research criminal justice system definition

• General Overview
• How to Apply
• Admission Requirements
• Admissions Checklist
• International Students
• Transfer Credits
• Open House Events
• Financial Aid
• Submit Official Transcripts
• Prepare for Your First Class
• Student Email
• Student Portal
• Student Services
• Master Booklist
• Graduate Online Writing Studio
• KU Bookstore
• Make a Payment
• Contact Graduate Admissions Counselor
• Contact Graduate Financial Aid Counselor
• Virtual Visit
• Why Keiser Graduate School?
• Accreditation
• ADA/Accessibility
• Columbia College, SC
• Sumner College
• West Virginia University
• Testimonials
• Our Newsletter

Entering Zip will list the campuses closest to your location top to bottom.

By clicking the "Submit" button, I authorize Keiser University to make or allow the placement of recurring marketing calls, emails, and texts to me at the phone number that I have provided, including through the use of automated technology or a prerecorded or artificial voice. I understand that I am not required to provide my phone number as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services. Privacy Policy

While the scientific method might not be the first thing that springs to mind when you think about the criminal justice system, this systematic...

What are the four purposes of research in criminal justice.

Posted on August 28, 2023 on Graduate School , Seahawk Nation

Quick Contact

While the scientific method might not be the first thing that springs to mind when you think about the criminal justice system, this systematic approach to fact-based examination and analysis is extremely helpful when it comes to solving criminal cases, understanding criminal behavior, and instituting public policies that address issues related to crime.

Before tackling the four principal categories of criminal justice research, let us briefly discuss why research studies are essential in the worlds of criminology, law enforcement, judicial oversight, and corrections/rehabilitation.

The Overarching Purpose of Criminal Justice Research

Research in criminal justice is used to make individual cases and entire systems of criminal justice more effective, efficient, impartial, and fair. Many diverse types of criminal justice professionals consider evidence-based research an incredibly important part of their jobs.

Why Research Is Important in Criminal Justice

While the link between empirical scientific research and professional decision-making is abundantly clear in fields such as healthcare, it is far easier to disregard scientific research as unreliable or unnecessary in criminal justice matters. For this reason, the  Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) has noted a severe under-utilization of research-based evidence in both the policy and practice of criminal justice.

However, the CJCJ joins most criminal justice organizations and authorities in asserting that expertly designed, implemented, and conducted research is essential in the criminal justice space. Because empirical research is based on objective facts, the results obtained allow criminal justice professionals to make far more impartial and logical decisions in a field that places an extraordinarily high value on such qualities.

The Role of Research

Depending on their professional responsibilities and the task at hand, individuals and organizations in the criminal justice field may employ research to meet any number of objectives. From examining the latest industry publications to conducting in-depth surveys, research takes a variety of forms to serve an even wider variety of functions within the criminal justice system.

By correctly applying research methods, criminal justice professionals can formulate research questions, design studies, collect and analyze data and draft research reports. These skills are highly valued in the field because they generate new knowledge that can improve strategies or systems. Research is a significant way to contribute to a more effective and equitable justice system.

Who Conducts Criminal Justice Research?

From criminal investigators and attorneys to justice system administrators and policymakers, many professionals in the criminal justice field conduct and rely upon several types of research. Some research is focused on practical application while other research is more interested in academic literature. As a criminal justice researcher, you might collaborate with law enforcement agencies, other organizations, and private individuals to investigate crimes and identify important criminal trends. Depending on your academic concentration and career interest, you might focus on cybersecurity, white-collar crime, human trafficking, or any number of specialized research areas. You might choose to focus on individual casework or larger issues, such as general criminal behavior or criminal justice reform.

Research Process in Criminal Justice

Due to the many roles and diverse professional applications of criminal justice research, it requires a broad spectrum of processes to meet the specific goals and demands of the situation at hand. It is up to individual researchers to apply the right research method for their purposes.

All research processes can be divided into two broad categories: quantitative and qualitative. Dealing with numerical evidence and the generation of statistics, quantitative research methods include survey studies and the meta-analysis of previously published data. Qualitative research methods, by contrast, focus less on raw information and more on life experiences. Common processes used in qualitative research include interviewing and direct observation.

Gathering Data

Whether accomplished through surveys, interviews, databases, or any other processes, gathering information is essential in all criminal justice enterprises. Beyond its indispensable role in furthering individual criminal cases, data collection spurs problem identification and improvement measures in the overall justice system. By collecting crime rates, risk assessment and police resource statistics, researchers can solve a range of problems by pinpointing key systemic measures of quality, efficiency, and impartiality.

Research Theory

Depending on the specific research questions asked, professionals may turn to any number of criminology theories to find answers. Some of these research theories relate directly to criminal investigation, while others are better suited to policymaking. There are also research theories that center around criminal psychology and behavioral impulses, as well as patterns of criminal activity within society.

Four Purposes of Criminal Justice Research

The wide range of research theories and methods in the criminal justice field can be a bit daunting to contemplate. However, it is easy to classify criminal justice research according to the kind of information it strives to obtain. At its heart, all research in the criminal justice field can be divided according to purpose into one of the four following categories:

1. Exploration

Exploratory criminal justice research aims to investigate a case or subject area that is little understood or has yet to be broadly studied. In individual case studies, this often means determining the underlying causes of criminal behavior.

2. Description

Descriptive criminal justice research aims to define and explain the subject under study. This might involve describing the common characteristics of criminal offenders or the criminal environment in each neighborhood.

3. Explanation

Explanatory criminal justice research aims to identify the causes and effects associated with the subject under study. It can answer questions such as why certain people become career criminals and why certain areas have higher crime rates than others.

4. Evaluation

Evaluative criminal justice research aims to determine the effectiveness of interventions, programs, or policies. The chief goals of this type of research are to better prevent crime and engender improvement in the criminal justice system.

No matter which of the four formal purposes of research you may pursue, all criminal justice research leads to professional and personal growth for the researcher and the field itself. Through your research, you may meet people and develop new connections, have them published in a journal, build a name for yourself in the field, and contribute to future research.

When to Conduct Each Research Type

To get a better idea about what each of these research types of entails, it may be helpful to take a closer look at when criminal justice professionals tend to employ them.

To identify clear research questions and generate educated, viable hypotheses, exploratory research is often used to lay the proper groundwork at the very beginning of criminal justice research projects. Professionals who commonly use exploratory research include law enforcement officers, criminal investigators and prosecuting and defense attorneys.

Useful in all corners of the criminal justice field, descriptive research is useful whenever a criminal justice professional needs to define and explain a phenomenon truthfully and precisely. Criminologists might turn to descriptive research when studying crime patterns over time, while attorneys might use it to collect relevant facts about cases under their review.

Like descriptive research, explanatory research is widely used by a broad spectrum of criminal justice professionals for a variety of reasons. This is because understanding the underlying causes of specific actions or phenomena is so essential throughout the criminal justice field. In addition to general criminology researchers, all types of law enforcement and justice system workers use explanatory research to identify and understand the root causes of crime.

Typically conducted to assess the quality of a policy or program currently in effect, evaluative research is particularly useful to leaders in the criminal justice system. By evaluating key criteria that might range from crime rates to court delays, these leaders can do their part to improve the criminal justice system. Judicial administrators, as well as top law enforcement and corrections officials, can benefit from constantly evaluating the operations under their authority. Furthermore, elected government representatives and other policymakers are wise to employ evaluative research when making decisions regarding criminal justice.

Limitations of Criminology Research

Beyond the reluctance of some officials to use evidence-based research, many other barriers can derail the research process at any time. At its very heart, the field of criminal justice even lacks a clear definition of the word “crime.” This makes gathering information about specific criminal acts difficult, if not impossible, from the outset.

Other limitations of criminal justice research include its highly specific nature. For example, criminology studies are specific to the unique geographic location in which they occur. This makes implementing widespread changes quite difficult because policies that met with success in one area could fail in another. This is also true of successful solutions that often fail to scale within other judicial systems and social structures.

Start Your Criminal Justice Research at Keiser!

If you are interested in criminal justice research or criminal justice in general, you may want to consider a career in this highly challenging yet rewarding field. Or you are already a working criminal justice professional with a bachelor’s degree or higher, you may want to consider furthering your career with a specific focus in research.

In either case, you can further your education with a graduate program from  Keiser University Graduate School . A firm reliance on empirical research plays a prominent role in all of Keiser’s criminal justice program offerings, including our Master of Arts in Criminal Justice (MACJ) , Doctor of Criminal Justice (DCJ) , and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Criminal Justice and Criminology  programs.

At Keiser, we are fully committed to you and pride ourselves in putting our students first. We offer small class sizes with personalized instruction and are here to answer your questions.  Request info today  to find the right program for you!

• 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.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Corrections
• Crime, Media, and Popular Culture
• Criminal Behavior
• Criminological Theory
• Critical Criminology
• Geography of Crime
• International Crime
• Juvenile Justice
• Prevention/Public Policy
• Race, Ethnicity, and Crime
• Research Methods
• Victimology/Criminal Victimization
• White Collar Crime
• Women, Crime, and Justice
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Crime science.

• Ella Cockbain Ella Cockbain Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London
•  and  Gloria Laycock Gloria Laycock Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.4
• Published online: 29 March 2017

Crime science (or more accurately crime and security science) has three core tenets:

• the application of scientific methods

• the study of crime and security problems

• the aim of reducing harm.

Beyond the unifying principles of scientific research (including a clear problem definition, transparency, rigor, and reliability), tools and techniques vary between studies. Rather than following a prescriptive approach, researchers are guided in their selection of data and methods by their research question and context. In this respect, crime scientists take an inclusive view of “evidence.”

“Crime and security” is a broad construct, covering problems associated with diverse illicit goods and acts, offenders, victims/targets, places, technologies, and formal and informal agents of crime control.

Its pragmatic approach distinguishes crime science from “pure research” (i.e., the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake). Contributions to harm reduction might be immediate (e.g., evaluating a novel intervention) or longer term (e.g., building theoretical or empirical knowledge about a particular issue).

Crime science is broad: researchers may contribute to it without self-identifying as crime scientists. Indeed, its early proponents hesitated to draw its parameters, suggesting they should be defined operationally. Under a shared focus on crime, crime science research transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. The prevalence of multi- and interdisciplinary work reflects the inherent complexity of crime and its control. The social, physical, biological, and computer sciences—and their associated technologies—all have contributions to make.

Although the term crime science was first formalized in 2001, its roots go back much further. Within criminology, it particularly overlaps with environmental and experimental criminology. As well as sharing methods with these two areas, crime science’s theoretical underpinning derives from opportunity theories of crime (e.g., routine activity theory, the rational choice perspective, crime pattern theory). Crime is conceptualized accordingly as primarily non-random and as influenced by both individual criminal propensity and environmental factors that facilitate, promote, or provoke, criminal events.

Crime science techniques have been applied to a variety of issues: primarily volume crimes (e.g., burglary), but also more serious and complex crimes (e.g., terrorism and human trafficking). There is now substantial evidence of the effectiveness of targeted interventions in tackling crimes by manipulating their opportunity structures. Claims that such approaches are unethical and merely cause displacement have been discredited. Crime science now faces other, more challenging criticisms. For example, its theoretical underpinnings are arguably too narrow and the boundaries of the field lack clear distinction. Other challenges include expanding interventions into the online world and resolving tensions around evaluation evidence.

Crime science can clearly help explain and address crime problems. Its focus on outcomes rather than outputs speaks to the growing demand that research be impactful. Evidence generated through robust studies has value for policy and designing primary, secondary and tertiary interventions. In times of austerity and increased focus on multi-agency collaboration, there is a clear audience for crime-related research that can inform targeted responses and speaks to a broader agendum than law enforcement alone.

• environmental criminology
• situational crime prevention
• experimental criminology
• harm reduction
• medical model
• opportunity theories
• multiagency collaboration
• interdisciplinary research
• multidisciplinary research

This article covers seven key aspects of crime science. First, the fundamental constructs at the heart of crime science and its distinguishing characteristics are defined. Second, the development of crime science is discussed, together with how it filled a gap in the academic marketplace. This development was not without its critics. Third, key theories underpinning crime science are introduced. Fourth, the practical application of crime science is described, including situational crime prevention and other important principles for the design of crime-reduction initiatives. Fifth, issues to which crime science has been applied and some of the methods used are illustrated. Sixth, the relationships between crime science and other related subjects, such as police science, forensic science, and medical science, are explored. Seventh and finally, some key challenges that crime science faces in the future are raised.

Fundamental Constructs in Crime Science

At its core, crime science involves the application of scientific method, a focus on crime and security problems, and reducing harm.

Science and Scientific Methods

Despite the ubiquity of science in everyday life, its defining characteristics and precise demarcation remain contested (Chalmers, 2013 ). In this chapter, science is understood in simple and inclusive terms as the systematic and rigorous study of the world and how it works. This definition is reminiscent of a view attributed to Huxley, namely that “science is nothing but trained and organized common sense” (Goldstein & Goldstein, 1984 ). Although there are certainly flaws in this crude working definition of science (Chalmers, 2013 ), a more detailed exposition of the history and philosophy of science would be tangential to discussion of crime science. Additionally, Huxley’s conceptualization of science neatly underlines an important point: hypotheses, as tested in science, do not arise in a vacuum, but are formulated by the scientist on the basis of experience, theory, judgment, and common sense.

Given this working definition of science, it follows that scientific methods are simply the approaches and techniques employed in the pursuit of knowledge through science. Crime science is not about reinventing the proverbial wheel, but rather “applying established scientific approaches and techniques to crime control” (Laycock, 2005 ). Scientific methods evidently comprise a broad and diverse group, incorporating both discipline-specific and transdisciplinary approaches, covering both qualitative and quantitative techniques, and including but not being limited to experimentation and observation. Rather than following a prescriptive approach, crime scientists are (or at least should be) guided in their selection of data and methods by their research question and context.

Despite the heterogeneity of scientific methods, they share certain core principles. Fundamental to science are logic, rationality, clarity in problem definition, the rigorous use of evidence, and transparency, not just in methods, but in explicitly detailing any assumptions and underlying theories. While it is generally a misnomer to claim true objectivity, a scientific approach aims to reduce subjectivity by limiting bias wherever possible and by making its sources explicit. Crime and its control are highly emotionally and politically charged topics. A scientific approach to research is particularly critical in building a solid evidence base that can counterbalance myths, stereotypes, and unsubstantiated popular wisdom.

Previous introductions to crime science have often cited testable propositions (i.e., hypotheses) as a defining characteristic of scientific research (Laycock, 2003 , 2005 ), a view that prioritizes experimentation and quantitative study. This point is worth elaboration. There are contributions to be made to crime science by research in which hypothesis testing is neither appropriate nor valid. Such research could include exploratory, descriptive, and/or qualitative studies and may be particularly pertinent when dealing with understudied and complex crimes. Real world examples include work on radicalization of terrorists and its multilevel causality (Bouhana & Wikstrom, 2011 ), research into sex trafficking networks as complex systems (Cockbain, 2013a , forthcoming ; Cockbain & Wortley, 2015 ), and investigations into human smuggling (or “snakehead”) organizations (Zhang, 2008 ; Zhang & Chin, 2002 ). What these studies are doing, and why they are in the crime science domain, it is argued here, assists in the articulation of “a problem.”

