. While the number of individuals incarcerated across the nation has declined, the U.S. continues to have the highest incarceration rate in the world, with nearly 1.9 million people held in state and federal prisons, local jails, and detention centers (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022 ; Widra & Herring, 2021 ). Another 3.9 million people remain on probation or parole (Kaeble, 2021 ). And, not all jurisdictions have bought into this new sensibility: rural and suburban reliance on prisons has increased during this new era of justice reform (Kang-Brown & Subramanian, 2017 ). Despite extensive talk of reform, achieving actual results “is about as easy as bending granite” (Petersilia, 2016 :9).

How can we improve the effectiveness of criminal justice reform? At its core, a reform is an effort to ameliorate an undesirable condition, eliminate an identified problem, achieve a goal, or strengthen an existing (successful) policy. Scholarship yields real insights into effective programming and practice in response to a range of issues in criminal justice. Equally apparent, however, is the lack of criminological knowledge incorporated into the policymaking process. Thoughtful are proposals to improve the policy-relevance of criminological knowledge and increase communication between research and policy communities (e.g., Blomberg et al., 2016 ; Mears, 2022 ). But identifying what drives effective criminal justice reform is not so straightforward. For one, the goals of reform vary across stakeholders: Should reform reduce crime and victimization? Focus on recidivism? Increase community health and wellbeing? Ensure fairness in criminal justice procedure? Depending upon who is asked, the answer differs. Consensus on effective reform hinges on shared understandings of what the problem is and shared visions of what success looks like. Scholars of the policy process often distinguish “policy talk,” or how problems are defined and solutions are promoted, from “policy action,” or the design and adoption of policy solutions, to better understand the drivers of reform and its consequences. This distinction is relevant to criminal justice reform (Bartos & Kubrin, 2018 :2; Tyack & Cuban, 1995 ).

We argue that an effective approach to criminal justice reform—one that results in policy action that matches policy talk—requires clarity regarding normative views about the purpose of punishment, appreciation of practical realities involved in policymaking, and insight into how the two intersect. To this end, in this essay we offer critical reflections on underlying conceptual and practical considerations that bear on criminal justice policy talk and action.

Part I. Conceptual Considerations: Narratives of Crime and Criminal Justice

According to social constructionist theory, the creation of knowledge is rooted in interactions between individuals through common language and shared meanings in social contexts (Berger & Luckmann, 1966 ). Common language and shared meanings create ways of thinking, or narratives, that socially construct our reality and profoundly influence public definitions of groups, events, and social phenomena, including crime and criminal justice. As such, any productive conversation about reform must engage with society’s foundational narratives about crime and criminal justice, including views about the rationales for punishment.

I. Rationales of Punishment

What is criminal justice? What purpose does our criminal justice system serve? Answers to these questions are found in the theories, organization, and practices of criminal justice. A starting point for discovery is the fact that criminal justice is a system for the implementation of punishment (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982 ). This has not always been the case but today, punishment is largely meted out in our correctional system, or prisons and jails, which embody rationales for punishment including retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. These rationales offer competing purposes and goals, and provide varying blueprints for how our criminal justice system should operate.

Where do these rationales come from? They derive, in part, from diverse understandings and explanations about the causes of crime. While many theories exist, a useful approach for thinking about crime and its causes is found in the two schools of criminological thought, the Classical and Positivist Schools of Criminology. These Schools reflect distinct ideological assumptions, identify competing rationales for punishment, and suggest unique social policies to address crime—all central to any discussion of criminal justice reform.

At its core, the Classical School sought to bring about reform of the criminal justice systems of eighteenth century Europe, which were characterized by such abuses as torture, presumption of guilt before trial, and arbitrary court procedures. Reformers of the Classical School, most notably Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, were influenced by social contract theorists of the Enlightenment, a cultural movement of intellectuals in late seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe that emphasized reason and individualism rather than tradition, along with equality. Central assumptions of the Classical School include that people are rational and possessed of free will, and thus can be held responsible for their actions; that humans are governed by the principle of utility and, as such, seek pleasure or happiness and avoid pain; and that, to prevent crime, punishments should be just severe enough such that the pain or unhappiness created by the punishment outweighs any pleasure or happiness derived from crime, thereby deterring would-be-offenders who will see that “crime does not pay.”

The guiding concept of the Positivist School was the application of the scientific method to study crime and criminals. In contrast to the Classical School’s focus on rational decision-making, the Positivist School adopted a deterministic viewpoint, which suggests that crime is determined by factors largely outside the control of individuals, be they biological (such as genetics), psychological (such as personality disorder), or sociological (such as poverty). Positivists also promote the idea of multiple-factor causation, or that crime is caused by a constellation of complex forces.

When it comes to how we might productively think about reform, a solid understanding of these schools is necessary because “…the unique sets of assumptions of two predominant schools of criminological thought give rise to vastly different explanations of and prescriptions for the problem of crime” (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982 :36). In other words, the two schools of thought translate into different strategies for policy. They generate rationales for punishment that offer competing narratives regarding how society should handle those who violate the law. These rationales for punishment motivate reformers, whether the aim is to “rehabilitate offenders” or “get tough on crime,” influencing policy and practice.

The earliest rationale for punishment is retribution. Consistent with an individual’s desire for revenge, the aim is that offenders experience an unpleasant consequence for violating the law. Essentially, criminals should get what they deserve. While other rationales focus on changing future behavior, retribution focuses on an individual’s past actions and implies they have rightfully “earned” their punishment. Punishment, then, expresses moral disapproval for the criminal act committed. Advocates of retribution are not concerned with controlling crime; rather, they are in the business of “doing justice.” The death penalty and sentencing guidelines, a system of recommended sentences based upon offense (e.g., level of seriousness) and offender (e.g., number and type of prior offenses) characteristics, reflect basic principles of retribution.

Among the most popular rationales for punishment is deterrence, which refers to the idea that those considering crime will refrain from doing so out of a fear of punishment, consistent with the Classical School. Deterrence emphasizes that punishing a person also sends a message to others about what they can expect if they, too, violate the law. Deterrence theory provides the basis for a particular kind of correctional system that punishes the crime, not the criminal. Punishments are to be fixed tightly to specific crimes so that offenders will soon learn that the state means business. The death penalty is an example of a policy based on deterrence (as is obvious, these rationales are not mutually exclusive) as are three-strikes laws, which significantly increase prison sentences of those convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies.

Another rationale for punishment, incapacitation, has the goal of reducing crime by incarcerating offenders or otherwise restricting their liberty (e.g., community supervision reflected in probation, parole, electronic monitoring). Uninterested in why individuals commit crime in the first place, and with no illusion they can be reformed, the goal is to remove individuals from society during a period in which they are expected to reoffend. Habitual offender laws, which target repeat offenders or career criminals and provide for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions, reflect this rationale.

Embodied in the term “corrections” is the notion that those who commit crime can be reformed, that their behavior can be “corrected.” Rehabilitation refers to when individuals refrain from crime—not out of a fear of punishment—but because they are committed to law-abiding behavior. The goal, from this perspective, is to change the factors that lead individuals to commit crime in the first place, consistent with Positivist School arguments. Unless criminogenic risks are targeted for change, crime will continue. The correctional system should thus be arranged to deliver effective treatment; in other words, prisons must be therapeutic. Reflective of this rationale is the risk-need-responsibility (RNR) model, used to assess and rehabilitate offenders. Based on three principles, the risk principle asserts that criminal behavior can be reliably predicted and that treatment should focus on higher risk offenders, the need principle emphasizes the importance of criminogenic needs in the design and delivery of treatment and, the responsivity principle describes how the treatment should be provided.

When a crime takes place, harm occurs—to the victim, to the community, and even to the offender. Traditional rationales of punishment do not make rectifying this harm in a systematic way an important goal. Restoration, or restorative justice, a relatively newer rationale, aims to rectify harms and restore injured parties, perhaps by apologizing and providing restitution to the victim or by doing service for the community. In exchange, the person who violated the law is (ideally) forgiven and accepted back into the community as a full-fledged member. Programs associated with restorative justice are mediation and conflict-resolution programs, family group conferences, victim-impact panels, victim–offender mediation, circle sentencing, and community reparative boards.

II. Narratives of Criminal Justice

Rationales for punishment, thus, are many. But from where do they arise? They reflect and reinforce narratives of crime and criminal justice (Garland, 1991 ). Penological and philosophical narratives constitute two traditional ways of thinking about criminal justice. In the former, punishment is viewed essentially as a technique of crime control. This narrative views the criminal justice system in instrumental terms, as an institution whose overriding purpose is the management and control of crime. The focal question of interest is a technical one: What works to control crime? The latter, and second, narrative considers the philosophy of punishment. It examines the normative foundations on which the corrections system rests. Here, punishment is set up as a distinctively moral problem, asking how penal sanctions can be justified, what their proper objectives should be, and under what circumstances they can be reasonably imposed. The central question here is “What is just?”.

A third narrative, “the sociology of punishment,” conceptualizes punishment as a social institution—one that is distinctively focused on punishment’s social forms, functions, and significance in society (Garland, 1991 ). In this narrative, punishment, and the criminal justice system more broadly, is understood as a cultural and historical artifact that is concerned with the control of crime, but that is shaped by an ensemble of social forces and has significance and impacts that reach well beyond the population of criminals (pg. 119). A sociology of punishment narrative raises important questions: How do specific penal measures come into existence?; What social functions does punishment perform?; How do correctional institutions relate to other institutions?; How do they contribute to social order or to state power or to class domination or to cultural reproduction of society?; What are punishment’s unintended social effects, its functional failures, and its wider social costs? (pg. 119). Answers to these questions are found in the sociological perspectives on punishment, most notably those by Durkheim (punishment is a moral process, functioning to preserve shared values and normative conventions on which social life is based), Marx (punishment is a repressive instrument of class domination), Foucault (punishment is one part of an extensive network of “normalizing” practices in society that also includes school, family, and work), and Elias (punishment reflects a civilizing process that brings with it a move toward the privatization of disturbing events), among others.

Consistent with the sociology of punishment, Kraska and Brent ( 2011 ) offer additional narratives, which they call theoretical orientations, for organizing thoughts on the criminal justice system generally, and the control of crime specifically. They argue a useful way to think about theorizing is through the use of metaphors. Adopting this approach, they identify eight ways of thinking based on different metaphors: criminal justice as rational/legalism, as a system, as crime control vs. due process, as politics, as the social construction of reality, as a growth complex, as oppression, and as modernity. Several overlap with concepts and frameworks discussed earlier, while others, such as oppression, are increasingly applicable in current conversations about racial justice—something we take up in greater detail below. Consistent with Garland ( 1991 ), Kraska and Brent ( 2011 ) emphasize that each narrative tells a unique story about the history, growth, behaviors, motivations, functioning, and possible future of the criminal justice system. What unites these approaches is their shared interest in understanding punishment’s broader role in society.

There are still other narratives of crime and criminal justice, with implications for thinking about and conceptualizing reform. Packer ( 1964 ) identifies two theoretical models, each offering a different narrative, which reflect value systems competing for priority in the operation of the criminal process: the Crime Control Model and the Due Process Model. The Crime Control Model is based on the view that the most important function of the criminal process is the repression of criminal conduct. The failure of law enforcement to bring criminal conduct under tight control is seen as leading to a breakdown of public order and hence, to the disappearance of freedom. If laws go unenforced and offenders perceive there is a low chance of being apprehended and convicted, a disregard for legal controls will develop and law-abiding citizens are likely to experience increased victimization. In this way, the criminal justice process is a guarantor of social freedom.

To achieve this high purpose, the Crime Control Model requires attention be paid to the efficiency with which the system operates to screen suspects, determine guilt, and secure dispositions of individuals convicted of crime. There is thus a premium on speed and finality. Speed, in turn, depends on informality, while finality depends on minimizing occasions for challenge. As such, the process cannot be “cluttered up” with ceremonious rituals. In this way, informal operations are preferred to formal ones, and routine, stereotyped procedures are essential to handle large caseloads. Packer likens the Crime Control Model to an “assembly line or a conveyor belt down which moves an endless stream of cases, never stopping, carrying the cases to workers who stand at fixed stations and who perform on each case as it comes by the same small but essential operation that brings it one step closer to being a finished product, or, to exchange the metaphor for the reality, a closed file” (pg. 11). Evidence of this model today is witnessed in the extremely high rate of criminal cases disposed of via plea bargaining.

In contrast, the Due Process model calls for strict adherence to the Constitution and a focus on the accused and their Constitutional rights. Stressing the possibility of error, this model emphasizes the need to protect procedural rights even if this prevents the system from operating with maximum efficiency. There is thus a rejection of informal fact-finding processes and insistence on formal, adjudicative, adversary fact-finding processes. Packer likens the Due Process model to an obstacle course: “Each of its successive stages is designed to present formidable impediments to carrying the accused any further along in the process” (pg. 13). That all death penalty cases are subject to appeal, even when not desired by the offender, is evidence of the Due Process model in action.

Like the frameworks described earlier, the Crime Control and Due Process models offer a useful framework for discussing and debating the operation of a system whose day-to-day functioning involves a constant tension between competing demands of different sets of values. In the context of reform, these models encourage us to consider critical questions: On a spectrum between the extremes represented by the two models, where do our present practices fall? What appears to be the direction of foreseeable trends along this spectrum? Where on the spectrum should we aim to be? In essence, which value system is reflected most in criminal justice practices today, in which direction is the system headed, and where should it aim go in the future? Of course this framework, as all others reviewed here, assumes a tight fit between structure and function in the criminal courts yet some challenge this assumption arguing, instead, that criminal justice is best conceived of as a “loosely coupled system” (Hagan et al., 1979 :508; see also Bernard et al., 2005 ).

III. The Relevance of Crime and Criminal Justice Narratives for Thinking about Reform

When it comes to guiding researchers and policymakers to think productively about criminal justice reform, at first glance the discussion above may appear too academic and intellectual. But these narratives are more than simply fodder for discussion or topics of debate in the classroom or among academics. They govern how we think and talk about criminal justice and, by extension, how the system should be structured—and reformed.

An illustrative example of this is offered in Haney’s ( 1982 ) essay on psychological individualism. Adopting the premise that legal rules, doctrines, and procedures, including those of the criminal justice system, reflect basic assumptions about human nature, Haney’s thesis is that in nineteenth century America, an overarching narrative dominated legal and social conceptions of human behavior—that of psychological individualism. Psychological individualism incorporates three basic “facts” about human behavior: 1) individuals are the causal locus of behavior; 2) socially problematic and illegal behavior therefore arises from some defect in the individual persons who perform it; and, 3) such behavior can be changed or eliminated only by effecting changes in the nature or characteristics of those persons. Here, crime is rooted in the nature of criminals themselves be the source genetic, biological, or instinctual, ideas consistent with the Classical School of Criminology.

Haney reviews the rise and supremacy of psychological individualism in American society, discusses its entrenchment in legal responses to crime, and describes the implications of adopting such a viewpoint. Psychological individualism, he claims, diverted attention away from the structural and situational causes of crime (e.g., poverty, inequality, capitalism) and suggested the futility of social reforms that sought solutions to human problems through changes in larger social conditions: “The legal system, in harmony with widely held psychological theories about the causal primacy of individuals, acted to transform all structural problems into matters of moral depravity and personal shortcoming” (pg. 226–27). This process of transformation is nowhere clearer than in our historical commitment to prisons as the solution to the problem of crime, a commitment that continues today. Psychological individualism continues to underpin contemporary reform efforts. For example, approaches to reducing racial disparities in policing by eliminating officers’ unconscious racial bias through implicit-bias trainings shifts the focus away from organizational and institutional sources of disparate treatment.

In sum, the various narratives of crime and criminal justice constitute an essential starting point for any discussion of reform. They reflect vastly differing assumptions and, in many instances, value orientations or ideologies. The diversity of ways of thinking arguably contribute to conflict in society over contemporary criminal justice policy and proposed reforms. Appreciating that point is critical for identifying ways to create effective and sustainable reforms.

At the same time, these different ways of thinking do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they collide with practical realities and constraints, which can and do shape how the criminal justice system functions, as well as determine the ability to reform it moving forward. For that reason, we turn to a discussion of how narratives about crime and criminal justice intersect with practical realities in the policy sphere, and suggest considerations that policymakers, researchers, and larger audiences should attend to when thinking about the future of reform.

Part II. Practical Considerations: Criminal Justice Reform through a Policy Lens

Criminal justice reform is no simple matter. Unsurprisingly, crime has long been considered an example of a “wicked” problem in public policy: ill-defined; with uncertainty about its causes and incomplete knowledge of effective solutions; complex arrangements of institutions responsible for addressing the problem; and, disagreement on foundational values (Head & Alford, 2015 ; Rittel & Webber, 1973 )—the latter apparent from the discussion above. Many note a large gap between criminological knowledge and policy (Mears, 2010 , 2022 ; Currie, 2007 ). While a movement to incorporate research evidence into the policy-making process has made some in-roads, we know less about how policymakers use this information to adopt and enact reforms. Put differently, more attention is paid to understanding the outcomes of crime-related policy while less is known about the contexts of, and inputs into, the process itself (Ismaili, 2006 ).

We identify practical considerations for policy-oriented researchers and policymakers in thinking through how to make criminal justice reform more effective. Specifically, we discuss practical considerations that reformers are likely to encounter related to problem formulation and framing (policy talk) and policy adoption (policy action), including issues of 1) variation and complexity in the criminal justice policy environment, 2) problem framing and policy content, 3) policy aims and outcomes, 4) equity considerations in policy design and evaluation; and, 5) policy process and policy change. These considerations are by no means exhaustive nor are they mutually exclusive. We offer these thoughts as starting points for discussion.

I. The Criminal Justice Policy Environment: Many Systems, Many Players

The criminal justice “system” in the United States is something of a misnomer. There is no single, centralized system. Instead, there are at least 51 separate systems—one for each of the 50 states, and the federal criminal justice system—each with different laws, policies, and administrative arrangements. Multiple agencies are responsible for various aspects of enforcing the law and administering justice. These agencies operate across multiple, overlapping jurisdictions. Some are at the municipal level (police), others are governed by counties (courts, prosecution, jails), and still others by state and federal agencies (prisons, probation, parole). Across these systems is an enormous amount of discretion regarding what crimes to prioritize for enforcement, whether and what charges to file, which sentences to mete out, what types of conditions, treatment, and programming to impose, and how to manage those under correctional authority. Scholars note the intrinsic problem with this wide-ranging independence: “criminal justice policy is made and put into action at the municipal, county, state, and national levels, and the thousands of organizations that comprise this criminal justice network are, for the most part, relatively autonomous both horizontally and vertically” (Lynch, 2011 :682; see also Bernard et al., 2005 ; Mears, 2017 ).

Criminal justice officials are not the only players. The “policy community” is made up of other governmental actors, including elected and appointed officials in the executive branches (governors and mayors) and legislative actors (council members, state, and federal representatives), responsible for formulating and executing legislation. Non-governmental actors play a role in the policy community as well, including private institutions and non-profit organizations, the media, interest and advocacy groups, academics and research institutions, impacted communities, along with the public at large (Ismaili, 2006 ).

Any consideration of criminal justice reform must attend to the structural features of the policy environment, including its institutional fragmentation. This feature creates both obstacles and opportunities for reform. Policy environments vary tremendously across states and local communities. Policies championed in Washington State are likely different than those championed in Georgia. But the policy community in Atlanta may be decidedly different than that of Macon, and policy changes can happen at hyper-local levels (Ouss & Stevenson, 2022 ). Differences between local jurisdictions can have national impacts: while urban jurisdictions have reduced their reliance on jails and prisons, rural and suburban incarceration rates continue to increase (Kang-Brown & Subramanian, 2017 ). Understanding key stakeholders, their political and policy interests, and their administrative authority to act is critical for determining how effective policy reforms can be pursued (Miller, 2008 ; Page, 2011 ). Prospects for, and possible targets of, reform thus necessitate a wide view of what constitutes “policy,” 1 looking not only to federal and state law but also to state and local administrative policies and practices (Reiter & Chesnut, 2018 ).