One of the major contributions of scientists is that they ask insightful questions, which are often about challenging a commonly held view of the world. For example, the suggestion in Ancient Greek times that the world was round, rather than flat, represented a radical departure from received wisdom of the time and subsequently took astronomy in a completely different direction. When it comes to crime, being clear on the nature of a problem (and its potential complexity) is a vital first step toward tackling it. Crime scientists recognize that a wide range of analytical approaches can contribute to such problem definition.

The “science” in the term “crime science” not only references the scientific method but also deliberately evokes the physical, social, biological, and computer sciences, all seen as having important contributions to make to crime control (Laycock, 2005 ). Other fruitful areas for crime science are applied subjects that have a scientific base, such as engineering, architecture, and design. As well as being an inherently multidisciplinary field, crime science also includes individual studies that often transcend disciplinary boundaries (Laycock, 2003 ). The hard sciences have a key role to play in shaping crime control but the solutions they offer typically benefit from being “tempered by much greater social awareness and sensitivity” (Laycock, 2012 ). Examples include surveillance technologies like automated facial recognition technology or 3D body scanners. Collaboration between engineers and social scientists on the design and implementation of such new technologies can help ensure that the end-products are not only technically sound but also fit for purpose, in that they are context appropriate, ethical, and practical.

To summarize, crime scientists adopt the scientific method in the study of criminal behavior, the control of crime, and the reduction of associated harms. A wide range of scientific disciplines and subjects is embraced in so doing. A clear role for qualitative and other forms of social science research is recognized in articulating problems of crime and criminality. It would be expected, however, that information so gained would not be seen as an end in itself but as a way of informing experimental or quasi-experimental interventions aimed at reducing harm.

At its simplest, crime is activity that violates criminal law. It is well recognized, however, that crime is a social and moral construct. Its boundaries are heavily influenced by sociopolitical, temporal, and geographical factors—a crime in one jurisdiction now may not be one elsewhere and/or at a different point in time.

A broad view of crime is typically taken in crime science, encompassing a spectrum of activities from commonplace but relatively minor forms of disorder (e.g., littering or noise disturbances) to much rarer but more serious events (e.g., homicide or arms trafficking). This breadth and inclusiveness have led some to prefer the phrase “crime and security science.” For brevity’s sake, the simpler term crime science is used here, but it covers diverse forms of disorder, antisocial behavior, volume crime, organized crime, and even terrorism. Crime scientists might concern themselves with the reduction of harm caused by any one of these activities.

While crime science is distinguished by its broad coverage, individual studies may vary greatly not only in terms of the specific crime(s) addressed but the particular dimension(s) subject to analysis. Examples of such dimensions include illicit goods, services, or acts; offenders; facilitators; victims or targets; places; systems; technologies; specific countermeasures; and diverse formal and informal agents of crime control. Even focusing on a fairly narrow offense, for example, rape, one might find very different types of crime science research, depending on whether the dimension under investigation was:

the nature and context of the rape (e.g., familial, acquaintance, or stranger rape; rape in particular settings, such as prisons or schools; male-on-male rape)

rapists’ characteristics

victims’ characteristics

the impact of rape on victims

police responses to rape reports

the use of DNA evidence in rape investigations

geospatial and/or temporal mapping of rape incidents

the effects of specific anti-rape interventions

Crime scientists typically take the view that a problem should be specified if crime is to be reduced, detected, or disrupted. Attempts to prevent robbery, for example, would require the crime to be broken down into its various types and interventions to be targeted accordingly. Controlling armed robbery of banks is likely to require a vastly different approach than street robbery of mobile telephones, or robberies at automatic teller machines (ATMs). This is partly because research has shown that the most effective way to prevent crime is to design against it. So, for example, the significant and near global reductions in vehicle-related crime since the 1990s have been directly linked to the redesign of vehicles: the fitting of deadlocks and immobilizers at the point of manufacture (Farrell et al., 2011 ). Note that this process addresses the target of the offense rather than the offender. There is no evidence that the reduction in vehicle crime was achieved by addressing offenders’ characteristics or somehow deterring, incapacitating, or “treating” them through the criminal justice system. A key aspect setting crime science apart from most traditional research into crime is this focus on crime, not criminality, and offenses, not offenders.

Harm Reduction

Crime science is typically characterized as an applied subject: the end goal is not so much outputs as outcomes (Laycock, 2005 ). This pragmatic perspective distinguishes crime science from “pure research,” or the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Instead, crime science’s focus is on reducing harms caused by crime and security problems. Harm is another broad construct, incorporating loss or damage that may be physical, emotional, financial, reputational, or social. The term reduction is preferred to prevention because it implies an effort to manage crime rather than the idealistic but ultimately unrealistic pursuit of a definitive end to crime.

Within the diverse body of research done under the crime science umbrella, contributions to harm reduction may vary considerably in terms of their immediacy. An evaluation of a new intervention, for example, might generate findings that can be translated promptly into practice and yield fairly immediate crime reduction gains. In contrast, it may take a lot more time, effort, and follow-up research before the findings of exploratory empirical work, or theoretical studies, can be shown to have a clear application to crime control.

The Development of Crime Science

Although crime science was first labeled as such in 2001 (Laycock, 2001a ), its roots go back at least 50 years, to the development of ideas regarding crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED; Jeffery, 1971 ), environmental criminology, and crime analysis more generally. CPTED focuses on the built environment and the extent to which offender behavior can be controlled through its manipulation. Environmental criminology involves the notion that the analysis of crime events can contribute greatly to the understanding and control of crime. It draws heavily on the work of Ronald Clarke, Marcus Felson, and Paul and Patricia Brantingham, although many other scholars have made, and continue to make, significant contributions.

In a seminal paper, Clarke ( 1983 ) argued that the immediate environment (“situation”) in which a crime occurs was as important, if not more so, than the offender’s own characteristics (disposition) in affecting crime and hence its control. The so-called situational approach to crime analysis and its prevention, which developed over the following decades, heavily influenced the way crime science was conceived and further developed. It hinges on the notion that immediate opportunities are a necessary condition for the commission of crime. It followed that crime could be reduced by controlling, limiting, or otherwise influencing opportunity structures without recourse to detection, punishment, or attempts to “treat” offenders—many of which had proved elusive and largely ineffectual.

Clark highlighted not only the role of opportunity in crime control but also the relative lack of systematic attention paid by the State to actually preventing crime. The criminal justice system, to which the police were typically seen as the gatekeepers, was almost single-minded about the detection of offending and the treatment of offenders. Treatment should be understood here as encompassing both punishment and individual-change strategies, such as educational or vocational training programs or cognitive, psychiatric, or other medical interventions designed to alter behavior (e.g., sex offender treatment programs or drug/alcohol treatment schemes).

The official view was that crime was best prevented through the criminal justice system, by arrest, prosecution, and treatment. While crime prevention was not entirely absent from official discourse, it was rarely taken very seriously. In the United Kingdom, the police had crime prevention officers whose job it was to encourage the public to take care of their property through the various schemes on offer (e.g., Neighborhood Watch and property marking, both popular in the 1980s). Illustrative of attitudes towards prevention more broadly, crime prevention officers’ activities were not typically seen as “real” police work. The situation in the United States was not dissimilar: even in larger police departments crime prevention was perceived as a highly marginal activity.

The emerging crime scientists saw two serious consequences arising from this approach. First, was the implicit encouragement to delegate responsibility for crime management to the police and the State, rather than to see it as a partnership between law enforcement and the community (Christie, 2000 ). Second, the enormous contribution to crime control made in practice by the public, industry, and others was effectively downplayed almost to the point of denial. Although the relationship between medical science and crime science is discussed more fully below, it is worth noting here that preventive medicine, in the form of sewers, clean water, and inoculation programs, has made a greater contribution by far to the control of disease than has any intervention(s) delivered once infection or illness has occurred. So too crime prevention, in the form of walls, bank safes, secure transport systems, locks on homes, cars, and other goods and so on, has played a vital role in controlling crime. Without such practical everyday measures, crime rates would surely have escalated beyond all control. It would be foolish indeed to imagine that there would be no crime consequences were all the existing routine preventative measures taken by individuals, communities, organizations, or industries simply discontinued.

A significant part of the perceived need for crime science was to redress this imbalance: to raise the profile of crime reduction, to maintain the argument that opportunities and situational crime prevention have a great deal to offer in crime control, and to re-engage with communities and industries in encouraging their active involvement in reducing crime. Two main points were argued. First, that no other subjects or disciplines were operating in the area of crime reduction. Second, that the way to control crime or reduce the harm it caused required a different set of skills and outlook on crime and criminality than that found in, say, traditional criminology.

Key Theories in Crime Science

Central to crime science is the idea that opportunity plays an important role in explaining, and therefore tackling, crime. In the 1980s and 1990s, opportunity theories represented a radical break with traditional ways of thinking about crime as the inevitable consequence of a criminal “disposition” or individual propensity to offend. In contrast, opportunity theories involve a shift in focus from criminality to crime itself, and treat crime, like any other form of human behavior, as the product of an interaction between disposition and situation (Mischel, 1968 ; Wortley, 2012 ). Three theories have been particularly fundamental to the development of crime science and are described in turn here: routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979 ; Felson & Eckert, 2015 ), crime pattern theory (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1984 , 1995 , 2008 ), and the rational choice perspective (Cornish & Clarke, 1986 ).

Routine Activity Theory

Routine activity theory addresses the basic “chemistry” of criminal events. In articulating the theory, Cohen and Felson ( 1979 ) proposed that crime has three core ingredients: a motivated offender, a suitable target or victim, and the absence of a capable guardian. Crimes occur, they argued, only when these elements converge in space and time. As a result, crime is not randomly distributed, but instead reflects patterns in the everyday (“routine”) activities of its ingredients. Later additions to routine activity theory include the “intimate handler” (Felson, 1986 ) and “place manager” (Eck, 1994 ), figures respectively conceptualized as exerting control over would-be offenders and potential crime locations. The standard articulation of routine activity theory today is captured in the so-called “crime triangle” (or “problem analysis triangle”) shown in Figure 1 .

Figure 1. The crime triangle (adapted from Clarke and Eck, 2003 ).

• Crime Pattern Theory

Although developed independently of routine activity theory, crime pattern theory (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1984 , 1995 , 2008 ) also focuses closely on how everyday activities affect the distribution of criminal events. Crime pattern theory attempts to explain why crime is not randomly distributed, but rather clusters in space and time. A central construct is that of “activity spaces”: zones within which offenders regularly move as they go to work, home, and their social activities. According to the theory, offenders typically identify their targets as they move between these key places (or “nodes”) along their standard routes (or “paths”). Research informed by crime pattern theory tends to focus heavily on the geographical distribution of crime, although the temporal patterns reflecting offenders’ (and victims’/targets’) daily rhythms are of interest too. Given this spatial focus, it is hardly surprising that the analytical technique most closely associated with crime pattern theory is crime mapping.

Rational Choice Perspective

The rational choice perspective positions offenders as rational decision makers (Cornish & Clarke, 1986 ). Offending is conceived as a purposive action: it meets commonplace needs for sex, status, excitement, money, and the like. Despite its roots in economics, the rational choice perspective is more often associated with qualitative models of decision making than strict mathematical models of cost-benefit analysis (Clarke, 1997a ). Offenders are seen as operating with bounded, rather than full, rationality: their decision making is rudimentary and constrained by factors like information deficits, the effects of alcohol consumption, and time pressures (Clarke & Cornish, 1985 ). Central to the rational choice approach is the premise that scrutinizing the immediate environmental context of an offense provides clues as to offenders’ decision making (Clarke & Felson, 1993 ; Cornish & Clarke, 1987 ). At the point of deciding whether or not to commit an offense, the potential offender is said to take into account five factors, namely how (s)he perceives the likely risk, reward and effort associated with the crime, the extent to which the crime can be rationalized or excused, and the level of provocation involved. It follows, therefore, that manipulating the environment to shift implicit cost-benefit analysis to disfavor crime can deter it.

Crime Prevention in Practice

The practical application of crime science includes situational crime prevention, which is introduced here and illustrated with some examples, followed by discussion of the principles to be considered in designing crime reduction interventions.

Situational Crime Prevention

Opportunity theories of crime have proved a rich source of ideas for crime scientists and crime reduction practitioners. Although there are numerous different ways in which crime control may be delivered, the approach most closely associated with crime science is situational crime prevention (Clarke, 1980 ). At the core of situational crime prevention is the so-called “five pillars” framework (Cornish & Clarke, 2003 ), a way of conceptualizing the opportunity structures for crime. Crime, it is argued, can be reduced by manipulating the situation to increase risk, to increase effort, to reduce rewards, to remove excuses, or to reduce provocation. Importantly, these factors are not independent: increasing the effort, for example, might lengthen the time required to commit a crime and in so doing increase the associated risk.

The five factors are now seen as major mechanisms through which offending behavior can be reduced (Tilley & Laycock, 2001 ). The concept of mechanisms draws on the realist perspective (Pawson & Tilley, 1997 ), a common feature of crime science. The mechanism describes how a crime reduction initiative might exert its effect. In a given context, the intended mechanism may or may not be “fired.” The complex and context-dependent nature of crime has been used to help explain why the same intervention may succeed in one place and time and fail in another (Eck, 2002 ; Pawson & Tilley, 1997 ; Tilley, 2006 ). Realists talk of “context, mechanism, outcome (CMO) configurations,” all of which must be considered when designing a crime control initiative. Based on work by Clarke and Eck ( 2003 ), Table 1 sets out key means by which the five mechanisms of situational crime prevention may be achieved.

Table 1. Mechanisms and means by which situational crime prevention goals can be achieved.

Source : Clarke and Eck ( 2003 ).

To illustrate the situational approach to crime reduction, consider a hypothetical multilevel car park beset with problems of vandalism and theft of and from motor vehicles. A favored intervention in this context might be the introduction of a closed-circuit television (CCTV) system. The rationale would be that CCTV cameras increase the risk to offenders. There might also be an increase in effort in finding targets not overlooked by the cameras. For the mechanisms to fire, the CCTV must be visible and noticeable. After all, how could it deter offenders if they have not noticed it in the first place? Good signage would therefore be an important component of the intervention. A further advantage is that the signage could help remove excuses for offending by alerting potential offenders’ conscience and setting clear rules. Signage might simultaneously suggest to potential victims that they lock their goods out of sight and lock their doors properly, thereby reducing both provocation and rewards. Firing all these mechanisms should reduce vandalism and theft in the hypothetical car park. Indeed, systematic reviews of the efficacy of CCTV demonstrate the benefits of such an approach (Welsh & Farrington, 2002 ). Returning to the issue of context, note that there is no evidence that CCTV has a similar effect on reducing public disorder on a Friday or Saturday night in town centers. Offenders in this second context are typically inebriated, inhibiting the deterrent effects of even well-signposted CCTV. CCTV might still be useful in town centers, but for other reasons, such as informing the deployment of police resources after an incident, or supporting detection and prosecution.