II. Policy Talk: Framing Problems, Shaping Possible Solutions

While agreement exists around the need for reform in the criminal justice system, this apparent unanimity belies disagreements over the proposed causes of the problem and feasible solutions (Gottschalk, 2015 ; Levin, 2018 ). This is evident in how reform is talked about in political and policy spheres, the types of reforms pursued, and which groups are its beneficiaries. Since the Great Recession of 2008, bipartisan reforms have often been couched in the language of fiscal conservatism, “right-sizing” the system, and being “smart on crime” (Beckett et al., 2016 ). These economic frames, focused on cost-efficiency, are effectively used to defend non-punitive policies including changes to the death penalty, marijuana legalization, and prison down-sizing (Aviram, 2015 ). However, cost-saving rationales are also used to advance punitive policies that shift the costs of punishment onto those who are being sanctioned, such as “pay-to-stay” jails and the multitude of fines and fees levied on justice-involved people for the cost of criminal justice administration. Economic justifications are not the only arguments that support the very same policy changes; fairness and proportionality, reducing prison overcrowding, enhancing public safety, and increasing rehabilitation are all deployed to defend various reforms (Beckett et al., 2016 ). Similarity in rhetorical justifications—cost-efficiency and fiscal responsibility, for example—can obscure deep divisions over how, and whom, to punish, divisions which stem from different narratives on the causes and consequences of crime.

The content of enacted policies also reveals underlying disagreements within justice reform. Clear distinctions are seen in how cases and people are categorized, and in who benefits from, or is burdened by, reform. For example, many states have lowered penalties and expanded rehabilitation alternatives for non-violent drug and other low-level offenses and technical violations on parole. Substantially fewer reforms target violent offenses. Decarceration efforts for non-violent offenders are often coupled with increasing penalties for others, including expansions of life imprisonment without parole for violent offenses (Beckett, 2018 ; Seeds, 2017 ). Reforms aimed only at individuals characterized as “non-violent, non-serious, and non-sexual” can reinforce social distinctions between people (and offenses) seen as deserving of lenient treatment from those who aren’t (Beckett et al., 2016 ).

The framing of social problems can shape the nature of solutions, although the impact of “framing” deserves greater attention in the criminal justice policy process (Rein & Schön, 1977 ; Schneider & Ingram,  1993 ). Policies can be understood in rational terms—for their application of technical solutions to resolve pre-defined problems—but also through “value-laden components, such as social constructions, rationales, and underlying assumptions” (Schneider & Sidney, 2006 :105). Specific frames (e.g., “crime doesn’t pay” or “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”) derive from underlying narratives (e.g., classical school, rational-actor models of behavior, and deterrence) that shape how crime and criminal justice are understood, as discussed in Part I. Framing involves how issues are portrayed and categorized, and even small changes to language or images used to frame an issue can impact policy preferences (Chong & Druckman, 2007 ). Public sentiments play an important role in the policy process, as policymakers and elected officials are responsive to public opinion about punishments (Pickett, 2019 ). Actors in the policy community—criminal justice bureaucrats, elected officials, interest groups, activists—compete to influence how a problem is framed, and thus addressed, by policymakers (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009 ; Benford & Snow, 2000 ). Policymakers, particularly elected officials, commonly work to frame issues in ways that support their political goals and resonate with their constituents (Gamson, 1992 ).

As noted at the outset, public support for harsh punishments has declined since the 1990’s and the salience of punitive “law and order” and “tough-on-crime” politics has fallen as well, as public support for rehabilitative approaches has increased (Thielo et al., 2016 ). How can researchers and policymakers capitalize on this shift in public sentiments? Research suggests that different issue frames, such as fairness, cost to taxpayers, ineffectiveness, and racial disparities, can increase (or reduce) public support for policies for nonviolent offenders (e.g., Dunbar, 2022 ; Gottlieb, 2017 ) and even for policies that target violent offenders (Pickett et al., 2022 ). Public sentiment and framing clearly matter for what problems gain attention, the types of policies that exist, and who ultimately benefits. These themes raise orienting questions: In a specific locale, what are the dominant understandings of the policy problem? How do these understandings map to sets of foundational assumptions about the purpose of intervention (e.g., deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, restoration) and understandings of why people commit crime (e.g., Classical and Positivist approaches)? What types of issue frames are effective in garnering support for reforms? How does this support vary by policy context (urban, suburban, rural; federal, statewide, and local) and audience (elected officials, agency leadership, frontline workers, political constituents)?

III. Proposed Solutions and Expected Outcomes: Instrumental or Symbolic?

There are a variety of motivations in pursuing various policy solutions, along with different kinds of goals. Some reflect a desire to create tangible change for a specific problem while others are meant to mollify a growing concern. As such, one practical consideration related to policymaking and reform that bears discussion is the symbolic and instrumental nature of criminal justice policies.

Policies are considered to have an instrumental nature when they propose or result in changes to behaviors related to a public problem such as crime—that is, when they change behavior through direct influence on individuals’ actions (Sample et al., 2011 :29; see also Grattet & Jenness, 2008 ; Gusfield, 1963 ; Oliver & Marion, 2008 ). Symbolic policies, by contrast, are those that policymakers pass in order to be seen in a favorable light by the public (Jenness, 2004 ), particularly in the context of a “moral panic” (Barak, 1994 ; Ben-Yehuda, 1990 ). As Sample et al., ( 2011 :28) explain, symbolic policies provide three basic functions to society: 1) reassuring the public by helping reduce angst and demonstrate that something is being done about a problem; 2) solidifying moral boundaries by codifying public consensus of right and wrong; and 3) becoming a model for the diffusion of law to other states and the federal government. Symbolic policies are thus meant to demonstrate that policymakers understand, and are willing to address, a perceived problem, even when there is little expectation such policies will make a difference. In this way, symbolic policies are “values statements” and function largely ceremonially.

This distinction has a long history in criminological work, dating back to Gusfield’s ( 1963 ) analysis of the temperance movement. Suggesting that policymaking is often dramatic in nature and intended to shift ways of thinking, Gusfield ( 1963 ) argues that Prohibition and temperance were intended as symbolic, rather than instrumental, goals in that their impacts were felt in the action of prohibition itself rather than in its effect on citizens’ consumptive behaviors.

A modern-day example of symbolic policy is found in the sanctuary status movement as it relates to the policing of immigrants. Historically, immigration enforcement was left to the federal government however state and local law enforcement have faced increasing demands to become more involved in enforcing immigration laws in their communities. Policies enacted to create closer ties between local police departments and federal immigration officials reflect this new pattern of “devolution of immigration enforcement” (Provine et al., 2016 ). The Secure Communities Program, the Criminal Alien Program, and 287g agreements, in different but complementary ways, provide resources and training to help local officials enforce immigration statutes.

The devolution of immigration enforcement has faced widespread scrutiny (Kubrin, 2014 ). Many local jurisdictions have rejected devolution efforts by passing sanctuary policies, which expressly limit local officials’ involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Among the most comprehensive is California’s SB54, passed in 2017, which made California a sanctuary state. The law prohibits local authorities from cooperating with federal immigration detainer requests, limits immigration agents’ access to local jails, and ends the use of jails to hold immigration detainees. At first glance, SB54 appears instrumental—its aim is to change the behavior of criminal justice officials in policing immigration. In practice, however, it appears that little behavioral change has taken place. Local police in California had already minimized their cooperation with Federal officials, well before SB54 was passed. In a broader sense then, “…the ‘sanctuary city’ name is largely a symbolic message of political support for immigrants without legal residency” and with SB54 specifically, “California [helped build] a wall of justice against President Trump’s xenophobic, racist and ignorant immigration policies,” (Ulloa, 2017 ).

Instrumental and symbolic goals are not an either-or proposition. Policies can be both, simultaneously easing public fears, demonstrating legislators’ desire to act, and having direct appreciable effects on people’s behaviors (Sample et al., 2011 ). This may occur even when not intended. At the same time, a policy’s effects or outcomes can turn out to be different from the original aim, creating a gap between “policy talk” and “policy action.” In their analysis of law enforcement action in response to the passage of hate crime legislation, Grattet and Jenness ( 2008 ) find that legislation thought to be largely symbolic in nature, in fact, ended up having instrumental effects through changes in enforcement practices, even as these effects were conditioned by the organizational context of enforcement agencies. Symbolic law can be rendered instrumental (under certain organizational and social conditions) and symbolic policies may evolve to have instrumental effects.

As another example, consider aims and outcomes of sex offender registration laws, which provide information about people convicted of sex offenses to local and federal authorities and the public, including the person’s name, current location, and past offenses. As Sample et al. ( 2011 ) suggest, these laws, often passed immediately following a highly publicized sex crime or in the midst of a moral panic, are largely cast as symbolic policy, serving to reassure the public through notification of sex offenders’ whereabouts so their behaviors can be monitored (Jenkins, 1998 ; Sample & Kadleck, 2008 ). While notification laws do not yield a discernable instrumental effect on offenders’ behavior (Tewksbury, 2002 ), this is not the sole goal of such policies. Rather, they are intended to encourage behavioral change among citizens (Sample et al., 2011 ), encouraging the public’s participation in their own safety by providing access to information. Do sex offender notification laws, in fact, alter citizen behavior, thereby boosting public safety?

To answer this question, Sample and her colleagues ( 2011 ) surveyed a random sample of Nebraska residents to determine whether they access sex offender information and to explore the reasons behind their desire, or reluctance, to do so. They find largely symbolic effects of registry legislation, with a majority of residents (over 69%) indicating they had never accessed the registry. These findings raise important questions about the symbolic vs. instrumental nature of criminal justice policies more broadly: “Should American citizens be content with largely symbolic crime policies and laws that demonstrate policy makers’ willingness to address problems, ease public fear, solidify public consensus of appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and provide a model of policies and laws for other states, or should they want more from crime control efforts? Is there a tipping point at which time the resources expended to adhere to symbolic laws and a point where the financial and human costs of the law become too high to continue to support legislation that is largely symbolic in nature? Who should make this judgment?” (pg. 46). These two examples, immigration-focused laws and sex offender laws, illustrate the dynamics involved in policymaking, particularly the relationship between proposed solutions and their expected outcomes. They reveal that instrumental and symbolic goals often compete for priority in the policy-making arena.

IV. Equity-Consciousness in Policy Formulation

As the criminal justice system exploded in size in the latter half of the twentieth century, its impacts have not spread equally across the population. Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities are disproportionately affected by policing, mass incarceration, and surveillance practices. At a moment of political momentum seeking to curb the excesses of the criminal justice system, careful attention must be paid not only to its overreach, but also to its racialized nature and inequitable impacts. Many evaluative criteria are used to weigh policies including efficiency, effectiveness, cost, political acceptability, and administrative feasibility, among others. One critical dimension is the extent to which a policy incorporates equity considerations into its design, or is ignorant about potential inequitable outcomes. While reducing racial disparities characterizes reform efforts of the past, these efforts often fail to yield meaningful impacts, and sometimes unintentionally exacerbate disparities. Equity analyses should be more formally centered in criminal justice policymaking.

Racial and ethnic disparities are a central feature of the U.S. criminal justice system. Decades of research reveals Black people, and to a lesser degree Latinos and Native Americans, are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system at all stages (Bales & Piquero, 2012 ; Hinton et al., 2018 ; Kutateladze et al., 2014 ; Menefee, 2018 ; Mitchell, 2005 ; Warren et al., 2012 ). These disparities have many sources: associations between blackness and criminality, and stereotypes of dangerousness (Muhammad, 2010 ); implicit racial bias (Spencer et al., 2016 ); residential and economic segregation that expose communities of color to environments that encourage criminal offending and greater police presence (Peterson & Krivo, 2010 ; Sharkey, 2013 ); and, punitive criminal justice policies that increase the certainty and severity of punishments, such as mandatory minimum sentences, life imprisonment, and habitual offender laws, for which people of color are disproportionately arrested and convicted (Raphael & Stoll, 2013 ; Schlesinger, 2011 ). Disparities in initial stages of criminal justice contact, at arrest or prosecution, can compound to generate disparate outcomes at later stages, such as conviction and sentencing, even where legal actors are committed to racial equality (Kutateladze et al., 2014 ). Disparities compound over time, too; having prior contact with the justice system may increase surveillance and the likelihood of being arrested, charged, detained pretrial, and sentenced to incarceration (Ahrens, 2020 ; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2019 ).

Perspectives on how to reduce disparities vary widely, and understanding how the benefits or burdens of a given policy change will be distributed across racial and ethnic groups is not always clear. Even well-intentioned reforms intended to increase fairness and alleviate disparities can fail to achieve intended impacts or unintentionally encourage inequity. For example, sentencing guidelines adopted in the 1970s to increase consistency and reduce inequitable outcomes across groups at sentencing alleviated, but did not eliminate, racial disparities (Johnson & Lee, 2013 ); popular “Ban the Box” legislation, aimed at reducing the stigma of a criminal record, may increase racial disparities in callbacks for job seekers of color (Agan & Starr, 2018 ; Raphael, 2021 ); and “risk assessments,” used widely in criminal justice decision-making, may unintentionally reproduce existing disparities by relying on information that is itself a product of racialized policing, prosecution, and sentencing (Eckhouse et al., 2019 ). Conversely, policies enacted without explicit consideration of equity effects may result in reductions of disparities: California’s Proposition 47, which reclassifies certain felony offenses to misdemeanors, reduced Black and Latino disparities in drug arrests, likelihood of conviction, and rates of jail incarceration relative to Whites (Mooney et al., 2018 ; Lofstrom et al., 2019 ; MacDonald & Raphael, 2020 ).

Understanding the potential equity implications of criminal justice reforms should be a key consideration for policymakers and applied researchers alike. However, an explicit focus on reducing racial disparities is often excluded from the policymaking process, seen as a secondary concern to other policy goals, or framed in ways that focus on race-neutral processes rather than race-equitable outcomes (Chouhy et al., 2021 ; Donnelly, 2017 ). But this need not be the case; examinations of how elements of a given policy (e.g., goals, target population, eligibility criteria) and proposed changes to procedure or practice might impact different groups can be incorporated into policy design and evaluation. As one example, racial equity impact statements (REIS), a policy tool that incorporates an empirical analysis of the projected impacts of a change in law, policy, or practice on racial and ethnic groups (Porter, 2021 ), are used in some states. Modeled after the now-routine environmental impact and fiscal impact statements, racial impact statements may be conducted in advance of a hearing or vote on any proposed change to policy, or can even be incorporated in the policy formulation stages (Chouhy et al., 2021 ; Mauer, 2007 ). Researchers, analysts, and policymakers should also examine potential differential effects of existing policies and pay special attention to how structural inequalities intersect with policy features to contribute to—and potentially mitigate—disparate impacts of justice reforms (Anderson et al., 2022 ; Mooney et al., 2022 ).

V. Putting It Together: Modeling the Policy Change Process

Approaches to crime and punishment do not change overnight. Policy change can be incremental or haphazard, and new innovations adopted by criminal justice systems often bear markers of earlier approaches. There exist multiple frameworks for understanding change and continuity in approaches to crime and punishment. The metaphor of a pendulum is often used to characterize changes to criminal justice policy, where policy regimes swing back and forth between punishment and leniency (Goodman et al., 2017 ). These changes are ushered along by macro-level shifts of economic, political, demographics, and cultural sensibilities (Garland, 2001 ).

Policy change is rarely predictable or mechanical (Smith & Larimer, 2017 ). Actors struggle over whom to punish and how, and changes in the relative resources, political position, and power among actors drive changes to policy and practice (Goodman et al., 2017 ). This conflict, which plays out at the level of politics and policymaking and is sometimes subsumed within agencies and day-to-day practices in the justice system, creates a landscape of contradictory policies, logics, and discourses. New policies and practices are “tinted” by (Dabney et al., 2017 ) or “braided” with older logics (Hutchinson, 2006 ), or “layered” onto existing practices (Rubin, 2016 ).

Public policy theory offers different, but complementary, insights into how policies come to be, particularly under complex conditions. One widely used framework in policy studies is the “multiple streams” framework (Kingdon, 1995 ). This model of the policymaking process focuses on policy choice and agenda setting, or the question of what leads policymakers to pay attention to one issue over others, and pursue one policy in lieu of others.

The policy process is heuristically outlined as a sequential set of steps or stages: problem identification, agenda setting, policy formulation, adoption or decision-making, implementation, and evaluation. However, real-world policymaking rarely conforms to this process (Smith & Larimer, 2017 ). In the multiple streams lens, the process is neither rational nor linear but is seen as “organized anarchy,” described by several features: 1) ambiguity over the definition of the problem, creating many possible solutions for the same circumstances and conditions; 2) limited time to make decisions and multiple issues vying for policymakers’ attention, leading to uncertain policy preferences; 3) a crowded policy community with shifting participation; and, 4) multiple agencies and organizations in the policy environment working on similar problems with little coordination or transparency (Herweg et al., 2018 ).

In this context, opportunity for change emerges when three, largely separate, “streams” of interactions intersect: problems , politics , and policies . First, in the “problem stream,” problems are defined as conditions that deviate from expectations and are seen by the public as requiring government intervention. Many such “problems” exist, but not all rise to the level of attention from policymakers. Conditions must be re-framed into problems requiring government attention. Several factors can usher this transformation. Changes in the scale of problem, such as increases or decreases in crime, can raise the attention of government actors. So-called “focusing events” (Birkland, 1997 ), or rare and unexpected events, such as shocking violent crime or a natural disaster (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic), can also serve this purpose. The murder of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, for instance, was a focusing event for changing the national conversation around police use of force into a problem requiring government intervention. Finally, feedback from existing programs or policies, particularly those that fail to achieve their goals or have unwanted effects, can reframe existing conditions as problems worthy of attention.

The “policy stream” is where solutions, or policy alternatives, are developed to address emerging problems. Solutions are generated both by “visible” participants in the stream, such as prominent elected officials, or by “hidden” actors, such as criminal justice bureaucrats, interest groups, academics, or consultants. Policy ideas float around in this stream until they are “coupled,” or linked, with specific problems. At any given time, policy ideas based in deterrence or incapacitation rationales, including increasing the harshness of penalties or the certainty of sanctions, and solutions based in rehabilitative rationales, such as providing treatment-oriented diversion or restorative justice programs, all co-exist in the policy stream. Not all policy alternatives are seen as viable and likely to reach the agenda; viable solutions are marked by concerns of feasibility, value acceptability, public support or tolerance, and financial viability.

Lastly, the “political stream” is governed by several elements, including changes to the national mood and changing composition of governments and legislatures as new politicians are elected and new government administrators appointed. This stream helps determine whether a problem will find a receptive venue (Smith & Larimer, 2017 ). For example, the election of a progressive prosecutor intent on changing status quo processing of cases through the justice system creates a viable political environment for new policies to be linked with problems. When the three streams converge, that is, when conditions become problems, a viable solution is identified, and a receptive political venue exists, a “policy window” opens and change is most likely. For Kingdon ( 2011 ), this is a moment of “opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their pet solutions, or to push attention to their special problems” (pg. 165).

Models of the policy change process, of which the multiple streams framework is just one, may be effectively applied to crime and justice policy spheres. Prior discussions on the ways of thinking about crime and criminal justice can be usefully integrated with models of the policy change process; narratives shape how various conditions are constructed as problems worthy of collective action and influence policy ideas and proposals available among policy communities. We encourage policymakers and policy-oriented researchers to examine criminal justice reform through policy process frameworks in order to better understand why some reforms succeed, and why others fail.

When it comes to the criminal justice system, one of the most commonly asked questions today is: How can we improve the effectiveness of reform efforts? Effective reform hinges on shared understandings of what the problem is as well as shared visions of what success looks like. Yet consensus is hard to come by, and scholars have long differentiated between “policy talk” and “policy action.” The aim of this essay has been to identify conceptual and practical considerations related to both policy talk and policy action in the context of criminal justice reform today.

On the conceptual side, we reviewed narratives that create society’s fundamental ways of thinking about or conceptualizing crime and criminal justice. These narratives reflect value orientations that underlie our criminal justice system and determine how it functions. On the practical side, we identified considerations for both policy-oriented researchers and policymakers in thinking through how to make criminal justice reform more effective. These practical considerations included variation and complexity in the criminal justice policy environment, problem framing and policy content, policy aims and outcomes, equity considerations in policy design and evaluation, and models of the policy change process.

These conceptual and practical considerations are by no means exhaustive, nor are they mutually-exclusive. Rather, they serve as starting points for productively thinking and talking about, as well as designing, effective and sustainable criminal justice reform. At the same time, they point to the need for continuous policy evaluation and monitoring—at all levels—as a way to increase accountability and effectiveness. Indeed, policy talk and policy action do not stop at the problem formation, agenda setting, or adoption stages of policymaking. Critical to understanding effective policy is implementation and evaluation, which create feedback into policy processes, and is something that should be addressed in future work on criminal justice reform.