Developing crime reduction initiatives is normally carried out as part of a problem-solving exercise. Here, problem solving simply refers to the application of the scientific method. Situational crime prevention projects are a form of action research and typically use a five-stage model (Clarke, 1997a ), starting with the articulation of the problem and finishing with an evaluation of the intervention:

Collection and analysis of data about a specific crime issue

Analysis of situational conditions facilitating offending

Identification and assessment of opportunity-reduction measures

Implementation of the measures deemed most promising, practical, cost-effective, and ethical

Evaluation of the effects of the intervention on the problem.

Throughout this process, hypotheses are tested. With a street robbery problem, for example, the initial analysis might involve using recorded crime data to ascertain the precise nature of the problem. The idea might be tested that the observed crime increases were, for example, driven not by a growth in robberies from cash-in-transit vans but by robberies committed by young people against other young people. It might then be suggested that the “real” problem was actually linked to truancy and/or bullying, which would then have implications for the types of responses to be considered.

Other Important Principles in Crime Prevention

Various other principles may usefully be considered in shaping research and crime reduction interventions. Some key examples are briefly outlined here, although the list is certainly not exhaustive.

Crimes Generate Other Crimes

In offending, as in everyday life, one problem often leads to another (Felson & Clarke, 1998 ). Criminal events can be linked in several different ways. A burglar stumbling upon a home’s occupant, for example, might then choose to commit a physical or sexual assault. After a burglary, further offenses might naturally arise from the processing of the spoils (e.g., handling stolen goods or the fraudulent use of credit cards). If multiple burglars were involved, they might fall out violently over splitting the profits. Furthermore, the commission of certain crimes may be predicated on committing other offenses in preparation (e.g., armed robbery may first require illegally obtaining a weapon and stealing a suitable escape vehicle). Minor offenses may follow from major ones or vice versa (e.g., consider the drug wholesaler who consumes some of his/her product on the side). Links between offenses may be coincidental or causal, such as alcohol-related violence that follows from drunken and disorderly conduct. Finally, there are what Van Dijk ( 1994 ) calls “crime chains”: a series of the same offense in which victims offend in retaliation (e.g., bicycle-theft victims’ stealing others’ bicycles in response to their own loss).

Recognizing the interconnectivity of offenses—even those ostensibly very different in nature—is useful in interpreting crime data, prioritizing issues, and estimating levels of harm associated with any given crime. Identifying links between offenses, especially any causal chains, can have important implications for targeting interventions. In combatting alcohol-related violence, for example, resources might be best focused upstream on preventing excessive drinking in known hotspots in the first place.

Crimes Require Certain Facilitating Factors

It has been argued that crime facilitators should be considered a core element of criminal events, just as offenders, victims/targets, and places are (Clarke, 1997b ). Facilitators are factors that promote, provoke, or otherwise enable crimes. One way of conceptualizing them is Clarke and Eck’s ( 2003 ) distinction between physical, social, and chemical facilitators. Physical facilitators include a burglar’s tools, an armed robber’s weapon, or an abductor’s restraints. Social facilitators encompass interpersonal processes that enable offending, such as rowdy interactions between rival football fans that later escalate into crowd violence or overt machismo among fraternity members that may lead to a permissive attitude toward rape. Chemical facilitators include disinhibitors like alcohol, which is implicated in numerous offenses, ranging from domestic assault to sexual violence. Restricting the availability of facilitators can help tackle crime. Practical examples include the bans in England and Wales on the sale of spray paint to under 16 year-olds and knives to under 18 year-olds, measures designed respectively to reduce graffiti and knife crime.

An alternative but essentially complementary way of looking at facilitators is Ekblom and Tilley’s ( 2000 ) idea of “resources for crime.” Resources are a diverse category encompassing both tangible and intangible commodities that influence an individual’s ability and willingness to offend. Ekblom and Tilley classify resources as personal (e.g., strength), cognitive (e.g., knowledge of targets), moral (e.g., neutralization techniques), facilitatory (e.g., weapons), and collaborative (i.e., what is provided by others in one’s criminal network).

Repeat Victimization

Repeat victimization arises when a disproportionately high amount of crime is committed against a small set of targets or victims (Farrell & Pease, 1993 ). Repeat victimization is a statistical fact, well documented both for crimes in which recurrent attacks on certain victims or targets is self-explanatory (most notably, domestic violence) and those for which it is less obvious (e.g., car theft or burglary). Research since the early 1980s has demonstrated that repeat victimization is a very profitable target for crime reduction efforts (Farrell & Pease, 1993 ; Forrester, Chatterton, & Pease, 1988 ; Laycock, 2001b )—it makes good sense to focus on protecting those subject to recurrent offenses—especially in the context of limited resources. Despite this, the importance of repeat victimization is still often overlooked.

Offenders’ Perceptions Matter

If the premise that offending is the product of rational choice is accepted, it follows logically that potential offenders’ perceptions of interventions are critical to their success (Clarke & Eck, 2003 ). In writing about the failure of legislation and punishment as a means of actually preventing crime, Kennedy ( 2009 ) explains how the mechanism of universal deterrence assumed to be at play fails because it rarely corresponds to offenders’ own perceptions of risk and reward. He advocates instead a more targeted approach to deterrence, known as “pulling levers.” Famously used to combat gang-related homicide in Boston, this approach involves scoping a problem to identify the core targets for deterrence and then communicating messages designed to appeal to offenders’ perceptions and priorities through appropriate channels (Kennedy, 2009 ; Laycock, 2001b ). In a similar vein, Ekblom ( 1997 ) encourages those designing and deploying situational crime prevention initiatives to “think thief”—to put themselves in the offenders’ shoes and see the world through their eyes. He argues that this may help to anticipate and to avoid unintended consequences of interventions and maximize their chances of success.

Displacement and Diffusion of Benefits

Displacement is an example of an unintended consequence of intervention. Perhaps the most commonly discussed form of displacement is spatial: when the same crime shifts from one location to another. Five further types of displacement have been identified, involving a change in the timing of an offense, the modus operandi, the type of offense, the victims or targets, and the offenders (Barr & Pease, 1990 ). Displacement has long been a focus for critics of situational crime prevention. In fact, reviews and meta-analyses have shown that displacement is far less likely than generally assumed (Bowers et al., 2011 ; Hesseling, 1994 ). Indeed, research has often shown that, rather than displacing crimes to other forms of offending, initiatives can often lead to a diffusion of benefits—a reduction in offending beyond the boundaries of the initiative itself (Clarke & Weisburd, 1994 ).

Nonetheless, displacement can and does occur. Considering offenders’ perceptions can help identify how certain crime reduction interventions may lead to an escalation in the seriousness of the offense or to some other form of displacement. To illustrate, the introduction of electronic immobilizers into cars has been hailed as the most important contribution to the substantial and sustained decline in car theft seen since the mid-1990s (Laycock, 2001a ). Indicating how at least some thieves have adapted their modus operandi to circumvent immobilizers’ preventative effects, concerns have been raised about so-called “car key burglaries” in recent years (Shaw, Smith, & Bond, 2010 ). Car key burglaries are residential burglaries committed with the specific intention of stealing car keys (and then the car).

Timing is Important

As clichéd as it may be, “nipping problems in the bud” is generally more effective than waiting to act until after they have escalated or become entrenched. So, the timing of interventions is important: both at the level of general crime patterns and at the level of individual victims/targets. In the aggregate, paying close attention to patterns and trends in crime data can help identify emergent problems. The prompt identification of new crime hotspots, “hot products” (frequently targeted goods), or a new modus operandi can inform timely interventions to disrupt, reduce, or detect crimes. At the individual level, the benefits of early intervention are perhaps most pronounced when considering serious interpersonal crimes. A good example is child sexual exploitation. Amid heavy criticisms of the U.K. authorities’ inaction and resultant failure to protect children, there is some (albeit limited) evidence that improved multi-agency collaboration and data-sharing can facilitate early intervention with children at particular risk of being sexually exploited (Beckett et al., 2014 ; Cockbain, 2013b ).

Crime science research can contribute to timely interventions by identifying general patterns underpinning observed crime data. A key example is the growing evidence that burglaries cluster both in space and time. In their work on near repeat victimization, Bowers, Johnson, and Pease ( 2004 ) found that when a residential burglary occurs, there is a short window in which other properties in close proximity are at increased risk of being burgled. At a practical level, findings like these can be—and have been—used to target interventions at high-risk properties within a certain time frame.

Developing and deploying effective early interventions require not only that good quality data are collected in the first place but also that they are collated and analyzed effectively and the findings are fed into the tactical and strategic decision-making process. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many police agencies and local authorities in the United Kingdom, a situation no doubt exacerbated by funding cuts and the associated loss of analyst positions (Cope, 2003 ).

Some Analytical Methods Used in Crime Science

In crime science, as in any scientific endeavor, the domain focus and goals of a given project should determine the selection of a method. In this section, examples are given of a few of the more unusual analytical methods that might be employed in a crime science research project. The list is not exhaustive and featured techniques were selected precisely because they are not necessarily well known or widely understood by those outside the field. Numerous other methods are routinely used in crime science but do not necessarily require the same level of explanation (for e.g., interview- and survey-based techniques of qualitative enquiry, crime mapping using geographical information systems, and various other descriptive and inferential statistical techniques).

Crime Scripting

Initially developed in psychology but now applied across a wide range of fields, a script is a series of actions and decisions that constitute an event. Cornish ( 1994 ) introduced crime scripting to crime science as a way of deconstructing specific crimes into their various components so as to identify “pinchpoints” for intervention. Cornish explained the concept through the classic example of the “restaurant script,” behavior associated with dining out: enter the restaurant, take a seat, peruse the menu, order, eat, request the bill, pay the bill, and leave. He argued that just as such strings of actions are replicated across events in the noncriminal world, so, too, offenders employ a common set of behaviors in committing a given offense. To illustrate, a simple crime script for shoplifting might involve entering a shop, selecting a target, checking for surveillance, concealing the good(s), and leaving the premises.

The reason crime scripting is useful is that it exposes potential vulnerabilities in the offending process, which can be blocked, disrupted, or otherwise interrupted. Returning to the shoplifting example, the script highlights that increasing surveillance (e.g., via security guards or CCTV) is just one way of preventing crime. Alternative interventions might include strengthening exit controls (e.g., electronic arches), target hardening (e.g., putting high-value goods in locked cases or behind the counter), and reducing the reward of theft (e.g., security tags on clothing).

There has been considerable variation in the form and content of crime scripts and the crimes to which they have been applied. The common thread is that they deal with the opportunity structures that facilitate offending. The opportunity structures can become complex and very detailed when considering, for example, organized crimes (Hancock & Laycock, 2010 ), such as cigarette smuggling (von Lampe, 2010 ) or sex trafficking (Brayley, Cockbain, & Laycock, 2011 ).

Agent-Based Modeling

Traditionally, studies of spatial patterns in crime have employed top-down approaches, such as geographical mapping of recorded crime data. In contrast, agent-based modeling is a bottom-up approach rapidly gaining popularity in the social sciences (Hill, Johnson, & Borrion, 2014 ). It involves taking a theoretical model designed to explain a phenomenon, testing it using a computer simulation, and examining the extent to which the behavior thus generated conforms with expectations (Gilbert & Troitzsch, 2005 ). In short, researchers attempt to “grow” the phenomenon of interest using theoretically grounded computer algorithms (Hill, Johnson, & Borrion, 2014 ).

The approach has been applied so far to problems including crowd violence (Batty, Desyllas, & Duxbury, 2003a , 2003b ), poaching (Hill, Johnson, & Borrion, 2014 ; Imron, Herzog, & Berger, 2011 ; Keane, Jones, & Milner-Gulland, 2012 ), and maritime piracy (Marchione, Johnson, & Wilson, 2014 ; Vaněk et al., 2013 ). While the use of simulations in crime science remains fairly novel, its proponents have argued that agent-based modeling can improve understanding of spatial patterns and generate new insights to inform crime control. Another key benefit is that simulations can be built to test the effects of very specific interventions (e.g., increase foot patrol by x % during the hours y to z ) (Hill, Johnson, & Borrion, 2014 ).

Social Network Analysis

Social network analysis involves constructing networks of linked entities (e.g., people or organizations) and analyzing them quantitatively using various metrics. The fundamental premise is that the nature and strength of associations and members’ relational positioning influence both the overall functioning of networks and individual members’ perceptions, capabilities, and activities (Borgatti et al., 2009 ; McAndrew, 2000 ). For crime analysis, social network analysis represents a shift in conceptual focus from individual-level attributes of offenders to webs of association (Van der Hulst, 2009 ). Such connections can be seen as important and previously overlooked opportunity structures for crimes.

Social network analysis can be helpful in informing the gathering of intelligence, detection, disruption, and enforcement (Coles, 2001 ; Morselli, 2009 ). For example, it has been demonstrated that less hierarchical and more dispersed networks are much more resilient to enforcement activity targeted at taking out individual members (McAllister, 2004 ). Social network analyses can also help challenge entrenched misconceptions about organized crime groups: for example, the stereotype that that they form tightly and explicitly structured hierarchies (Morselli, 2009 ).

Although the literature on social network analysis and crime remains fragmented and underdeveloped, researchers have increasingly argued for its utility in combatting serious crime problems (Morselli, 2009 ; Schwartz & Rouselle, 2009 ; Van der Hulst, 2009 ). Examples of issues to which it has been applied include terrorism (Gill et al., 2014 ; Pedahzur & Perliger, 2006 ), drug trafficking (Morselli & Petit, 2007 ; Natarajan, 2000 , 2006 ), and human trafficking (Campana, 2016 ; Cockbain, Brayley, & Laycock, 2011 ; Mancuso, 2014 ).

The Relationships Between Crime Science and Related Approaches

Crime science is particularly closely associated with four other subjects: forensic science, criminology, police science, and medical science. Here, similarities and differences in approach are drawn out and the different perspectives each offers on controlling crime and reducing harm are discussed.

Forensic Science

In simple terms, forensic science is any science used in the criminal justice system (Jackson & Jackson, 2011 ). In reality, the application of science from a parent discipline to the forensic context may not be straightforward or unproblematic (Morgan & Bull, 2007 ). Forensic science involves the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of scientific evidence in the context of investigation and prosecution (Jackson & Jackson, 2011 ). Like crime science, forensic science is inherently multidisciplinary, drawing on concepts, methods, and empirical evidence from diverse fields. Unlike the bulk of the crime science to date, forensic science typically focuses on high-impact, low-volume crimes (e.g., murder, sexual assault).