Biographies

is Professor of Criminology, Law & Society and (by courtesy) Sociology at the University of California, Irvine. Among other topics, her research examines the impact of criminal justice reform on crime rates. Professor Kubrin has received several national awards including the Ruth Shonle Cavan Young Scholar Award from the American Society of Criminology (for outstanding scholarly contributions to the discipline of criminology); the W.E.B. DuBois Award from the Western Society of Criminology (for significant contributions to racial and ethnic issues in the field of criminology); and the Paul Tappan Award from the Western Society of Criminology (for outstanding contributions to the field of criminology). In 2019, she was named a Fellow of the American Society of Criminology.

, M.P.P. is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminology, Law & Society at the University of California, Irvine. Her research explores criminal justice reform, inequality, courts, and corrections. She has over 10 years of experience working with state and local governments to conduct applied research, program evaluation, and technical assistance in criminal justice and corrections. Her work has appeared in the peer-reviewed journals Justice Quarterly and PLOS One.

1 No single definition of public policy exists. Here we follow Smith and Larimer ( 2017 ) and define policy as any action by the government in response to a problem, including laws, rules, agency policies, programs, and day-to-day practices.

Publisher's Note

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

Contributor Information

Charis E. Kubrin, Email: ude.icu@nirbukc .

Rebecca Tublitz, Email: ude.icu@ztilbutr .

• Agan, A. & Starr, S. (2018) Ban the box criminal records and racial discrimination: A field experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133 (1), 191–235. 10.1093/qje/qjx028
• Ahrens DM. Retroactive legality: Marijuana convictions and restorative justice in an era of criminal justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 2020; 110 :379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson CN, Wooldredge J, Cochran JC. Can “race-neutral” program eligibility requirements in criminal justice have disparate effects? An examination of race, ethnicity, and prison industry employment. Criminology & Public Policy. 2022; 21 :405–432. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12576. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aviram H. Cheap on Crime: Recession-era Politics and the Transformation of American Punishment. University of California Press; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bales WD, Piquero AR. Racial/Ethnic differentials in sentencing to incarceration. Justice Quarterly. 2012; 29 :742–773. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.659674. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barak G. Media, process, and the social construction of crime. Garland; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartos BJ, Kubrin CE. Can we downsize our prisons and jails without compromising public safety? Findings from California's Prop 47. Criminology & Public Policy. 2018; 17 :693–715. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12378. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumgartner FR, Jones BD. Agendas and instability in American politics. 2. University of Chicago Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckett, K. (2018). The politics, promise, and peril of criminal justice reform in the context of mass incarceration. Annual Review of Criminology, 1 , 235–259.
• Beckett K, Reosti A, Knaphus E. The end of an era? Understanding the contradictions of criminal justice reform. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2016; 664 :238–259. doi: 10.1177/0002716215598973. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckett, K., Beach, L., Knaphus, E., & Reosti, A. (2018). US criminal justice policy and practice in the twenty‐first century: Toward the end of mass incarceration?. Law & Policy, 40 (4), 321–345. 10.1111/lapo.12113
• Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 611–639.
• Ben-Yehuda N. The politics and morality of deviance. State University of New York Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger PL, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology knowledge. Anchor Books; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard TJ, Paoline EA, III, Pare PP. General systems theory and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2005; 33 :203–211. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.02.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birkland TA. After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Georgetown University Press; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blomberg T, Brancale J, Beaver K, Bales W. Advancing criminology & criminal justice policy. Routledge; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Currie Elliott. Against marginality. Theoretical Criminology. 2007; 11 (2):175–190. doi: 10.1177/1362480607075846. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chong D, Druckman JN. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science. 2007; 10 :103–126. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chouhy C, Swagar N, Brancale J, Noorman K, Siennick SE, Caswell J, Blomberg TG. Forecasting the racial and ethnic impacts of ‘race-neutral’ legislation through researcher and policymaker partnerships. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s12103-021-09619-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cullen, F. T. & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Criminal justice theories and ideologies. In Reaffirming rehabilitation (pp. 27–44). Andersen.
• Dabney DA, Page J, Topalli V. American bail and the tinting of criminal justice. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice. 2017; 56 :397–418. doi: 10.1111/hojo.12212. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donnelly EA. The politics of racial disparity reform: Racial inequality and criminal justice policymaking in the states. Am J Crim Just. 2017; 42 :1–27. doi: 10.1007/s12103-016-9344-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunbar, A. (2022). Arguing for criminal justice reform: Examining the effects of message framing on policy preferences. Justice Quarterly . 10.1080/07418825.2022.2038243
• Eckhouse L, Lum K, Conti-Cook C, Ciccolini J. Layers of bias: A unified approach for understanding problems with risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2019; 46 :185–209. doi: 10.1177/0093854818811379. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gamson WA. Talking politics. Cambridge University Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garland D. Sociological Perspectives on Punishment. Crime and Justice. 1991; 14 :115–165. doi: 10.1086/449185. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garland D. The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman P, Page J, Phelps M. Breaking the pendulum: The long struggle over criminal justice. Oxford University Press; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottlieb A. The effect of message frames on public attitudes toward criminal justice reform for nonviolent offenses. Crime & Delinquency. 2017; 63 :636–656. doi: 10.1177/0011128716687758. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottschalk M. Caught: The prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton University Press; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gramlich J. America’s incarceration rate falls to lowest level since 1995. Pew Research Center; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grattet R, Jenness V. Transforming symbolic law into organizational action: Hate crime policy and law enforcement practice. Social Forces. 2008; 87 :501–527. doi: 10.1353/sof.0.0122. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gusfield JR. Symbolic crusade: Status politics and the American temperance movement. University of Illinois Press; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagan J, Hewitt JD, Alwin DF. Ceremonial justice: Crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system. Social Forces. 1979; 58 :506–527. doi: 10.2307/2577603. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haney C. Criminal justice and the nineteenth-century paradigm: The triumph of psychological individualism in the ‘Formative Era’ Law and Human Behavior. 1982; 6 :191–235. doi: 10.1007/BF01044295. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Head BW, Alford J. Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society. 2015; 47 :711–739. doi: 10.1177/0095399713481601. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2018). The Multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In Theories of the policy process (pp 17–53). Routledge.
• Hinton E, Henderson L, Reed C. An unjust burden: The disparate treatment of Black Americans in the criminal justice system. Vera Institute of Justice; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchinson S. Countering catastrophic criminology. Punishment & Society. 2006; 8 :443–467. doi: 10.1177/1462474506067567. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ismaili K. Contextualizing the criminal justice policy-making process. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2006; 17 :255–269. doi: 10.1177/0887403405281559. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins P. Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in Modern America. Yale University Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenness V. Explaining criminalization: From demography and status politics to globalization and modernization. Annual Review of Sociology. 2004; 30 :147–171. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110515. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson BD, Lee JG. Racial disparity under sentencing guidelines: A survey of recent research and emerging perspectives. Sociology Compass. 2013; 7 :503–514. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12046. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaeble, D. (2021). Probation and parole in the United States, 2020. Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice.
• Kang-Brown J, Subramanian R. Out of sight: The growth of jails in rural America. Vera Institute of Justice; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kingdon, J. W. (2011[1995]). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies . Harper Collins.
• Kraska PB, Brent JJ. Theorizing criminal justice: Eight essential orientations. 2. Waveland Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kubrin CE. Secure or insecure communities?: Seven reasons to abandon the secure communities program. Criminology & Public Policy. 2014; 13 :323–338. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12086. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurlychek MC, Johnson BD. Cumulative disadvantage in the American Criminal Justice System. Annual Review of Criminology. 2019; 2 :291–319. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024815. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kutateladze BL, Andiloro NR, Johnson BD, Spohn CC. Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology. 2014; 52 :514–551. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levin B. The consensus myth in criminal justice reform. Michigan Law Review. 2018; 117 :259. doi: 10.36644/mlr.117.2.consensus. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lofstrom, M., Martin, B., & Raphael, S. (2019). The effect of sentencing reform on racial and ethnic disparities in involvement with the criminal justice system: The case of California's Proposition 47 (University of California, Working Paper).
• Lynch, M. (2011). Mass incarceration legal change and locale. Criminology & Public Policy , 10(3), 673–698. 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00733.x
• MacDonald J, Raphael S. Effect of scaling back punishment on racial and ethnic disparities in criminal case outcomes. Criminology & Public Policy. 2020; 19 :1139–1164. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12495. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mauer M. Racial impact statements as a means of reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities. Ohio State Journal of Crime Law. 2007; 5 (19):33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mears DP. American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and effectiveness. Cambridge University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mears DP. Out-of-control criminal justice: The systems improvement solution for more safety, justice, accountability, and efficiency. Cambridge University Press; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mears, D. P. (2022). Bridging the research-policy divide to advance science and policy: The 2022 Bruce Smith, Sr. award address to the academy of criminal justice sciences. Justice Evaluation Journal , 1–23.
• Menefee MR. The role of bail and pretrial detention in the reproduction of racial inequalities. Sociology Compass. 2018; 12 :e12576. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12576. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller LL. The perils of federalism: Race, poverty, and the politics of crime control. Oxford University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell O. A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2005; 21 :439–466. doi: 10.1007/s10940-005-7362-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mooney AC, Giannella E, Glymour MM, Neilands TB, Morris MD, Tulsky J, Sudhinaraset M. Racial/ethnic disparities in arrests for drug possession after California proposition 47, 2011–2016. American Journal of Public Health. 2018; 108 :987–993. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304445. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mooney, A. C., Skog, A., & Lerman, A. E. (2022). Racial equity in eligibility for a clean slate under automatic criminal record relief laws. Law and Society Review, 56 (3). 10.1111/lasr.12625
• Muhammad, K. G. (2010). The condemnation of Blackness: Race, crime, and the making of modern urban America . Harvard University Press.
• Oliver WM, Marion NE. Political party platforms: Symbolic politics and criminal justice policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2008; 19 :397–413. doi: 10.1177/0887403408318829. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ouss, A., & Stevenson, M. (2022). Does cash bail deter misconduct? Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3335138
• Packer H. Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 1964; 113 :1–68. doi: 10.2307/3310562. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Page J. The toughest beat: Politics, punishment, and the prison officers union in California. Oxford University Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petersilia J. Realigning corrections, California style. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2016; 664 :8–13. doi: 10.1177/0002716215599932. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson RD, Krivo LJ. Divergent social worlds: Neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide. Russell Sage Foundation; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phelps MS. Possibilities and contestation in twenty-first-century US criminal justice downsizing. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2016; 12 :153–170. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085046. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pickett JT. Public opinion and criminal justice policy: Theory and research. Annual Review of Criminology. 2019; 2 :405–428. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024826. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pickett JT, Ivanov S, Wozniak KH. Selling effective violence prevention policies to the public: A nationally representative framing experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2022; 18 :387–409. doi: 10.1007/s11292-020-09447-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porter, N. (2021). Racial impact statements, sentencing project . Retrieved July 16 2022, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/racial-impact-statements/
• Provine DM, Varsanyi MW, Lewis PG, Decker SH. Policing immigrants: Local law enforcement on the front lines. University of Chicago Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raphael S. The Intended and Unintended Consequences of Ban the Box. Annual Review of Criminology. 2021; 4 (1):191–207. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-022137. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raphael S, Stoll MA. Why are so many Americans in prison? Russell Sage Foundation; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rein M, Schön DA. Problem setting in policy research. In: Weiss CH, editor. Using social research in public policy making. Lexington Books; 1977. pp. 235–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiter K, Chesnut K. Correctional autonomy and authority in the rise of mass incarceration. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2018; 14 :49–68. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169.
• Rubin AT. Penal change as penal layering: A case study of proto-prison adoption and capital punishment reduction, 1785–1822. Punishment and Society. 2016; 18 :420–441. doi: 10.1177/1462474516641376. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sample LL, Kadleck C. Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2008; 19 :40–62. doi: 10.1177/0887403407308292. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sample LL, Evans MK, Anderson AL. Sex offender community notification laws: Are their effects symbolic or instrumental in nature? Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2011; 22 :27–49. doi: 10.1177/0887403410373698. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2022). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2022 . Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved August 28 2022, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html
• Schlesinger T. The failure of race neutral policies: How mandatory terms and sentencing enhancements contribute to mass racialized incarceration. Crime & Delinquency. 2011; 57 :56–81. doi: 10.1177/0011128708323629. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider, A. & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87 (2), 334–347. 10.2307/2939044
• Schneider A, Sidney M. What is next for policy design and social construction theory? The Policy Studies Journal. 2006; 37 :103–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00298.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seeds C. Bifurcation nation: American penal policy in late mass incarceration. Punishment and Society. 2017; 19 :590–610. doi: 10.1177/1462474516673822. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharkey P. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. University of Chicago Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, K., & Larimer, C. (2017). The public policy theory primer (3rd Edition). Taylor & Francis.
• Spencer KB, Charbonneau AK, Glaser J. Implicit bias and policing. Social and personality. Psychology Compass. 2016; 10 :50–63. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12210. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Subramanian R, Delaney R. Playbook for change? States reconsider mandatory sentences. Vera Institute of Justice; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tewksbury R. Validity and utility of the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry. Federal Probation. 2002; 66 :21–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thielo AJ, Cullen FT, Cohen DM, Chouhy C. Rehabilitation in a red state: Public support for correctional reform in Texas. Criminology & Public Policy. 2016; 15 :137–170. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12182. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyack DB, Cuban L. Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Harvard University Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulloa, J. (2017). California becomes ‘sanctuary state’ in rebuke of Trump immigration policy. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20171005-story.html
• Warren P, Chiricos T, Bales W. The imprisonment penalty for Young Black and Hispanic Males: A crime-specific analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 2012; 49 :56–80. doi: 10.1177/0022427810397945. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Widra. E., & Herring, T. (2021). States of incarceration: The global context 2021 . Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved July 26 2022, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html

Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners (2007)

Chapter: 4 defining prisoners and correctional settings, 4 defining prisoners and correctional settings.

This chapter provides the committee’s recommendation for a new definition of the term prisoner , which considers the contexts, or “places,” relevant to research with prisoners. The goal of this definition is to expand the reach of the regulatory procedures and oversight mechanisms recommended in this report to the fuller population of individuals who are under restricted liberty and, therefore, face potentially greater risks than the general population when participating in research. It identifies the personal interests that may be violated because of research participants’ status as prisoners 1 and the settings in which protections against such potential violations are required. As a point of departure, this chapter briefly reviews the ethical foundations that underpin research regulations and current regulatory language relevant to prisoner settings and notes the relevant ethical principles that led the committee to expand the definition of the term prisoner for purposes of protecting those involved in research.

ETHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CURRENT RESEARCH REGULATIONS

The ethical foundations of research protections in the United States are based on two key ethical considerations identified by the National Com-

mission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (NCPHSBBR, 1976). They are respect for persons and justice. The principle of respect for persons invokes the protection of individuals’ autonomy and personal dignity and requires that informed and voluntary consent be obtained from subjects before their involvement in research. This basic principle is often difficult to implement in a correctional setting because of the power dynamics and inherent deprivations within such a setting, especially with respect to voluntariness. Privacy and confidentiality play central roles within the principle of respect for persons as well. The principle of justice concerns the fair treatment of persons and groups. In the context of research involving prisoners, justice requires that prisoners not bear a disproportionate share of the research burden without a commensurate share of benefit, and also that prisoners have the freedom to decide questions of research participation for themselves. Justice becomes particularly important to encouraging research on a system that disproportionately affects the disadvantaged and racial and ethnic minorities ( Chapter 2 ).

The competence and freedom of a prisoner to make a choice as well as the reality of privacy protection through confidentiality can be hampered in any of the correctional settings that restrict liberty, whether by the correctional officers or other prisoners within the prison walls or by probation officers, for example, in the community. If, for instance, researchers plan to study the effectiveness of electronic monitoring as compared with parole supervision, a system of oversight should be in place to protect the persons involved in the study—who currently are not covered under Subpart C protections. An expanded definition of prisoner is offered in this chapter. A fuller description of the ethical framework followed by the committee is found in Chapter 5 .

CURRENT REGULATIONS PERTINENT TO PLACES OF PRISONER RESEARCH

In Subpart C of 45 C.F.R. § 46.303(c), the term prisoner is defined as:

Any individual involuntarily confined or detained in a penal institution . The term is intended to encompass individuals sentenced to an institution under a criminal or civil statute, individuals detained in other facilities by virtue of statutes or commitment procedures which provide alternatives to criminal prosecution or incarceration in a penal institution, and individuals detained pending arraignment, trial, or sentencing [emphases added].

The current regulations clearly emphasize custodial confinement as a consequence of the state’s exercise of its power via the criminal justice system. The potential impact of confinement in highly controlled institutional settings on individual autonomy is explicitly recognized in other

sections of the current regulations. For example, 45 C.F.R. § 46.305 (a)(2)– (7) includes the following regarding the issue of voluntariness to ensure that the subject’s participation in the research is not coerced:

any possible advantages accruing to the prisoner through his or her participation in research, when compared to the general living conditions, medical care, quality of food, amenities and opportunity for earnings in the prison are not of such magnitude that his or her ability to weigh the risks of the research against the value of such advantages in a limited choice environment of the prison is impaired;

the risks involved in the research are commensurate with risks that would be accepted by nonprisoner volunteers; and

adequate assurance exists that parole boards will not take into account participation in making parole decisions, and prisoners will be informed that participation will have no effect on parole.

Institutional review boards (IRBs), however, have received guidance from the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) that suggests the definition may include parolees but not probationers. There is clearly confusion as to the parameters of the definition as it stands today. The important issue, as noted by the commission is that “prisoners are, as a consequence of being prisoners, more subject to coerced choice and more readily available for the imposition of burdens which others will not willingly bear” (NCPHSBRR, 1976).

CORRECTIONAL SETTINGS ENCOMPASS MORE THAN PRISONS AND JAILS

Although this committee believes that research in correctional institutional settings should be subject to federal regulations, it also believes that the present emphasis on custodial detention is too narrow and results in depriving many other justice-involved individuals of human subjects protections appropriate to prisoner research participants. Several tables in Chapter 2 provide details relevant to this issue. Table 2-1 provides a broad snapshot of the number of individuals within the correctional population and notes that, as of December 2003, only 2.1 million of the 7 million total correctional population were in prisons and jails (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2004). The rest had restricted liberties but outside the razor wire, in programs such as those listed in Table 4-1 . These 4.9 million individuals (up from 1 million in 1978) require special protections when participating in research as well. Table 4-2 on pages 106–107 illustrates the vast array of incarceration options within the state of California and details a long list of alternatives to incarceration offered, including community service, electronic monitoring, and probation.

TABLE 4-1 Alternatives to Incarceration That May Be Available to Offenders

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS, 2001), among state parole discharges in 1999, 43 percent were returned to prison, a statistic relatively unchanged since 1990. This high rate of return to incarceration demonstrates that significant power dynamics continue for persons who are outside the prison walls but still under some form of community correction. Thus, the element of voluntariness in the informed consent process is conceptually very similar for persons incarcerated and those under some form of disposition alternative to incarceration.

A logical system of oversight would expand the definition of the term prisoner to include parole and probation. There is little logic in providing protections, as do the current regulations, to a person detained before trial and not yet convicted of a crime, but not to a person who has been convicted of a crime and is subject to incarceration because of violations of parole or probation conditions. The expanded definition is also supported by the findings of one researcher that policing whether conditions are violated (with more drug tests, more tracking of movement, and so on) is becoming more of a priority for parole officers than promoting reintegration (Petersilia, 2000).

DEFINITION OF PRISONER

This section articulates the committee’s revised definition of prisoner, which places an emphasis on liberty restrictions resulting from the interactions with the criminal justice system. These restrictions include, but are not limited to, custodial confinement. The aim is to expand the reach of regulations to protect prisoners and others with restricted liberty.

Such an individual may be ordered to reside in settings in which freedom of movement is restricted (e.g., precinct holding pen, jail, prison, halfway house, or prerelease center) or in the community under constraints ordered by the criminal justice system (e.g., probation, parole or house arrest, or drug court sentence).

Recommendation 4.1 Redefine the term prisoners to expand the reach of human subjects protections . The Department of Health and Human Services and other relevant agencies that write, implement, or enforce regulations pertaining to research with prisoners should expand the definition of the term prisoner to include all settings, whether a correc tional institution or a community setting, in which a person’s liberty is restricted by the criminal justice system.

It is not custodial confinement alone that creates the potential for coercion and threatens an individual’s right to autonomous decision mak-

TABLE 4-2 Descriptions of Various Criminal Justice Agencies and Facilities in California

ing (consent or refusal to participate in research). Rather, it is restrictions of freedom or the imposition of other sanctions by an agent of the criminal justice system who observes, scrutinizes, supervises or monitors, and ultimately determines the imposition of punishments for an individual’s behavior. Persons on parole and others subject to limits on liberty or privacy are particularly vulnerable to the risk of reinstitutionalization based on decisions made by parole officers and other personnel of the criminal justice system. This threat to independence creates the potential for coercion and requires that prisoners be afforded additional levels of research protection as well. Note that persons who become prisoners while in a nonprisoner study must also be afforded special protections on entering a correctional setting.

A prisoner, for the purposes of this report, is any person whose liberty is restricted as a result of the interaction with the criminal justice system. Although the limitations on personal choice and control are perhaps most evident and oppressive in locked detention facilities (e.g., jails and prisons), the power differential between criminal justice agents and prisoners exists in many other contexts as well; the differences are a matter of degree. Individuals involved in a wide variety of community-based criminal justice programs, ranging from probation and parole to pre- or postadjudication diversions such as drug courts or mental health courts, are subject to coercion by the array of agents (e.g., parole or probation officers and diversion program counselors) who monitor the individuals’ compliance with program requirements; such agents may also invoke further sanctions for program failure or noncompliance. Thus, one can fall within the protections recommended by this committee by virtue of being ordered by the criminal justice system to reside in a confined setting or, if living in the community, by virtue of the restrictions on individual decision making imposed by some part of the criminal justice system. To be a prisoner, there must be some nexus or connection between the setting or restricted liberty of the person and the action of the criminal justice system. For all individuals who meet this definition, regulations that govern research with prisoners should be applied. The current statutory or constitutional distinctions between the civil and criminal processes, which are evolving, are not sufficiently clear to allow an easy determination of whether the proposed systems of protection should apply. For instance, juveniles confined under orders of family court (or the equivalent, such as a juvenile court) likely require additional protections, but an analysis of their needs is beyond the scope of this report. If, however, they are transferred from the original jurisdiction of the family court (or the equivalent, such as a juvenile court) to the jurisdiction of a state or federal criminal court, then they would fall under this definition. Other types of confinement on the civil/criminal frontier that our definition encompasses include commitment by reason of an acquittal on the grounds

of insanity and commitment as a sexual offender (e.g., so-called criminal sexual psychopaths or violent sexual predators) under various state laws. However, those persons whose confinement is the result of other civil proceedings, such as those designed to protect a mentally ill person from harming self or others, would not be covered by our system of protections. There are substantial ethical issues involved in conducting research with these populations that go beyond the scope of this report. Parallel studies, such as the ones undertaken by this committee, may be needed to explore ethical issues of research involving these groups.

DELINEATION OF SETTINGS

In the interest of clarity, the committee specifies an array of settings in which regulations governing research with prisoners should apply, as well as a brief listing of settings for which the recommended regulations are not considered necessary. Some cases may arise that are not specifically addressed, and these must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Further discussion of research gradation and level of risk, which determine the study design and monitoring safeguards required, is provided in Chapter 6 .

When Proposed Regulations Should Apply

Settings and situations in which proposed regulations governing research with prisoners should apply are as follows:

state or federal prisons (including, e.g., camps, farms, boot camps);

any jail or detention facility (e.g., municipal, city, county, federal);

any community-based criminal justice supervision program such as bail or bond supervision, parole, or probation; community correctional reentry centers; work furlough programs; halfway houses; or similar programs;

any community-based alternative disposition program, including (but not limited to) restitution programs, community service programs, or participation in other activities deemed to constitute punishment or other mandatory activities resulting from being sentenced;

inpatient or outpatient psychiatric treatment settings if an individual is involuntarily committed as a result of a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity;

treatment settings for any person who, having served a sentence for a sex offense, is subsequently deemed to meet criteria for involuntary commitment under various criminal sexual psychopath or violent sexual predator (or equivalent) statutes in a civil proceeding;

placement or participation in a community residential drug, alcohol,

or mental health treatment program, day program, or partial-day program if mandated by a criminal court as part of an order for conditional release or sentencing; and

participation in a drug court, mental health court, or other criminal justice specialty court that functions to divert arrested or convicted individuals into substance abuse or mental health service programs.

When Proposed Regulations Should Not Apply

Settings and situation in which proposed regulations governing research with prisoners would not apply are as follows:

individuals committed to involuntary inpatient psychiatric or substance abuse treatment, or to any form of mandated community treatment, by the order of a juvenile, civil, or probate court (as stated earlier in this chapter, juveniles likely need additional protections, but this committee was not equipped to address their specific needs);

individuals living in a noncustodial community setting who meet the above definition of prisoner but whose status as a prisoner is not relevant or related to their enrollment in a particular community-based research project. This means that the criminal justice agent or agency having supervisory jurisdiction over the individual was not involved in the plans for study enrollment, and the study itself does not include prisoner status as a criterion for participation. This exclusion permits prisoners living in the community to enroll in research that is open to any citizen in the community (e.g., hospital or medical school-based clinical trials, survey studies) without imposing the restrictions of the proposed regulations on those research entities.

WHEN LIBERTY STATUS CHANGES

If the subject’s liberty status changes through arrest or revocation of probation or parole, and the person is then confined in a custodial setting, do the provisions of Subpart C become applicable to the subject? The committee’s answer was yes, regardless of the nature of the research. Upon entering a custodial setting, that person becomes formally and in every way a prisoner, subject to the same constraints and concerns that the committee has expressed in this report, and therefore needs the same safeguards. There is no ethical justification for providing fewer safeguards for a new entrant into prison than those already in prison.

This does not mean, however, that study participation would be automatically terminated. It means that continued participation requires a new review of that prisoner’s participation in the study. The original IRB

should review the impact of the correctional setting on the procedures, with input from the IRB affiliated with the correctional setting. It should be done in an expedient manner (e.g., within 30 to 45 days) to allow for continuation of study participation.

Continuity of care is an important issue, especially for treatment studies. If terminating prisoner participation would adversely affect the health of the subject, participation may continue until the IRB review takes place. The custodial official receiving the prisoner should be informed that the prisoner is enrolled in a research protocol, provided information on the protocol, and explained the potential risks of not allowing continued participation. The researcher would have an obligation to advocate for providing the appropriate care while seeking to comply with regulations applicable to that setting.

Certain social or behavioral studies that, for example, examine health and risk behaviors over several years, may see some participants move into correctional settings. If the researchers wish to continue study involvement for those individuals, review would be necessary to weigh the risks and benefits within the new setting. If the risks remain low, continuation may be approvable. However, if new risks are foreseen, but they are still low, the consent may need to be updated for the participant’s continued involvement.

This need for review may not be an issue for many jailed detainees who are often incarcerated for just a few days if that short period does not affect participation in the protocol. In a related, but different situation, if a prisoner is participating in a study within a correctional setting and is transitorily confined to disciplinary segregation, the researcher will have to evaluate whether or not the potential interruption in access during the period of segregation would preclude continued participation.

Research studies lose participants for many reasons. There may be occasions in which participation in the study may not continue for the research participant who becomes incarcerated. For example:

The IRB may determine that the risks outweigh potential benefits to remaining in the study.

By statute, some states do not permit biomedical/clinical trials research in prisons.

By Department of Corrections policy, some states do not permit biomedical/clinical trials research in prisons.

BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics). 2001. Trends in State Parole, 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/tsp00.pdf [accessed December 23, 2005].

BJS. 2004. Probation and Parole in the United States, 2003. [Online]. Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus03.pdf [accessed December 23, 2005].

John Howard Society of Alberta. 1998. Community Corrections. [Online]. Available: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C29.htm [accessed June 27, 2005].

NCPHSBBR (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research). 1976. Research Involving Prisoners. DHEW Pub. No. (OS) 76-131. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Petersilia J. 2000. Challenges to prisoner reentry and parole in California. California Policy Research Center Brief Series. [Online]. Available: http://www.ucop.edu/cprc/parole.html [accessed April 4, 2006].

In the past 30 years, the population of prisoners in the United States has expanded almost 5-fold, correctional facilities are increasingly overcrowded, and more of the country's disadvantaged populations—racial minorities, women, people with mental illness, and people with communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis—are under correctional supervision.

Because prisoners face restrictions on liberty and autonomy, have limited privacy, and often receive inadequate health care, they require specific protections when involved in research, particularly in today's correctional settings. Given these issues, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Human Research Protections commissioned the Institute of Medicine to review the ethical considerations regarding research involving prisoners.

The resulting analysis contained in this book, Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners, emphasizes five broad actions to provide prisoners involved in research with critically important protections:

• expand the definition of "prisoner";

• ensure universally and consistently applied standards of protection;

• shift from a category-based to a risk-benefit approach to research review;

• update the ethical framework to include collaborative responsibility; and

• enhance systematic oversight of research involving prisoners.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Degree Level

FINANCIAL AID

STUDENT SERVICES

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Criminology vs. Criminal Justice: What Is the Difference?

June 27th, 2024 by JWU

As academic majors and professional fields, criminology and criminal justice share a great deal in common. So, what exactly is the difference between criminal justice and criminology? Read on for some key insights into both extremely fascinating and vitally important disciplines.

How Is Criminal Justice Defined?

The comprehensive legal dictionary  Law.com  precisely defines criminal justice as “a generic term for the procedure by which criminal conduct is investigated, evidence gathered, arrests made, charges brought, defenses raised, trials conducted, sentences rendered and punishment carried out.” This definition encapsulates criminal justice’s highly practical focus on the business of administering justice in the “real world.” So, when it comes down to the criminal justice vs. criminology debate, it’s essential to know and understand the difference.

The Three Pillars of Criminal Justice

In the United States, the criminal justice system is comprised of three principal interacting and interdependent component parts: law enforcement, courts, and corrections.

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement, including police officers, detectives, sheriffs, deputies, and park/game officers, is responsible for investigating crimes, gathering evidence, and arresting suspects. They also protect public safety. Law enforcement officers must strive to maintain a helpful presence in the communities they serve while often dealing with individuals acting disruptively or breaking the law.