Forensic science can support the detection of crime and contribute to target-specific prediction, disruption, and prevention. In this respect, it clearly ties in with crime science’s aims and remit. Nonetheless, relevant researchers and practitioners may not necessarily self-identify as crime scientists. There are no clear-cut rules as to which aspects of forensic science are seen as relevant to crime science. One of the clearest overlaps with crime science is how forensic science research is concerned with building and applying a solid empirical evidence base that can inform the robust treatment of evidence throughout the forensic process. One aspect of this is forensic science research into how different trace materials, such as semen (Brayley-Morris et al., 2015 ), pollen (Morgan et al., 2014 ), and gunshot residue (French, Morgan, & Davy, 2014 ), behave in specific environments and under specific conditions. Such research has evident implications for approaches to detection, intelligence gathering, and analysis (Morgan, French, & Meakin, forthcoming ).

Criminology

Criminology is an established social science that has long enjoyed central relevance to issues of crime and policing. It is one of the many—arguably one of the primary—subjects from which crime science draws. Nevertheless, the relationship between the two fields has often been tense, with examples of antagonism from both sides. Leading crime scientist Ron Clarke, for example, dismissed much of criminology’s mission, theory, and methods as irrelevant (Clarke, 2004 ). Meanwhile, the establishment of crime science was met with skepticism from many criminologists, challenges from some as to why it was needed at all (Loader & Sparks, 2011 ), and accusations from others that it threatened civil liberties (Garland, 1996 ; Weiss, 1987 ).

Given the particularly close relationships between crime science and experimental and environmental criminology, there is a clear risk of overstating the distinction between crime science and criminology. In very simplified terms, factors that are commonly seen to distinguish crime science from traditional criminology include (Loader & Sparks, 2011 ):

a much broader range of sciences on which it draws (the physical, biological, and computer and engineering sciences, as well as the social sciences)

a focus on crime rather than criminals or criminality

the central importance accorded to opportunity in explaining and tackling crimes

concern for immediate crime reduction over long-term reform

a general preference for applied over pure research.

Police Science

Crime science is also closely linked to the evidence-based policing movement (Sherman, 1998 , 2013 ), which in turn often centers on the idea of police science (Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011 ). Crime science and police science have a common core, most obviously their focus on crime and the systematic, rigorous generation of evidence using established techniques. There are also some key differences between the two fields.

First, crime science is more explicitly multidisciplinary and accommodates a broader and more diverse range of methods than police science. Police science’s focus on experimental techniques (especially the randomized control trial) as paramount (Greene, 2014 ) has led to criticisms of its being dogmatic, reductive, and inadequately matched to the complex realities of crime and the agents of its control (Greene, 2014 ; Kennedy, 2014 ; Sparrow, 2011 ).

Second, police science explicitly focuses on the police as the primary agents of crime control in a way that crime science does not. In doing so, police science implicitly excludes a wide swathe of non-police interventions and other agencies with a formal or informal role in combating crime. This can be seen as limiting, given the “pluralization of policing” (Crawford, 2008 ): crime control is increasingly acknowledged as going far beyond the State police.

Finally, police science is less explicitly outcome focused than crime science but also deals with certain topics that crime science does not. Examples include police management issues, such as shift patterns, reward structures, and leadership concerns, issues that would typically only concern a crime scientist insofar as they might affect crime reduction.

Medical Science

From its inception, parallels have been drawn between crime science and medical science (Laycock, 2005 ). Despite the obvious differences in the issues on which they focus, both share a unifying domain focus: reducing harms associated with crime and ill health, respectively. Both draw on a wide range of disciplines to build a coherent and multifaceted knowledge base on complex issues. Some of the contributing disciplines are highlighted in Figure 2 , which provides illustrative examples rather than an exhaustive list. Both share a clear commitment to applied research and attempt to formulate ethical, practical solutions to the presenting problems. Medical science is more mature in this respect: ethical behavior is integrated deeply into the professionalization of medicine in a manner not yet fully realized in crime control.

Figure 2. Disciplinary contributions to medical science and crime science (adapted and expanded from Laycock, 2005 ).

The analogy with medical science is particularly helpful in explaining the idea of primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions, which are far more familiar in the context of health care than in crime control. Primary prevention in health care is prevention-focused and covers various routine provisions that reduce the risk of infection, epidemics, and so forth (e.g., drains, sewers, clean water, vaccination programs). Secondary prevention in health care is directed at groups identified as being at high risk (in terms of likelihood or level of harm associated) for particular issues (e.g., influenza vaccinations for elderly or pregnant people, meningitis vaccinations for babies, or diabetes screening tests for Southeast Asians). Finally, tertiary prevention in health care is that provided by general practitioners, hospitals, and the like to those already unwell.

Primary crime prevention is directed at the whole population (e.g., via target-hardening measures like installing immobilizers in cars at the point of production). Secondary prevention is targeted at individuals or locations identified as being at high risk of involvement in crime or already heavily involved. Examples include providing after-school clubs to occupy “at risk” youth or installing CCTV in known theft hotspots. Finally, tertiary prevention operates through the criminal justice system via post hoc confiscation of crime facilitators (e.g., weapons) and treatment of offenders (incarceration alone or active treatment programs). As explained previously, the establishment of crime science was focused on raising the profile of primary prevention as a means of combating crime. Today, other approaches are increasingly accommodated as well, in particular those related to secondary prevention.

In many ways, the so-called “medical model has come to represent an aspiration for what should be a thorough orientation of policing toward effective evidence-based practice” (Kennedy, 2014 ). Although few would disagree with the fundamental aim of better integrating research into policy and practice, it is possible to take the analogy with medicine too far. Critics have cautioned against overstating the model’s goodness of fit to policing and crime control. In particular, they have questioned the ensuing focus on randomized control trials as the primary—even exclusive—source of evaluation evidence and the implicit assumption that policing is at a level of professional development comparable to that of medicine (Kennedy, 2014 ; Sparrow, 2011 ). Indeed, the most relevant methodological approach for the crime scientist is arguably engineering, where initiatives (or products) are developed on the basis of theory and are tested and modified in the light of observations following implementation.

The Future of Crime Science

Crime science has made striking progress since its formulation in the early 2000s. In just over a decade, it has gone from being an unknown upstart to a recognized and respected approach in conceptualizing, analyzing, and responding to crime. As with anything new, there have inevitably been glitches along the way. Rather than dwell here on criticisms of crime science that have long been discredited (e.g., that its interventions are invariably unethical and ineffective) or discuss what might have been done differently in hindsight, the focus here is the future. It is argued that the fruitful development of crime science requires further barriers and challenges to be overcome. Six key issues for consideration are identified and briefly discussed.

Successfully Straddling Disciplinary Boundaries

The manner in which teaching, research, and other operations are conducted within universities creates academic silos (Pease, 2005 ). While this is necessary to the efficient overall operation of the organizations and has evident advantages over some sort of academic anarchy, it comes at a price. The ensuing silos are not only organizational or disciplinary in nature but also silos of thought. Silos are unhelpful when addressing the complex problems of modern societies, such as the control of crime.

In developing crime science as an approach, deliberate attempts were made to break down the silos of thought. Crime science is not a discipline in the strictest sense, but rather a transdisciplinary hybrid that straddles multiple fields. Beyond a unifying focus on crime and opportunity theories, its research draws on a sometimes staggering array of theories, analytical techniques, and empirical evidence. On the positive side, this diversity translates into a vibrant body of research and considerable flexibility in addressing the demands of particular problems. There is a danger, however, that crime science’s development may be hampered by difficulties in securing funding for truly interdisciplinary work, a lack of consistency and coherence across its empirical and theoretical research base, and perhaps even difficulties in identifying relevant research (or relevant researchers not self-identifying as crime scientists).

Further Expanding Crime Science’s Contribution to Dealing with Organized Crime

In theory, crime scientists might deal with virtually any crime, disorder, or security problem. In reality, the bulk of the literature has focused on “volume crime”: relatively high-frequency but low-harm problems like burglary or vandalism (Bullock, Clarke, & Tilley, 2010a ). More serious and organized crimes have long been neglected. Various factors might have contributed to this imbalance, including data availability, prioritization of issues, or simply greater resistance to the idea that opportunity might be a key driver behind serious crimes.

The situation is slowly changing but more needs to be done to reduce the perception that crime science is just about volume crime. One form of low-frequency, high-harm crime into which crime scientists have made modest but notable in-roads is child sexual abuse. Long assumed to be a unique and inexplicable phenomenon (Wortley & Smallbone, 2012 ), child sexual abuse research and responses have traditionally been dominated by a dispositional outlook that prioritizes individual offenders’ psychopathology and their treatment (Wortley & Smallbone, 2006 ). Under the pioneering influence of Smallbone and Wortley, there has been a marked increase in situational research into child sexual abuse (Cockbain & Reynald, 2016 ). In turn, new and potentially promising avenues for intervention are slowly opening (Wortley & Smallbone, 2006 , 2012 ). Similar developments are afoot with the gradual expansion of the crime science approach into other forms of serious and organized crime, such as terrorism, human trafficking, and wildlife crime (Bullock, Clarke, & Tilley, 2010b ; Freilich & Newman, 2009 ; Lemieux, 2014 ).

Improving Design Against Virtual Crime

The power of good design is now recognized as playing a major role in crime reduction, as is the contribution to such design made by engineers, designers, computer scientists, and many others. The crime drop seen in many countries over the past two decades or so is now reliably attributed to situational changes resulting from advances in technology and design changes (Farrell et al., 2010 , 2011 ).

The application of design against crime in the virtual world lags far behind the offline world. Yet, the proliferation of the Internet has evidently created enormous opportunities both for new offenses and for committing old offenses in new ways. Crimes that have shifted online and cause great concern include fraud, the distribution of indecent images of children, and the recruitment and radicalization of terrorists.

Traditional enforcement-led crime control is often stymied by offenses that transcend national borders and jurisdictions. Even when international collaboration works well, it can be expensive, difficult, and time consuming to manage transnational investigations and prosecutions. There is clear and largely untapped potential for crime scientists to contribute to the control of Internet-enabled crime through improved problem analysis and the development of targeted interventions. Such interventions might include hardware, software, and wetware (human) solutions.

Reintegrating the Social Side to Situations

The formalization of situational theories of crime was followed by a period of self-imposed segregation (Clarke, 1997b ). Such segregation was arguably necessary in order to establish the situational approach and distance it from traditional criminology and its dominant foci. A consequence for crime science, drawing as it does on situational approaches, has been a disproportionate focus on the physical environment at the expense of the social (Andresen & Felson, 2010 ). It has been contended that this imbalance limits the explanatory and preventative utility of much situational research (Andresen & Felson, 2010 ).

Crime science would now benefit from greater attention to the immediate social elements to opportunity structures for crime, including interpersonal dynamics, co-offending and offender networking. Such developments are happening but remain fairly marginal. Yet, it is increasingly recognised that social processes influence offenders’ (and victims’) perceptions, beliefs, actions and reactions (Andresen & Felson, 2010 ; Kennedy, 2009 ; Wortley & Mazerolle, 2008 ). For example, associations have been documented between co-offending (criminal collaboration) and involvement both in more prolific offending and committing more serious offenses (Andresen & Felson, 2009 , 2010 , 2012 ; Felson, 2003 ). In seeking to become more “social,” crime science could benefit from greater interdisciplinary exchange with social psychology. The two approaches share a keen recognition of situations’ power in shaping human behavior (Mischel, 1968 ).

Making Sense of Big Data

The generation and collection of ever-increasing amounts of “big data” have the potential to inform crime analysis and intervention. The criminal justice system has long been criticized for an overwhelmingly reactive approach to crime control, epitomized in the traditional focus on investigation, prosecution, and treatment. More efficient capture, collation, and interrogation of big data could help improve early intervention and crime reduction and could facilitate genuinely predictive policing. Crime scientists have a clear role to play in exploring how large volumes of data and/or data from across different systems can be used to improve crime control.

Researchers can contribute, too, in the development of processes and software to manage crime-related data. For example, police investigating child sexual abuse today may retrieve millions of indecent images of children when searching the computer of a single suspect. Research might usefully inform how further investigation is prioritized, safeguarding interventions are deployed, and the processing of such files is automated. To give a very different example, banks currently report to the authorities suspicious activity—as defined by a set of agreed parameters—and employ proprietary algorithms to detect fraud. Crime scientists might investigate whether empirically and theoretically informed algorithms could be developed to detect concerns about other specific criminal activities from individuals’ routine financial transactions. Often, such projects will require not only a mix of disciplinary skills and experiences but also close collaboration with industry partners and end-users.

Working Out “What Works”

As has been highlighted in this article, crime science is avowedly outcome focused. It is intended to inform crime-related policy and practice and thus reduce harms. Consequently, deciding upon “what works” in crime reduction is an area of central concern to crime science. If crime is to be controlled as far as is reasonably possible in a capitalist State, then the police, government, industry, and civil society need to know not only what to do but where and when to do it and why it might work.

Recent years have seen a marked increase in appetite for expanding the knowledge base on evaluations and their effectiveness. This is reflected in a growth in research activity around systematic reviews and, in the United Kingdom, a multimillion pound investment into a “What Works Centre for Crime Reduction.”

A key challenge facing crime scientists is managing—and ideally resolving—tensions that have arisen in the “what works” field. On the one hand, there are the evaluation purists who prioritize experimental and quasi-experimental evidence, sometimes to the exclusion of all else (Sherman, 2013 ). On the other hand, the evaluation realists argue that consideration must be paid not just to the end results (what works) but to the mechanisms (when, where, how it works) by which they are achieved (Tilley & Laycock, 2001 ). If common ground cannot be found, there is a very real risk that crime control efforts will be damaged by conflict between the two approaches.

Links to Digital Materials

• A key source for research-based publications on what works to reduce crime. A number of the references below are also available for free download from this website .
• Open-source journal for crime science research .
• Website of the International CEPTED Association .