Overseen by judges and propelled by prosecutors and defense attorneys, the criminal court system manages legal trials and settlements including the delivery of verdicts and the handing down of sentences. In fact, ordinary citizens of all kinds play an integral part in the US court system by serving on courtroom juries. The principal function of criminal courts is to present and evaluate case evidence before determining the guilt or innocence of an accused suspect. It is important to note that, in the U.S., all criminal suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Corrections

When the courts hand down a guilty verdict and impose a criminal sentence, the convicted party enters the corrections system. This places them in the hands of prison officials, corrections officers, probation officers, rehabilitation specialists, and other professionals who manage criminal sentences and endeavor to reform offenders. Although many people equate corrections to the prison setting, corrective measures in the U.S. include fines, probation, community service, and parole. From social workers to educators to religious advisors, countless corrections professionals strive to change criminals for the better and prepare them for reintegration into society.

How Is Criminology Defined?

The independent academic resource provider  Study.com  accurately describes criminology is a subfield of sociology and defines it as “assessing why crime is committed, how it is committed, and how it can be prevented” while “taking into account personal, societal, and systematic factors.” This definition encapsulates criminology’s generally theoretical concentration on answering important questions about and developing an improved understanding of crime and those who commit it. Regarding the difference between criminal justice and criminology, this is a solid definition to go off of specifically for criminology.

Theories of Crime

Given that criminology has a theoretical focus, what specific theories does it focus on? Over the years, criminologists have developed countless theories that have propelled their field forward. To illustrate three examples, strain theory, social control theory, and labeling theory have proven extremely influential among criminologists. According to strain theory, the cultural pressure to achieve certain goals leads disadvantaged people to resort to illegitimate methods as they struggle to achieve them. Social control theory, by contrast, posits that all people are innately driven to commit illegitimate acts and would likely do so if not for the social controls continually restraining them. Another prominent approach to criminology study, labeling theory examines the ways in which society marks behavior as illegitimate and the effect of that labeling upon the behavior of people.

Criminal Psychology

While many facets of criminology theories look outward toward society, criminal psychology looks directly into the thoughts and feelings of the criminal offender. From investigating criminal motivations to designing better rehabilitation programs, criminal psychologists study the various roles that mental health conditions play in deviant thinking and behavior. Specific areas of concern for criminal psychologists range from the value of psychological profiling to the reliability of recalled testimony.

Victimology

The study of crime’s psychological effects, victimology requires thorough analysis of the relationship between offenders and their victims. Criminologists who specialize in victimology often take an extremely wide and nuanced view of this relationship, which can impact individuals and families as well as entire communities. Victimology findings can have positive effects on law enforcement, court system, and corrections operations.

Prevention and Policy

Throughout history, the work of criminologists has informed crime-prevention policies across the United States and around the world. Government leaders, administrations, and agencies commonly look to criminology research to develop data-based strategies, early intervention programs, and organizational frameworks that address various issues related to crime.

What Are the Differences Between Criminology and Criminal Justice?

Beyond their differing definitions and purviews as detailed above, the fields of criminology and criminal justice differ in their primary goals and methods. While the fundamental mission of criminology is to deepen understanding and inform policies, the fundamental mission of criminal justice is to ensure public safety, prevent crime, uphold the law, and rehabilitate offenders. To accomplish their goals, criminologists commonly use methods such as experimentation, statistical analysis, and case study. Conversely, criminal justice professionals are constantly re-inventing and refining methods of crime investigation, arrest, prosecution, and correction.

Theoretical vs. Practical

As previously discussed, criminology is generally theoretical in nature while criminal justice is far more practical. In other words, criminology typically focuses on the “why” of crime, while criminal justice deals with how we address and respond to it.

Proactive vs. Reactive

Consistent with their respective theoretical and practical approaches, criminologists tend to be proactive, emphasizing crime prevention, while criminal justice professionals tend to be reactive, responding to crimes in progress or investigating crimes after they occur.

The Intersection of Criminology and Criminal Justice

The distinct disciplines of criminology and criminal justice cover much of the same academic/professional ground and inform each other in many ways. For instance, the theories of criminologists are constantly informing the practices of criminal justice professionals. In areas that range from crime prevention to court system reform, criminologists and criminal justice professionals work together to better uphold the rights of suspects, victims, and members of the community at large.

Collaboration with Legal Professionals

The fields of criminology and criminal justice intersect quite frequently in the study and practice of law. Beyond defining the foundational theories and the practical frameworks that shape the legal professional’s world, criminologists and criminal justice professionals often collaborate with attorneys and judges on a broad scope of programs and initiatives.

United Desire to Understand the Motive and Psychology of Crime

Criminologists and criminal justice professionals both have a powerful desire to peer into the minds of criminals as well as those who witness or fall victim to crime. By better understanding the various motivations that underlie crime and our reactions to it, we can better address it and, hopefully, stop it before it starts.

Appreciation of Data

The use of statistical information and raw data are extraordinarily important in both criminology and criminal justice pursuits. Examples of criminology and  criminal justice technology  range from predictive analysis software to real-time crime mapping platforms.

Careers in Criminology vs. Criminal Justice

While the fields of criminology and criminal justice overlap in many areas, the career paths for individuals who pursue employment in these fields are decidedly different. Positions held by criminologists are typically proactive or theoretical. In contrast, criminal justice professionals focus on practical approaches to crime, often dealing with existing criminal activity rather than potential threats.

Criminology Careers

Per employment experts at  Indeed , criminologists enjoy relatively secure jobs with reasonably competitive salaries. But the best benefit of a career in this field might be the satisfaction that goes hand in hand with making a positive difference in society. Here are just a few career paths common among criminology majors.

Detective or Criminal Investigator

A common professional goal for criminology and criminal justice students alike, a position as a police detective or a criminal investigator requires a profound understanding of the criminal mind. For this reason, among others, training in criminology can prove extremely valuable.

Jury Consultant

The criminologist’s focus on psychological matters is also an excellent fit for a career as a jury consultant. Employing their specialized knowledge of human thought and behavior, criminologists provide expert advice in areas that relate to the selection and appointment of jurors in criminal court cases.

Loss Prevention Officer

Widely employed by major retailers and other sales organizations, loss prevention professionals concentrate on the prevention of theft and the apprehension of those who steal. Once again, employers of loss prevention officers often turn to criminology graduates for their specialized insights into the criminal mind.

Criminal Justice Careers

Far beyond the standard police officer position, Johnson & Wales University has led students to numerous  careers with a master’s in criminal justice  down many different rewarding career paths.

Director of Court Services

Responsible for planning and implementing various court programs, a director of court services must have in-depth knowledge of the criminal justice system. Because they are tasked with keeping official records, orchestrating case flow, and managing PR issues, directors of court services must stay abreast of current affairs as well as up to date with standards and practices. The highly practical and reactive approach of criminal justice graduates makes them ideal candidates for this position.

Fraud Investigators

A criminologist can offer valuable insights into the thought processes and motivations of a grifter. However, a criminal justice expert is better equipped to work with departments and investigate fraud cases systematically.

Correctional Officer Supervisor

Criminal justice majors with a particular interest in corrections may want to consider becoming a correctional officer supervisor. Overseeing the activities of correctional officers and other prison staff, these professionals ensure smooth daily operations, maintain strict facility order, and respond immediately to emergencies. To be successful, a correctional officer supervisor must possess strong leadership and organizational skills.

Should I Study Criminology or Criminal Justice?

So, in the “criminal justice vs. criminology” competition, which field ultimately rises victorious? Obviously, the answer to this question will depend on your existing areas of skill/expertise and your overarching professional/career goals. While criminology might appeal to those who seek to transform future society, criminal justice is likely the right path for those who want to make a difference today.

Interested in a Criminal Justice Degree?

At Johnson & Wales University, you can earn your  online master’s in Criminal Justice  with outstanding career prospects. For more information about completing your degree online, complete the  Request Info form , call 855-JWU-1881 , or email  [email protected] .

By clicking Get Started below, I consent to receive recurring marketing/promotional e-mails, phone calls, and SMS/text messages from Johnson & Wales University (JWU) about any educational/programmatic purpose (which relates to my inquiry of JWU) at the e-mail/phone numbers (landline/mobile) provided, including calls or texts made using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial/prerecorded voice messages. My consent applies regardless of my inclusion on any state, federal, or other do-not-call lists. Consent is not a condition for receipt of any good or service. Carrier charges may apply. Terms and conditions apply .

Request info

Now accepting applications

This website uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance visitor experiences. By using this website, you consent to the use of your cookies in accordance with  UT's privacy statement.

• News and UT Life
• Subscribe to News and UT Life
• Media Coverage
• Tips for Visitors
• University Directory
• Videos, Photos and Webcams
• Office of Communications and Public Affairs

Published: June 26, 2024

Students View Criminal Justice System Through Different Lens

A group of students studying criminology and criminal justice recently got a firsthand look at how the justice system works in another country. 

Ten students and two faculty members spent two weeks comparing the criminal justice system in Argentina to that of the United States. 

Matthew Schlegel ’25, a sociology major, found out about the travel course, CRM 248: Comparative Criminal Justice Systems, in a law enforcement class. 

“I don’t think I could do a full semester (abroad),” Schlegel said. “Two weeks was appealing. It was the perfect amount of time.”

In the future, Schlegel hopes to become a police officer.

The students toured Instituto Superior de Educación de la Policía, the police academy, where they learned about requirements, how fire and police recruits are trained, how warrants are executed and what goes into training the K9 dogs. 

They also met a judge and learned what it entails to become one. They toured the Department of Justice, and talked with the minister of justice and a member of his staff.

They saw the supreme courts and Centro de monitoreo, the CCTV camera station, where officers monitor the city of Buenos Aires. 

Louisa Wilson ’25, a criminology and criminal justice major, said this was her first experience traveling to South America.

“I was super interested in the location itself, and then of course, because my major is criminal justice, that was just the cherry on top,” she said. 

Wilson, who is in Army ROTC, hopes to work in intelligence when she enters the Army after graduation.

A highlight of the trip for her was visiting the police academy, because it was similar to the training she is familiar with in ROTC.

“They got to use virtual reality simulators, and we also have that,” she said. “So I was very impressed with the technology they had. I think I had an impression that maybe the United States was a little further ahead.”

For Schlegel, the police academy was also a favorite, because it is also similar to what he wants to do after college. 

Another highlight, he said, was an empanada cooking class.

“It was a good bonding night,” he said.

Wilson agreed that the class, taught by a local was a standout experience.

“It was really awesome.”

Have a story idea? Contact Brianna Kwasnik, Digital Content Editor/Writer   Read more  UT Life  stories. Subscribe to News and UT Life .