Further Reading

• Brantingham, P. J. , & Brantingham, P. L. (Eds.). (1991). Environmental criminology, prospect heights . OH: Waveland.
• Bullock, K. , Clarke, R. V. , & Tilley, N. (Eds.). (2010). Situational prevention of organised crimes . Cullompton: Willan.
• Clarke, R. V. (Ed.). (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2d ed.). New York: Harrow & Heston.
• Clarke, R. V. , & Eck, J. (2003). Become a problem-solving crime analyst: In 55 small steps . London: Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science.
• Clarke, R. V. , & Mayhew, P. (Eds.). (1980). Designing out crime . London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
• Cockbain, E. , & Knutsson, J. (Eds.). (2014). Applied police research: Challenges and opportunities . Abingdon: Routledge.
• Cornish, D. , & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending . New York: Springer.
• Farrell, G. , Nick Tilley , Tseloni, A. , & Mailley, J. (2010). Explaining and sustaining the crime drop: Clarifying the role of opportunity-related theories. Crime Prevention & Community Safety , 12 (1), 24–41.
• Felson, M. , & Ekert, M. (2015). Crime and everyday life (5th ed.). London: SAGE.
• Felson, M. , & Clarke, R. V. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief: Practical theory for crime prevention . Police Research Series Paper 98, London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
• Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Kennedy, D. (2009). Deterrence and crime prevention: Reconsidering the prospect of sanction , Abingdon: Routledge.
• Pawson, R. , & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation . London: SAGE.
• Pease, K. (1997). Predicting the future: The roles of routine activity and rational choice theory. In G. Newman , R. V. Clarke , & S. Shoham (Eds.), Rational choice and situational crime prevention . Aldershot: Dartmouth.
• Smith, M. , & Tilley, N. (Eds.). (2005). Crime science: New approaches to preventing and detecting crime . Cullompton: Willan.
• Tilley, N. , & Laycock, G. (2002). Working out what to do: Evidence-based crime reduction . Crime Reduction Research Series paper 11, London: HMSO. ISBN 1-84082-792-0 available from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/193161.pdf .
• Wortley, R. (2011). Psychological criminology: An integrative approach . Abingdon: Routledge.
• Wortley, R. , & Mazerolle, L. (Eds.). (2008). Environmental criminology and crime analysis . Abingdon: Routledge.
• Andresen, M. A. , & Felson, M. (2009). The impact of co-offending. British Journal of Criminology , 50 (1), 66–81.
• Andresen, M. , & Felson, M. (2010). Situational crime prevention and co-offending. Crime patterns and analysis. ECCA Journal , 3 (1), 3–13.
• Andresen, M. A. , & Felson, M. (2012). Co-offending and the diversification of crime types. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 56 (5), 811–829.
• Barr, R. , & Pease, K. (1990). Crime placement, displacement, and deflection. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 277–318). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Batty, M. , Desyllas, J. , & Duxbury, E. (2003a). Safety in numbers? Modelling crowds and designing control for the Notting Hill Carnival. Urban Studies , 40 (8), 1573–1590.
• Batty, M. , DeSyllas, J. , & Duxbury, E. (2003b). The discrete dynamics of small-scale spatial events: Agent-based models of mobility in carnivals and street parades. International Journal of Geographical Information Science , 17 (7), 673–697.
• Beckett, H. , Firmin, C. , Hynes, P. , & Pearce, J. (2014). Tackling child sexual exploitation: A study of current practice in London . Luton: University of Bedfordshire.
• Borgatti, S. P. , Mehra, A. , Brass, D. , & Labianca, G. . (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science , 323 (5916), 892–895.
• Bouhana, N. , & Wikstrom, P.-O. (2011). Al Qai’da-influenced radicalisation: A rapid evidence assessment guided by situational action theory . London: Home Office.
• Bowers, K. J. , Johnson, S. D. , & Pease, K. (2004). Prospective hot-spotting the future of crime mapping? British Journal of Criminology , 44 (5), 641–658.
• Bowers, K. J. , Johnson, S , Guerette, R. , Summers, L. , & Poynton, S. (2011). Spatial displacement and diffusion of benefits among geographically focused policing initiatives: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Experimental Criminology , 7 (4), 347–374.
• Braga, A. A. , Kennedy, D. , Waring, E. , & Morrison Piehl, A. (2001). Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 38 (3), 195–225.
• Brantingham, P. , & Brantingham, P. (1984). Patterns in crime . New York: Macmillan.
• Brantingham, P. , & Brantingham, P. (1995). Criminality of place. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research , 3 (3), 5–26.
• Brantingham, P. , & Brantingham, P. (2008). Crime pattern theory. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 78–93). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Brayley, H. , Cockbain, E. , & Laycock, G. (2011). The value of crime scripting: Deconstructing internal child sex trafficking. Policing , 5 (2),132–143.
• Brayley-Morris, H. , Sorrell, A. , Revoir, A. , Meakin, G , Court, D. , & Morgan, R. (2015). Persistence of DNA from laundered semen stains: Implications for child sex trafficking cases. Forensic Science International: Genetics , 19 , 165–171.
• Bullock, K. , Clarke, R. V. , & Tilley, N. (2010a). Introduction. In K. Bullock , R. V. Clarke , & N. Tilley (Eds.), Situational prevention of organised crimes (pp. 1–16). Cullompton: Willan.
• Bullock, K. , Clarke, R. V. , & Tilley, N. (Eds.). (2010b). Situational prevention of organised crimes . Crime Science Series. Cullompton: Willan.
• Campana, P. (2016). The structure of human trafficking: Lifting the bonnet on a Nigerian transnational network. British Journal of Criminology , 56 (1), 68–86.
• Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Christie, N. (2000). Crime control as industry: Towards gulags, Western style . Abingdon: Routledge.
• Clarke, R. V. (1980). “Situational” crime prevention: Theory and practice. The British Journal of Criminology , 20 (2), 136–147.
• Clarke, R. V. (1983). Situational crime prevention: Its theoretical basis and practical scope. Crime and Justice , 4 , 225–256.
• Clarke, R. V. (1997a). Introduction. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (pp. 1–42). Albany: Harrow and Heston.
• Clarke, R. V. (1997b). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2d ed.). Albany: Harrow and Heston.
• Clarke, R. V. (2004). Technology, criminology and crime science. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research , 10 (1), 55–63.
• Clarke, R. V. , & Cornish, D. B. (1985). Modelling offenders’ decisions: A framework for policy and research. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Clarke, R. V. , & Felson, M. (1993). Routine activity and rational choice (Vol. 5). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
• Clarke, R. V. , & Weisburd, D. (1994). Diffusion of crime control benefits: Observations on the reverse of displacement. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 165–182). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
• Cockbain, E. (2013a). The trafficking of British children within the UK for sexual exploitation: A situational analysis . London: University College London (University of London).
• Cockbain, E. (2013b). Grooming and the “Asian sex gang predator”: The construction of a racial crime threat. Race & Class , 54 (4), 22–32.
• Cockbain, E. (forthcoming). Offender and victim networks in human trafficking . Abingdon: Routledge.
• Cockbain, E. , Brayley, H. , & Laycock, G. (2011). Exploring internal child sex trafficking networks using social network analysis. Policing , 5 (2), 144–157.
• Cockbain, E. , & Reynald, D. (2016). Introduction to the special edition. Child sexual abuse: Analysis and intervention. Crime Science Journal , 5 (4), 1–3.
• Cockbain, E. , & Wortley, R. (2015). Everyday atrocities: Does internal (domestic) sex trafficking of British children satisfy the expectations of opportunity theories of crime? Crime Science , 4 (1), 1–12.
• Cohen, L. E. , & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review , 44 (4), 588–608.
• Coles, N. (2001). It’s not what you know—It’s who you know that counts. Analysing serious crime groups as social networks. British Journal of Criminology , 41 (4), 580–594.
• Cope, N. (2003). Crime analysis: Principles and practice. In T. Newburn (Ed.), Handbook of policing (pp. 340–362). Willan: Cullompton.
• Cornish, D. B. (1994). The procedural analysis of offending and its relevance for situational prevention. Crime Prevention Studies , 3 , 151–196.
• Cornish, D. B. , & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending . New York: Springer.
• Cornish, D. B. , & Clarke, R. V. (1987). Understanding crime displacement: An application of rational choice theory. Criminology , 25 (4), 933–948.
• Cornish, D. B. , & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. In M. Smith & D. B. Cornish (Eds.), Theory for practice in situational crime prevention (pp. 41–96). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
• Crawford, A. (2008). Plural policing in the UK: Policing beyond the police. In T. Newburn (Ed.), Handbook of policing (pp. 147–181). Willan: Cullompton.
• Eck, J. E. (1994). Drug markets and drug places: A case-control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug dealing . PhD thesis, University of Maryland, Faculty of the Graduate School.
• Eck, J. E. (2002). Learning from experience in problem-oriented policing and situational prevention: The positive functions of weak evaluations and the negative functions of strong ones. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Evaluation for crime prevention (pp. 93–118). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
• Ekblom, P. (1997). Gearing up against crime: A dynamic framework to help designers keep up with the adaptive criminal in a changing world. International Journal of Risk Security and Crime Prevention , 2 , 249–266.
• Ekblom, P. , & Tilley, N. (2000). Going equipped. British Journal of Criminology , 40 (3), 376–398.
• Farrell, G. , Tilley, N. , Tseloni, A. , & Mailley, J. (2010). Explaining and sustaining the crime drop: Clarifying the role of opportunity-related theories. Crime Prevention & Community Safety , 12 (1), 24–41.
• Farrell, G. , Tseloni, A. , Mailley, J. , & Tilley, N. (2011). The crime drop and the security hypothesis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 48 (2), 147–175.
• Farrell, G. , & Pease, K. (1993). Once bitten, twice bitten: Repeat victimisation and its implications for crime prevention. In Crime Prevention Unit Papers . London: HMSO.
• Felson, M. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In D. B. Cornish & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending . New York: Springer.
• Felson, M. (2003). The process of co-offending. In M. Smith & D. B. Cornish (Eds.), Theory for practice in situational crime prevention (pp. 149–167). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
• Felson, M. , & Clarke, R. V. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief. In B. Webb (Ed.), Police Research Series . London: Home Office.
• Felson, M. , & Eckert, M. (2015). Crime and everyday life (5th ed.). London: SAGE.
• Forrester, D. , Chatterton, M. , & Pease, K. (1988). The Kirkholt burglary prevention project, Rochdale . Crime Prevention Unit: Paper 13, London: Home Office.
• Freilich, J. D. , & Newman, G. R. (Eds.). (2009). Reducing terrorism through situational crime prevention . Crime Prevention Studies (Vol. 25). Willan: Cullompton.
• French, J. , Morgan, R. , & Davy, J. (2014). The secondary transfer of gunshot residue: An experimental investigation carried out with SEM-EDX analysis. X-Ray Spectrometry , 43 (1), 56–61.
• Garland, D. (1996). The limits of the sovereign state strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British Journal of Criminology , 36 (4), 445–471.
• Gilbert, N. , & Troitzsch, K. (2005). Simulation for the social scientist (2d ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.
• Gill, P. , Lee, J. , Rethemeyer, K. , Horgan, J. , & Asal, V. (2014). Lethal connections: The determinants of network connections in the Provisional Irish Republican Army, 1970–1998. International Interactions , 40 (1), 52–78.
• Goldstein, I. , & Goldstein, M. (1984). The experience of science: An interdisciplinary approach . New York: Plenum Press.
• Greene, J. R. (2014). The upside and downside of the ‘police science’epistemic community. Policing , 8 (4), 379–392.
• Hancock, G. , & Laycock, G. (2010). Organised crime and crime scripts: Prospects for disruption. In K. Bullock & N. Tilley (Eds.), Situational prevention of organised crimes (pp. 172–192). Willan: Cullompton.
• Hesseling, R. (1994). Displacement: A review of the empirical literature. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies (pp. 197–230). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
• Hill, J. F. , Johnson, S. D. , & Borrion, H. (2014). Potential uses of computer agent-based simulation modelling in the evaluation of wildlife poaching. In A. M. Lemieux (Ed.), Situational Prevention of Poaching (pp. 120–153). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Imron, M. A. , Herzog, S. , & Berger, U. (2011). The influence of agroforestry and other land-use types on the persistence of a Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) population: An individual-based model approach. Environmental Management , 48 (2), 276–288.
• Jackson, A. , & Jackson, J. (2011). Forensic science (3d ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design . Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Keane, A. , Jones, J. P. , & Milner-Gulland, E. (2012). Modelling the effect of individual strategic behaviour on community-level outcomes of conservation interventions. Environmental Conservation , 39 (04), 305–315.
• Kennedy, D. M. (2009). Deterrence and crime prevention: Reconsidering the prospect of sanction . Abingdon: Routledge.
• Kennedy, D. (2014). Working in the field: Police research in theory and in practice. In E. Cockbain & J. Knutsson (Eds.), Applied police research: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 9–20). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Laycock, G. (2001a). Scientists or politicians—Who has the answer to crime? Inaugural lecture at the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science.
• Laycock, G. (2001b). Hypothesis-based research: The repeat victimization story. Criminology and Criminal Justice , 1 (1), 59–82.
• Laycock, G. (2003). Launching crime science . London: Jill Dando Institute.
• Laycock, G. (2005). Defining crime science. In M. Smith & N. Tilley (Eds.), Crime science: New approaches to preventing and detecting crime (pp. 3–24). Cullompton: Willan.
• Laycock, G. (2012). Happy birthday? Policing , 6 (2), 101–107.
• Lebloch, E. K. , & King, S. (2006). Child sexual exploitation: A partnership response and model intervention. Child Abuse Review , 15 (5), 362–372.
• Lemieux, A. M. (Ed.). (2014). Situational prevention of poaching . Crime Science Series. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Loader, I. , & Sparks, R. (2011). Public criminology? Key Ideas in Criminology . Abingdon: Routledge.
• Mancuso, M. (2014). Not all madams have a central role: Analysis of a Nigerian sex trafficking network. Trends in Organized Crime , 17 (1–2), 66–88.
• Marchione, E. , Johnson, S. D. , & Wilson, A. (2014). Modelling maritime piracy: A spatial approach. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation , 17 (2), 9.
• McAllister, B. (2004). Al Qaeda and the innovative firm: Demythologizing the network. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism , 27 (4), 297–319.
• McAndrew, D. (2000). The structural analysis of criminal networks. In D. Canter & L. Alison (Eds.), The social psychology of crime: Groups, teams and networks . Aldershot: Ashgate.
• Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment . New York: John Wiley.
• Morgan, R. M. , & Bull, P. A. (2007). The philosophy, nature and practice of forensic sediment analysis. Progress in Physical Geography , 31 (1), 43–58.
• Morgan, R. , French, J. , & Meakin, G. (forthcoming). Understanding forensic trace evidence. In R. Wortley , A. Sidebottom , G. Laycock , & N. Tilley (Eds.), Handbook of crime science . Abingdon, Routledge.
• Morgan, R. , Flynn, J. , Sena, V. , & Bull, P. (2014). Experimental forensic studies of the preservation of pollen in vehicle fires. Science & Justice , 54 (2), 141–145.
• Morselli, C. (2009). Inside criminal networks . New York: Springer.
• Morselli, C. , & Petit, K. (2007). Law-enforcement disruption of a drug importation network. Global Crime , 8 (2), 109–130.
• Natarajan, M. (2000). Understanding the structure of a drug trafficking organization: A conversational analysis. Crime Prevention Studies , 11 , 273–298.
• Natarajan, M. (2006). Understanding the structure of a large heroin distribution network: A quantitative analysis of qualitative data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 22 (2), 171–192.
• Pease, K. (2005). Science in the service of crime reduction. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (pp. 171–197). Cullompton: Willan.
• Pedahzur, A. , & Perliger, A. (2006). The changing nature of suicide attacks: A social network perspective. Social Forces , 84 (4), 1987–2008.
• Schwartz, D. M. , & Rouselle, T. D. (2009). Using social network analysis to target criminal networks. Trends in Organized Crime , 12 (2), 188–207.
• Shaw, S. E. , Smith, L. L. , & Bond, J. W. (2010). Examining the factors that differentiate a car key burglary from a regular domestic burglary. International Journal of Police Science and Management , 12 , 450.
• Sherman, L. W. (1998). Evidence-based policing . Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
• Sherman, L. W. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing, and tracking. Crime and Justice , 42 (1), 377–451.
• Sparrow, M. (2011). Governing science: New perspectives in policing . Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
• Tilley, N. (2006). Knowing and doing: Guidance and good practice in crime prevention. In J. Knutsson & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), Putting theory to work: Implementing situational prevention and problem-oriented policing (pp. 217–252). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
• Tilley, N. , & Laycock, G. (2001). Working out what to do: Evidence-based crime reduction. In Crime Reduction Series . London: Home Office.
• Van der Hulst, R. C. (2009). Introduction to Social Network Analysis (SNA) as an investigative tool. Trends in Organized Crime , 12 (2), 101–121.
• Van Dijk, J. J. (1994). Understanding crime rates: On the interactions between the rational choices of victims and offenders. British Journal of Criminology , 34 (2), 105–121.
• Vaněk, O. , Jakob, M. , Hrstka, O. , & Pěchouček, M. (2013). Agent-based model of maritime traffic in piracy-affected waters. Transportation Research , 36 , 157–176.
• von Lampe, K. (2010). Preventing organised crime: The case of contraband cigarettes. In K. Bullock , R. V. Clarke , & N. Tilley (Eds.), Situational Prevention of Organised Crimes (pp. 35–57). Willan: Cullompton.
• Welsh, B. C. , & Farrington, D. P. (2002). Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television: A systematic review . Home Office Research Study no. 252. London: Home Office
• Weisburd, D. , & Neyroud, P. (2011). Police science: Toward a new paradigm . Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
• Weiss, R. (1987). The community and prevention. In E. Johnson (Ed.), Handbook on crime and delinquency prevention . New York: Greenwood.
• Wortley, R. (2012). Exploring the person-situation interaction in situational crime prevention. In N. Tilley & G. Farrell (Eds.), The reasoning criminologist: Essays in honour of Ronald V. Clarke (pp. 170–179). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Wortley, R. , & Smallbone, S. (Eds.). (2006). Situational prevention of child sexual abuse (Vol. 19). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
• Wortley, R. , & Smallbone, S. (2012). Internet child pornography: Causes, investigation and prevention . Oxford: Praeger.
• Zhang, S. (2008). Chinese human smuggling organizations: Families, social networks, and cultural imperatives . Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Zhang, S. , & Chin, K. L. (2002). Enter the dragon: Inside Chinese human smuggling organizations. Criminology , 40 (4), 737–768.

Related Articles

• Laws of Geography
• Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Crime Prevention Evaluations
• Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Criminology and Criminal Justice. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 26 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [195.190.12.77]
• 195.190.12.77

Character limit 500 /500

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

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• 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.

• LSE Research Online - Criminal Justice and Social (In)Justice
• Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Criminal Justice
• The Balance Careers - Learn About 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.

The Criminal Justice System and Social Exclusion: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief (2018)

Chapter: the criminal justice system and social exclusion: race, ethnicity, and gender: proceedings of a workshop - in brief.

Proceedings of a Workshop

The Criminal Justice System and Social Exclusion: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender

Proceedings of a workshop—in brief, the role of criminal justice in social exclusion.

Members of the first panel broadly framed the issues surrounding the intersection of social exclusion and the criminal justice system. Focusing on social exclusion in the criminal justice system draws attention to processes and institutions that define criminalization, rather than to people and culture, noted panel moderator Kimberlé Crenshaw (University of California, Los Angeles, and Columbia University). The way a problem is framed affects how people understand it, including who or what is responsible and what responses are appropriate, she added.

Social exclusion is the deprivation of the qualities and opportunities of life in mainstream society. It extends beyond economic impoverishment, and the disadvantage of one is the product of another’s rela-

tive advantage, explained Bruce Western (Harvard University). High rates of incarceration have become part of the institutional landscape of social and economic inequality in the United States, he said. This inequality is an enduring problem because its effects are cumulative, invisible, and intergenerational.

Incarceration deepens the social disadvantages that have resulted from racial disparities in poverty rates and educational attainment, Western explained. The social experience and effects of incarceration and reentry are also racialized experiences. For example, data show that despite sharing a criminal history and generally very low levels of schooling, black men are far less likely than white men to be employed in the 12 months after prison. Moreover, for the black men who were employed, they earned less than their white counterparts. Yet because high rates of incarceration are socially concentrated in disadvantaged communities, the disparities are invisible to most Americans, he said. This invisibility is institutionally compounded by widely used national surveys for estimating unemployment that omit incarcerated people from population estimates. Western noted that the incarceration rates of black men under 35 who never went to high school are higher than their employment rates.

High rates of incarceration also result in growing numbers of black children with an imprisoned parent, he said: that number is currently one in nine. These children, especially boys, are more likely to have symptoms of depression, behavioral problems, and lower school achievement. Ultimately, Western related, the social and spatial concentration of high rates of incarceration contribute to different life experiences and the collective disadvantage of communities.

Delores Jones-Brown (John Jay College of Criminal Justice) addressed the United States’ legacy of racialized formal laws, law enforcement, and social norms to contemporary practices that continue to differentially impact people of color. Citing the 1920 observation of sociologist Thorsten Sellin, and the reporting of contemporary mass shootings, Jones-Brown noted that white criminality is commonly viewed in terms of individual failing, but black criminality is commonly presented and viewed as the failing of a group. The focus on proportionate rates of offending across racial groups by modern researchers has reinforced this notion.

She noted that quality-of-life enforcement, also known as broken windows policing and other proactive policing strategies, has resulted in increased arrests of people of color for nonviolent, low-level offenses that culminate in criminal histories that negatively affect their ability to participate in many aspects of civic life. Jones-Brown argued that popular support for these measures and others (such as stop and frisk) ignores the constitutionality of these strategies in practice and the ethicality of racialized consequences. She used the term “civil death” to describe the profound sense of being excluded from the normal enjoyment of public space evident in the research she highlighted.

Jones-Brown also argued that the use of aggregate data by law enforcement agencies and other criminal justice personnel to identify certain places as “high crime areas” reinforces and reproduces racial inequality over time. She noted in particular that the collateral consequences of contemporary policing practices reinforce criminalization as both a spatial and racial phenomenon: the label of criminality is easily transferred from neighborhoods to their residents. Police and other criminal justice agents use these practices to justify increased surveillance and contact of people of color, even when those practices overwhelming affect residents who are not engaged in crime. A growing body of qualitative research documents that the collateral consequences include the over-criminalization of residents and the engendering of fear, hostility, depression, anxiety, and a sense of police illegitimacy. She further noted that increased police contact increases the chance that residents will be subject to police mistakes and misconduct, including unwarranted fatalities.

PATTERNS OF INEQUALITY

Steven Raphael (University of California, Berkeley) moderated a panel examining disparities by race, ethnicity, and gender in sentencing, policing, and criminal procedure.

Race and Criminal Justice Policy

Marc Mauer (The Sentencing Project) presented evidence about the role of race in criminal justice policy over the past several decades. In the 1960s and 1970s, a substantial rise in crime was shown as black

in public media imagery of the time, which resulted in a criminal justice response largely concentrated in low-income communities of color. Today, those biases in the perception of criminality persist: white survey respondents overestimate the proportion of crime committed by African Americans 2 by 20 to 30 percent and suggest harsher punishments when a crime is perceived to be a “black crime.”

Some criminal justice policies and practices that appear race neutral have predictable racial effects that were rarely discussed when they were adopted: differential treatment for cocaine and crack offenses; enhanced penalties for crimes committed in a school zone, which cover large proportions of space in densely populated urban areas; and having a prior criminal record (e.g., “three strikes” laws) all have disparate effects on communities of color. Mauer suggested that these racial effects may have been unintentional but future policies should be more proactive in preventing them. He also pointed to the significant racial differences in prosecutors’ decisions on charging and plea negotiations and the need for more sophisticated data on this topic.

Raphael gave an example of criminal justice system reforms in California that resulted in dramatic deincarceration and narrowing of racial disparities. For many years, California’s prison population was 200 percent of its rated capacity, leading to litigation that forced the state to quickly reduce the overcrowding. This requirement prompted two reforms: one was Corrections Realignment in 2011, which eliminated sending people who commit technical violations of their parole back to prison; the other was Proposition 47 in 2014, which reclassified property and drug felonies to straight misdemeanors with no prison sentences. Since 2009, the number of people incarcerated has been reduced by about one-fourth, with the largest declines among people with a high school diploma or less. Jail populations, arrests for lower-level offenses, and reimprisonments for habitual offending also declined. Just as the growth of incarceration disparately affected black males in California, so too did the reforms, explained Raphael. Proposition 47 also narrowed racial disparities in arrests leading to booking and in average days of pretrial detention.

The role of prosecutors in the system is “enormous,” said Raphael, because they have discretion in how they apply the law, although Proposition 47 has limited this somewhat. In practice, differences in prosecutors’ decisions about whether to prosecute for parole violations have not been as stark as some had feared, he said. Instead, police are less likely to arrest people for drug crimes, now misdemeanors, reducing the discretion of prosecutors to try people for what used to be low-level felony offenses. He noted, however, that some prosecutors are concerned that this reduces the chances of compelling drug treatment programs for people who need them.

Federal Drug Prosecutions

Mona Lynch (University of California, Irvine) noted that racial disparities in sentencing—deviations from the federal sentencing guidelines—are often theorized to be the product of bias at the level of the individual decision maker, but she stressed that disparities start before the sentencing decision. Prosecutors’ decisions about case selection, charging decisions, and statutory enhancements can be very discretionary and, consequently, very unequal, as well as highly punitive. In addition, the structures around plea bargaining are variable at the district and jurisdictional level and ultimately constrain a judge’s sentencing decision.

Lynch said that case selection is the leading driver of inequality. Furthermore, the application of charging and enhancement sentencing tools varies, especially with regard to criminal history and guns, and they are unequally applied across racial groups, leading to a cumulative structural inequality. Some aspects of the law have inequality “baked in,” Lynch noted: “These legal tools get mobilized at the group level where discretionary actions are conditioned by local legal norms, broader ideologies about crime, race, gender, ethnicity, and class. Individual prosecutors, judges, and probation officers operate within that context.” Finally, prosecutors’ leverage around charges that garner long sentences are greatly increased in jurisdictions in which judges’ discretion is constrained by mandatory or presumptive sentencing guidelines.

Lynch believes that case selection in the federal system is going to become more important than ever due to changing policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. For example, there is evidence of inequality in the way that federal drug cases involving opiates and heroin are being prosecuted and sentenced. She

__________________

2 Throughout this document, references to race and ethnicity reflect the terms used by speakers.

said that guarding against inequality in the system will require focusing on case movement through the system as a whole.

Jeffrey Fagan (Columbia University) turned to inequalities in policing. In New York, race predicts where police are allocated above and beyond the crime rates. Echoing Jones-Brown, he noted that more police presence in selected neighborhoods leads to greater exposure to police and in turn, higher rates of police contact, including arrest and use of force. He related that a robust research literature shows that those racial and neighborhood differences in arrests per crime and the use of force have cascading effects that subsequently have profound consequences for health, mental health, housing, voting, and economic well-being. These consequences in turn reinforce social inequalities, he added.

Fagan offered several examples of such consequences. Financial burdens from misdemeanor arrests are associated with bankruptcy and foreclosure. And being detained prior to trial, which can occur due to financial limitations, makes conviction more likely during a trial and contributes to the “marking” effect of conviction on employment. This financial instability often makes offenders unable to pay fines, further adding to their criminal history in ways that have stigmatizing and further economic consequences. In recent years, researchers have met the challenge to capture these processes and effects. However, it is difficult to determine from the research what motives prompt police decisions to allocate officers by neighborhood or for individual officers to stop or arrest civilians and whether those differences constitute discrimination.

Fagan explained that at the neighborhood level, certain patterns and consequences of policing mark neighborhoods in ways that reinforce them as “poverty traps”—the set of processes that keep people stuck in particular locations and poor—and that can discourage outside development and lending. Moreover, each cycle of attention by the police creates a “runaway” feedback loop of using arrest data to warrant further attention to persons and places. This leads to other consequences, including loss of rights to serve on juries and to vote, plus increased mental health problems.

Fagan suggested that future research should examine distributive justice by considering ways in which some people may be more burdened than others by the criminal justice system as it currently operates. Understanding differences—in neighborhood contexts, meanings of important concepts (e.g., unemployment or social class), and individual differences among people (e.g., different responses to police and court contact)—is also needed.

COLLATERAL SANCTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS

Several panelists addressed both the effects of contact with the criminal justice system that extend beyond those meted out through sentencing and approaches for limiting these effects. Other panelists addressed the specific experiences of women and immigrants. Moderator Kareem Jordan (American University) noted the importance of these data and interventions to improve the quality and equality of justice.

Long-Term Effects

Christopher Uggen (University of Minnesota) described the cumulative and long-lasting effects of criminal records. The financial, physical, civic, and social sanctions that follow from criminal convictions and arrest histories often outweigh the offense. Criminal records attach strongly to individuals and are much more visible and accessible now than they used to be. Today, there are 19 million Americans with a felony record. This trend has especially affected African American males, for whom the percentage of the population with a felony record was more than 18 percent of the voting age population in some states (as of 2010). These rates vary significantly by state. Low-level arrests have increased dramatically, to 14 million per year. Even without convictions, arrests can have significant long-term effects.

Uggen explained that, as of 2016, 6 million people with criminal records nationwide had lost their voting rights. Criminal records also affect employment and educational prospects, especially for people of color. Colleges are also increasingly checking for felony records during admissions processes, but less discrimination is evident in that process than in other areas.

Uggen identified several potential remedies for these challenges. First, disenfranchisement should be pared back. In addition, commutations and pardons are underutilized tools that could be expanded. Last, he suggested the example of Norway: its incarceration rates are one-tenth of U.S. rates, and it follows a “principle of normality,” whereby punishments are more limited, and rights and an approximation of outside life are maintained when people are incarcerated.

Effects of Monetary Sanctions

Alexes Harris (University of Washington) explained that monetary sanctions resulting from contact with the criminal justice system can be a permanent punishment, especially for poor people. These sanctions result in court supervision and the limitation of rights until payment is made in full. The result is a two-tiered system—one for people with the means to pay their fines and move forward and one for people who cannot afford to pay their fines—“who will forever carry this debt with them,” she said.

Harris stressed that criminal justice systems have purposefully placed the burden of the costs of mass conviction and incarceration on the people who have contact with the system. When people fail to pay fines, they are summoned to appear in court. If people are homeless or lack a fixed address, they may miss summonses to appear in court, resulting in outstanding warrants and arrests, leading to further penalties. She noted that monetary sanctions can result merely from arrest or prosecution, without conviction. Studies show that these sanctions are both disproportionately imposed on and affect people of color. Furthermore, private industry is often the collector and payee of these fines, leading to a profit from people’s contact with police.

Harris explained that there are multiple levels of monetary sanctions. Although large debts may be imposed, little is collected, and what payments are made tend to be in exceedingly small amounts. Yet the financial, social, and health-related consequences of this system are substantial. Debt accumulates through the interest, surcharges, and collection costs, which add to the financial burden on poor people. These monetary sanctions also disrupt families, especially when people are incarcerated for nonpayment, and fear of reincarceration can lead to significant stress. She noted that although some jurisdictions hold ability-to-pay hearings to deal with this situation, many do not.

Some policy changes being considered involve changing payment plans or minimum payments, but policies could eliminate financial barriers altogether. “The system clearly deepens preexisting disadvantages in our society,” she said, “and it’s purposeful.” She suggested dialogue around the costs of the criminal justice system and who should bear them. She called for additional research to enhance understanding of the factors and multiple layers of fines and fees being imposed and the role that financial burden plays on the process of desisting from crime.

Effects on Employment

In looking at employment, Nancy La Vigne (Urban Institute) noted, first, that stable employment is especially important to social inclusion in communities. Being part of society—maintaining housing, taking care of others, paying taxes, giving back—all rest on stable employment and reduce the likelihood of engaging in crime.

She reported on the Returning Home Study, a longitudinal study following people from incarceration through 1 year after their release. It showed that higher paying jobs are more protective against recidivism than lower paying ones. The study found that jobs often came from “friends and families, through connections, prior relationships, people who were willing to take a chance on them,” she noted. Geography and transportation issues compound challenges to stable employment.

La Vigne described the growing evidence that race plays a larger role than a criminal record in employment. Overall, black unemployment is double that of white unemployment. She said that her own research shows that gender adds another layer of challenge for employment: women tend to have less employment prior to and following prison and less training behind bars than men. They also face high stakes for bonding with and supporting their children when they return to their communities.

Programs to foster social inclusion need to be gender responsive, she said. Furthermore, future programs and research need to be holistic and account for the intersecting and compounding factors re-

lated to contact with the criminal justice system and employment. Finally, La Vigne, stressed, more research should include the perspectives of people who have experienced incarceration or who have felony records.

Amanda Agan (Rutgers University) noted that approximately 60 percent of people recently released from prison are unemployed after 1 year, and she presented research on the effects of “Ban the Box,” also known as “Fair Chance” policies. Ban the Box policies are designed to increase the chances of employment for people with criminal records by delaying when in the process employers become aware of an applicant’s criminal record. Currently, 30 states and 150 cities and counties have such policies for public employers; 10 states and 31 local jurisdictions have such policies for private employers. Proponents of Ban the Box policies have also hoped that the policies would reduce racial disparities in employment.

Despite its intentions, Ban the Box has had a number of unintended consequences, Agan explained. First, employers appear to be trying to work around the policy, consciously or unconsciously, by guessing from applications whether an applicant may have a criminal record based on observable characteristics, such as race or age. Although this type of discrimination based on stereotyping is illegal, it still appears to be occurring, as shown in a study by Agan and a colleague. They analyzed callbacks from 15,000 fictitious applications to entry-level low-skill jobs sent before and after Ban the Box policies went into effect in New Jersey and New York. All of the applicants were young and male, but they randomly assigned a black-indicating or white-indicating name and felony conviction. Ban the Box led to a small increase in callbacks for black men with records, a much larger increase in callbacks for white men with records, but a significant decrease in callbacks for black men without records. That is, Ban the Box increased racial disparities: employers appear to be assuming that black applicants are more likely to have a criminal record.

Agan noted that other studies have found similar effects relating to Hispanic males and to eventual employment. Moreover, other research has found decreases or no change in employment for people with records after Ban the Box went into effect. There is no easy fix to the complex issue of employment for people with criminal records. Despite these effects, some advocates continue to call for Ban the Box policies, but Agan said that she believes that additional or alternative policies may be needed to achieve the desired goals. Other advocates have reacted by calling for more enforcement of existing antidiscrimination laws, though how to achieve this is not clear.

Experiences of Women

Andrea James (National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls) shared her experiences and perspectives as a former inmate and current advocate. While imprisoned for 2 years, she was moved by the women around her, who were faced with such difficult money choices as purchasing hygiene products or calling their children. She was motivated to act after spending time with women who had been away from their young children long enough to be receiving pictures of their children’s children. Ultimately, James began working as a teacher while in prison, and, with her fellow inmates, began organizing. Today, as a national organization with thousands of participants, the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls seeks to have the voices of women included in conversations about how to change the criminal justice system. It seeks alternatives to policies that focus on criminalizing and imprisoning people, instead of addressing the underlying needs of people and their communities.

Effects on Immigrant Communities

The criminal justice system affects immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, in unique ways, explained Amada Armenta (University of Pennsylvania). In her view, many of the exclusionary consequences of the criminal justice system are not unintended, and addressing this problem requires more than incremental or marginal changes.

Armenta studied policing in Nashville, Tennessee, where police used traffic enforcement as a central way to increase arrests of people with outstanding warrants and to look for potentially illegal drugs or weapons. She found that these pretextual stops had a disproportionate impact on undocumented immigrants because they were ineligible for driver’s licenses. Police could either cite or arrest these drivers,

but even the misdemeanor citations were expensive, and many times they resulted in arrests for failure to appear and then in immigration screenings once a person was in jail. This approach and its consequences made it difficult for local police to avoid participating in immigration enforcement systems. Other frequent police contact in the neighborhoods through pretextual stops of people of color was “just another path to deportation,” she said.

Armenta noted that criminal justice proceedings are different and the consequences often harsher for immigrants than for citizens. Undocumented immigrants are often held at the request of the federal government without bail, and they may be detained by immigration and customs enforcement without due process. She said that immigration enforcement actions are associated with negative opinions of police, as well as negative health outcomes, such as chronic stress and increased rates of preterm and low-weight births, not only among undocumented immigrants, but also among legal permanent residents and citizens of Latino descent. She called for an expanded definition of sanctuary, “where all communities of color are actually safe in their neighborhoods, [and] . . . that means bail reform, prison reform, police reform.”

YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULT POPULATIONS

One workshop panel addressed the special concerns of youth and young adult populations. Moderator Reginald Dwayne Betts (lawyer, poet, memoirist) challenged the group to consider what it means to characterize schools as places where behavior is criminalized and how to expand forms of data to include the voices of youth and young adults. He also stressed the need for frank conversations about violence and its implications for youth and young adults in the criminal justice system.

School Exclusion

Aaron Kupchik (University of Delaware) discussed the effects of school exclusion on youth. Schools are important in the context of criminal justice because schools are where people first encounter nonfamilial authority, where they learn about their roles as citizens, and (in some schools) where they may encounter police on a daily basis. And schools have increased criminalization of school discipline, characterized by zero-tolerance policies and more suspensions for less severe infractions.

Kupchik noted that even though overall victimization in schools has decreased dramatically, a trend that mirrors the decline of juvenile crime outside of school over the past 25 years, the links between schools and the criminal justice system are increasing. Eighty-one percent of all schools have surveillance cameras, drug-sniffing police dogs are used in 62 percent of high schools, and many schools have metal detectors. More schools today have school resource police officers than previously, despite a lack of evidence that they deter crime or protect students. But their presence is associated with increasing arrests of students, especially for simple assault and nonserious school offenses. Overall, minor offenses lead to more suspensions than they did a generation ago, and suspensions are associated with future arrests, risk of school failure, dropping out, not being accepted to college, and civic disengagement.

Black students disproportionately experience school exclusion, stated Kupchik. They face higher rates of discipline, suspensions, and arrests from school. The disparity is especially stark for black girls, who are suspended at six times the rate of white girls. This may be the product of racial bias: black students are more likely to be perceived as loud and disorderly, even when their behaviors are similar to those of white students. She noted that even though there is little evidence of greater behavior problems for black students than white students, they are suspended at far higher rates, starting as early as preschool, and for more reasons that are discretionary. Increasingly, data show that students are more likely to be seen as disruptive and to be punished on the basis of their sexual orientation, poverty status, gender, disability status, and immigration status.

Kupchik said that preventing school exclusion involves clear rules and communication, and consequences that build rather than disrupt communities. Seeing children as children, rather than as threats, and helping to deal with the root causes of misbehavior also leads to better outcomes. Developing policies that limit what offenses lead to school arrests and positive behavioral interventions have proven successful in limiting racial disparities.

Young Adults

Looking at young adults, Lael Chester (Columbia University) presented work from the Emerging Adult Justice Project, which studies 18- to 25-year-olds. Many jurisdictions are changing how they address the crimes of people transitioning from adolescence to adulthood. Since the late 1800s, people have recognized children as not being adults, but the precise age at which they have been considered adults has varied. Recent research on adolescent development has illuminated the cognitive and psychological markers of this phase, which extends through the mid-20s, but many states are still considering whether and how the criminal justice system should recognize this developmental period. Generally speaking, Chester said, youth under 18 are treated in the juvenile system, which has the goal of rehabilitation; youth over 18 are treated as adults, with no distinction made between people of very different ages and with more of a focus on deterrence and retribution than rehabilitation. Although young adults comprise 10 percent of the U.S. population, they make up nearly 30 percent of arrests and about 20 percent of the incarcerated population.

The racial disparities within this age group are troubling and greater than those for juveniles. Young adults are also especially hard hit by the drug crisis because of their risk-taking behavior and self-medication for mental health problems. Drug abuse violations peak during this period, even as their other criminal behaviors are decreasing. Moreover, young adults can face particular challenges after incarceration because they are less well established than older adults, who may have a pre-incarceration work history, their own housing, or an established family. She suggested that other countries, such as Germany, may provide a positive model for future reforms efforts in the United States because they are more oriented toward success after imprisonment.

Chester also noted that the young adult population includes many with special needs. Homeless young adults are particularly vulnerable, and their numbers and needs are not well understood. Homeless young women are at high risk for sexual abuse. She reported that multiple efforts are under way to address the needs of young adults given their vulnerability and poor outcomes, including specialized courts, caseloads, or correctional facilities. In some jurisdictions, legal provisions for young adults, such as differing parole terms or expanding the juvenile justice system to include emerging adults, are being implemented.

Marlon Peterson (executive producer, Decarcerated Podcast) described the importance of understanding the point of view of young adults of color who experience social exclusion through the criminal justice system. Informed by his experiences as a violence interrupter, a creator of programming inside of prison, and as someone who was formerly incarcerated, he now examines issues of violence and incarceration around the world. He challenged the group to understand the impact of both physical and emotional violence and oppression inherent in the criminal justice system. When communities of color are criminalized through policies, he said, sometimes young people, who lack effective ways to cope, respond through violence. In his work around the world, Peterson has come to see “that the violence that young folks perpetrate—not to absolve them of it—but the violence that many of our young people perpetuate, whether it be in schools or out of school environments, are rational responses to irrational situations.”

Peterson also described his concern that criminal records will hinder the ability of young adults to participate in the “gig” economy, made up largely of people under 25. Many young people of color are feeling unheard and experiencing a feeling of a broken spirit. He challenged the group to consider the long-term relational impacts of concentrated criminalization of people of color, the future of research, and the interpersonal effects of bias on youth and young adults of color.

Latino Youth

Vera Lopez (Arizona State University) focused on the experiences of Latino youth, highlighting three key areas of social exclusion. First, Latinos have been ignored in the criminal justice literature, in part because ethnicity and race have often been conflated. The result is that the true extent of crime among Latino youth is not well understood. In addition, departments and agencies use many different methods to collect ethnicity data, including assumptions based on appearance, and they lack specificity that accounts for how Latino people identify themselves. Only recently have there been initiatives to gather better data at the state and local level to understand problems that may exist. New reports that do examine the experiences of Latino youth show some interesting trends and disparities. For example, delinquency

referrals to juvenile court are most often made by law enforcement. Interestingly, Latino youth are 30 percent more likely to be adjudicated for delinquency and less likely to be waived to criminal court for case processing than black youth.

Second, Lopez noted, the stories of Latina girls involved with the criminal justice system are not being heard. As a group, they comprised 25 percent of Latino juvenile arrests in 2013, but otherwise data on this population are sparse. She said that, in her experience, these girls are often involved in multiple systems, including the behavioral health, child protective, and educational systems. Just like all girls in the juvenile justice system, many Latina girls have histories of victimization and trauma, as well as substance abuse and mental health issues. Their parents may also be involved in the criminal justice system and face multiple stressors. Latina girls often face a “gendered pathway to system involvement”—early child maltreatment can lead to running away, substance use, and eventual involvement in the juvenile justice system.

Third, Lopez explained, current policies and practices are based on stereotypes and blame individuals, families, and culture for problems. Her research with Latina girls, their families, and juvenile justice practitioners has identified biases and their effects on girls’ treatment. She suggested that practitioners, who often hold negative views of Latina youth, could be more effective by taking a strengths- and family-based approach and listening to the girls themselves.

NEXT STEPS FOR RESEARCH, POLICY, AND PRACTICE

Over the course of the workshop, many participants provided their ideas for new directions for research, practice, and policy in criminal justice to foster social inclusion. Many participants, including researchers, practitioners, and others, conveyed a sense of urgency that actions are needed in addition to more research.

Promising Practices and New Ideas for Policy

Various participants offered several ideas for promising practices and policies that could address social exclusion in the criminal justice system. Some suggested that it would be beneficial to look to other systems (e.g., public health) and outside the United States for successful approaches to conflict resolution and transformation. Ultimately, said Jones-Brown and others, bringing together people from research, philanthropy, law enforcement, the faith community, and other fields to address issues in meaningful ways would be useful. Mauer noted two important data trends looking over the past 20 years that warrant further exploration: the reduction of young people in juvenile residential placements by 50 percent and the dramatic decline in black women being incarcerated.

Other participants offered “bold ideas” to reimagine criminal justice system policy. Jeremy Travis (Laura and John Arnold Foundation) suggested that envisioning how a criminal justice system should be built from “square one” would be a useful thought experiment to generate new approaches. Mauer challenged participants to consider capping sentences for serious and violent offenders, a common practice in other developed nations. In U.S. prisons, one of every seven inmates is serving a life term, and data show that lengthy sentences are counterproductive from a public safety perspective. A few participants said that productive discussions will need to address both the volume of nonviolent criminal justice activity and better ways for the system to respond to violent crimes, recognizing that many perpetrators have also been victims.

Several participants commented that systemic change requires multiple approaches. “We need litigation. We need media strategy. We need more research. And we need more conversation and representation from people who have this debt to help us figure out what strategies and mechanisms and policies can we put in place to better protect the rights of poor people,” said Harris. La Vigne offered the idea that researchers or journals adopt an “inclusive research pledge” to ensure systematically that researchers engage with people with lived experience in the criminal justice system in the course of their work. She also proposed more policies to commit to “people-first” language (e.g., people with a felony record rather than felons) and called on researchers to call “out the kind of inequality that we see and experience every day in our lives, in workplaces, and in the academy.”

Western proposed a national presidential effort that would provide a means of confronting “the real history of race in America” that would be fundamentally humanistic, incorporating cultural, educational,

and scientific elements. The material conditions of poverty and the reality of violence in everyday life could be themes of such an effort, he added: “Science shouldn’t just have a utilitarian value for policy. Part of what we do is record and document social realities that are often unpleasant or invisible or in conflict with prevailing official ideologies.” He stressed that efforts should be bipartisan, account with the past, and culminate in a national apology and a program of legislative reforms.

The Role of Research

Several participants related that researchers should challenge their own theoretical assumptions, research paradigms, and ways of framing issues that may limit understanding of the effects of the criminal justice system. Candice Jones (Public Welfare Foundation) noted that, especially at the intersection of race and criminal justice, research can be used as both a sword and a shield. Several participants noted the importance of language that researchers use to describe people and issues. Using certain terms (e.g., inmate, felon, offender) can devalue people, cautioned James. More than one participant noted the need for more diversity within academia. Betts suggested that researchers can also do more to foster inclusion through mentoring.

Principles of proportionality in criminal justice should drive the future research agenda, according to several participants. Travis also suggested the need for a focus on citizenship and parsimony to guide society’s response to crime. John Laub (University of Maryland) noted that many theories suggest that social connections are important in keeping individuals out of the criminal justice system; when the criminal justice system contributes to social exclusion, it thus also contributes to even higher crime rates. However, Jones questioned whether the criminal justice system could ever be seen as a tool of social inclusion.

Broadening Methods and Voices

Multiple participants suggested that academic researchers should include in their studies the voices and expertise of people who have experienced the criminal justice system. This approach includes combining quantitative with qualitative methods, as well as using participatory research approaches. Furthermore, several participants suggested, researchers should aim to give communities a voice in determining the relationship they have with justice agents. Edward Hailes, Jr. (Advancement Project) noted that this is especially important for communities of color. Jones-Brown suggested that to increase social inclusion—those who are policed the most and otherwise have disproportionate contact with criminal justice apparatus—should be given a voice in decision making. She also noted that more criminal justice researchers of color are needed, especially those of black racial identity and, especially on the topic of policing.

Humanizing the effects of the criminal justice system is needed, according to several participants. “You need our stories. You need our narratives to bring this to reality so that people cannot just continue to look at numbers,” said James. Betts concurred, saying that individual experiences are critical to humanize and understand the ways that criminal justice policies and practices affect people’s lives and actions. He added that art and literature can sometimes be more effective at conveying a complex lived experience than hearing the story of an average person. These experiences should not only include those of people involved with the justice system, but also crime victims.

Jones suggested that researchers should start with observing and listening to people on the front lines of practice in the criminal justice system. Pursuing new research questions to provide answers that practitioners need could lead to wider reception of research, she suggested. Researchers can also help practitioners with framing their questions, she noted.

Throughout the workshop, many participants highlighted areas for which important data are lacking. For example, Laub noted that detailed data on criminal justice processing (e.g., police and prosecutorial discretion to handle cases formally or informally), particularly at early stages are needed, as are data on later life outcomes of people who have been incarcerated. Others noted that data are sparse for particular populations, such as Latinos, Native Americans, and LGBTQ individuals. Several participants mentioned the intersection of race and gender with the experiences of school discipline and the criminal justice system. For example, Crenshaw noted, black women are more vulnerable to police misconduct

than white women, and women may have particular risk factors that men do not. Less is known about incarcerated women than men, and Crenshaw and others suggested that research on affected women, children, and families is needed.

Jones added that more research on effective reentry after incarceration is needed, particularly on innovative approaches. Too few practices have been evaluated to provide evidence for different policy choices, she said. Similarly, Laub said, a rigorous research agenda should include questions that address the causal links between criminal justice policies, programs, and practices and their effects on individuals and communities, including taking advantage of natural experiments. Fagan pointed out that incentives and systemic factors that prevent change are important to consider.

Many participants called attention to the simplistic way in which research has considered complex concepts, such as poverty. “Intersectionality”—the notion that such factors as race, gender, educational level, geography, and income level alone are insufficient to understand how experiences of individuals vary even within groups—arose in discussions as an important concept that should guide more holistic research approaches that capture the interdependent and cumulative nature of interactions. In this vein, some participants noted, it is important to understand the effects of co-occurring disadvantages. Others noted that the criminal justice system intersects with many other systems and social problems (e.g., substance abuse, mental health), and creative solutions are needed to help communities more effectively address these different needs. Currently, “the criminal justice system becomes the de facto social policy of last resort,” said Western.

Communicating Research Findings

Several participants discussed how to effectively communicate research with practitioners, advocates, and policy makers. Bridging organizations can play an important role, suggested La Vigne, helping to translate research into practice quickly and rewarding more varied forms of research and dissemination. James noted that nonprofit organizations often rely on those partnerships. La Vigne explained that although researchers are hesitant to engage with the advocacy community, both can learn from each other. Other participants emphasized the need to communicate on multiple fronts (e.g., media, research, litigation) to bring about change in criminal justice policies.

Several participants stressed the importance and challenge of getting research to the community level, including both law enforcement agencies and other people working at the local level. Clarence Cox (National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives) said that most of the 18,000 law enforcement agencies around the country would be unlikely to have heard of the research that has been presented at the workshop. He emphasized that more work needs to be done to ingrain the methods and principles of 21st century policing practices across the country. Fagan agreed: “There needs to be some kind of place politically and institutionally where these kinds of analyses have to take place and where the information has to be put on the table for an open and honest debate about what we’re doing with respect to policing neighborhoods.” Organizations and publications can help with this bridging, noted one participant. Armenta said that she sees her role as not only conducting rigorous research, but also amplifying the work being done by organizations working in communities. It is also important, she added, that researchers report back to communities on the effects of policies, whether those effects are good or bad. One participant noted that implementation science can provide evidence-based approaches for bridging research and practice.

Communicating criminal justice research can be challenging in part because many people hold preconceived notions about the types of people who have been incarcerated, noted Raphael, making them believe that persons involved with the justice system do not deserve help. Researchers can help evaluate and provide data and evidence to counter inaccurate claims that people make in the public sphere. There is also a different, but important role for advocates to play, he added. One participant noted that encouraging data sharing and aggregation could also help with providing information for decision making in criminal justice, but Cox noted that this idea is often met with resistance and might not occur voluntarily. More broadly, Jones explained, data are needed to demonstrate the overall impact of the criminal justice system on all Americans, such as the effects on gross domestic product.

FINAL OBSERVATIONS

Crutchfield offered a challenge to participants: keep pushing for answers as to why there are persistent disproportionalities in the criminal justice system and what can be done about the resulting social exclusion of some groups. Related to this challenge, Loren Harris (Nathan Cummings Foundation) encouraged participants to ensure that scholarship reaches communities at all levels so that change-makers “can put it to use to create statements for policy change and help to move the dialogue in their communit[ies] … about how we approach justice in a different and innovative and more just and equitable way.”

WORKSHOP PLANNING COMMITTEE: Ruth D. Peterson ( Chair ), Professor Emerita, Ohio State University; Reginal Dwayne Betts , Lawyer, Poet, Memoirist; Marshall Clement, Council of State Governments; Kimberlé W. Crenshaw , University of California, Los Angeles, and Columbia University; Robert D. Crutchfield, University of Washington; Nicole D. Porter, The Sentencing Project; Steven Raphael, University of California, Berkeley; and STAFF: Kathi Grasso , CLAJ Board Director; Leticia Garcilazo Green , Senior Program Assistant; Erik Saari , Senior Program Assistant; Miranda Galvin , Mirzayan Fellow; Erica Scott , Intern.

DISCLAIMER: This Proceeding of a Workshop—in Brief was prepared by Holly Rhodes, rapporteur, as a factual summary of what occurred at the meeting. The statements made are those of the rapporteur or individual meeting participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all meeting participants; the planning committee; the Committee on Law and Justice; the Nathan Cummings Foundation; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The planning committee was responsible only for organizing the workshop, identifying the topics, and choosing speakers.

REVIEWERS: To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was reviewed by Robert D. Crutchfield, Department of Sociology, University of Washington, and Lyman Legters, Strategic Consulting, Casey Family Programs. Kirsten Sampson Snyder, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, served as review coordinator.

SPONSORS: The workshop was supported by the Nathan Cummings Foundation.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). The Criminal Justice System and Social Exclusion: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25247 .

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a workshop in April 2018 to examine how the criminal justice system affects the fundamental status of people as members of society and to consider next steps for research, practice, and policy for the field. The goal of the workshop was to find common ground to work toward a criminal justice system that avoids social exclusion and instead reflects the principles of citizenship and social justice with a fair distribution of rights, resources and opportunities.

The workshop was specifically designed to explore the reasons for the disparate experiences of individuals involved with the criminal justice system by race, ethnicity, and gender, the mechanisms that cause them to persist, and what can be done through policy and practice to minimize those differences. Participants—including researchers, policy makers, and advocates for victims and offenders—discussed issues in five areas: (1) the role of criminal justice in social exclusion; (2) patterns of inequality in criminal justice; (3) collateral sanctions of the criminal justice system; (4) special concerns for youth and young adult populations; and (5) next steps for research, policy, and practice. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

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.

Advertisement

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

• Published: 20 December 2022
• Volume 47 , pages 1050–1070, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Charis E. Kubrin 1 &
• Rebecca Tublitz 1  

5478 Accesses

2 Citations

17 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Criminal Justice Reform and the System’s Efficiency

Who Knows Best? A Question About How Criminal Policy Change Takes Place

Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities

Explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

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,” Footnote 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.

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.

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.  https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx028

Ahrens, D. M. (2020). Retroactive legality: Marijuana convictions and restorative justice in an era of criminal justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 110 , 379.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, C. N., Wooldredge, J., & Cochran, J. C. (2022). Can “race-neutral” program eligibility requirements in criminal justice have disparate effects? An examination of race, ethnicity, and prison industry employment. Criminology & Public Policy, 21 , 405–432.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aviram, H. (2015). Cheap on Crime: Recession-era Politics and the Transformation of American Punishment . University of California Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bales, W. D., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Racial/Ethnic differentials in sentencing to incarceration. Justice Quarterly, 29 , 742–773.

Barak, G. (1994). Media, process, and the social construction of crime . Garland.

Bartos, B. J., & Kubrin, C. E. (2018). Can we downsize our prisons and jails without compromising public safety? Findings from California’s Prop 47. Criminology & Public Policy, 17 , 693–715.

Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

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. (2016). The end of an era? Understanding the contradictions of criminal justice reform. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664 , 238–259.

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. https://doi.org/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. (1990). The politics and morality of deviance . State University of New York Press.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology knowledge . Anchor Books.

Bernard, T. J., Paoline, E. A., III., & Pare, P. P. (2005). General systems theory and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33 , 203–211.

Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events . Georgetown University Press.

Blomberg, T., Brancale, J., Beaver, K., & Bales, W. (2016). Advancing criminology & criminal justice policy . Routledge.

Currie, E. (2007). Against marginality. Theoretical Criminology, 11 (2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480607075846

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10 , 103–126.

Chouhy, C., Swagar, N., Brancale, J., Noorman, K., Siennick, S. E., Caswell, J., & Blomberg, T. G. (2021). Forecasting the racial and ethnic impacts of ‘race-neutral’ legislation through researcher and policymaker partnerships. American Journal of Criminal Justice . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09619-8

Cullen, F. T. & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Criminal justice theories and ideologies. In Reaffirming rehabilitation (pp. 27–44). Andersen.

Dabney, D. A., Page, J., & Topalli, V. (2017). American bail and the tinting of criminal justice. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 56 , 397–418.

Donnelly, E. A. (2017). The politics of racial disparity reform: Racial inequality and criminal justice policymaking in the states. Am J Crim Just, 42 , 1–27.

Dunbar, A. (2022). Arguing for criminal justice reform: Examining the effects of message framing on policy preferences. Justice Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2022.2038243

Eckhouse, L., Lum, K., Conti-Cook, C., & Ciccolini, J. (2019). Layers of bias: A unified approach for understanding problems with risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46 , 185–209.

Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics . Cambridge University Press.

Garland, D. (1991). Sociological Perspectives on Punishment. Crime and Justice, 14 , 115–165.

Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society . University of Chicago Press.

Goodman, P., Page, J., & Phelps, M. (2017). Breaking the pendulum: The long struggle over criminal justice . Oxford University Press.

Gottlieb, A. (2017). The effect of message frames on public attitudes toward criminal justice reform for nonviolent offenses. Crime & Delinquency, 63 , 636–656.

Gottschalk, M. (2015). Caught: The prison state and the lockdown of American politics . Princeton University Press.

Gramlich, J. (2021). America’s incarceration rate falls to lowest level since 1995 . Pew Research Center.

Grattet, R., & Jenness, V. (2008). Transforming symbolic law into organizational action: Hate crime policy and law enforcement practice. Social Forces, 87 , 501–527.

Gusfield, J. R. (1963). Symbolic crusade: Status politics and the American temperance movement . University of Illinois Press.

Hagan, J., Hewitt, J. D., & Alwin, D. F. (1979). Ceremonial justice: Crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system. Social Forces, 58 , 506–527.

Haney, C. (1982). Criminal justice and the nineteenth-century paradigm: The triumph of psychological individualism in the ‘Formative Era.’ Law and Human Behavior, 6 , 191–235.

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47 , 711–739.

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. (2018). An unjust burden: The disparate treatment of Black Americans in the criminal justice system . Vera Institute of Justice.

Hutchinson, S. (2006). Countering catastrophic criminology. Punishment & Society, 8 , 443–467.

Ismaili, K. (2006). Contextualizing the criminal justice policy-making process. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17 , 255–269.

Jenkins, P. (1998). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in Modern America . Yale University Press.

Jenness, V. (2004). Explaining criminalization: From demography and status politics to globalization and modernization. Annual Review of Sociology, 30 , 147–171.

Johnson, B. D., & Lee, J. G. (2013). Racial disparity under sentencing guidelines: A survey of recent research and emerging perspectives. Sociology Compass, 7 , 503–514.

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. (2017). Out of sight: The growth of jails in rural America . Vera Institute of Justice.

Kingdon, J. W. (2011[1995]). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies . Harper Collins.

Kraska, P. B., & Brent, J. J. (2011). Theorizing criminal justice: Eight essential orientations (2nd ed.). Waveland Press.

Kubrin, C. E. (2014). Secure or insecure communities?: Seven reasons to abandon the secure communities program. Criminology & Public Policy, 13 , 323–338.

Kurlychek, M. C., & Johnson, B. D. (2019). Cumulative disadvantage in the American Criminal Justice System. Annual Review of Criminology, 2 , 291–319.

Kutateladze, B. L., Andiloro, N. R., Johnson, B. D., & Spohn, C. C. (2014). Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology, 52 , 514–551.

Levin, B. (2018). The consensus myth in criminal justice reform. Michigan Law Review, 117 , 259.

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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00733.x

MacDonald, J., & Raphael, S. (2020). Effect of scaling back punishment on racial and ethnic disparities in criminal case outcomes. Criminology & Public Policy, 19 , 1139–1164.

Mauer, M. (2007). Racial impact statements as a means of reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities. Ohio State Journal of Crime Law, 5 (19), 33.

Mears, D. P. (2010). American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and effectiveness . Cambridge University Press.

Mears, D. P. (2017). Out-of-control criminal justice: The systems improvement solution for more safety, justice, accountability, and efficiency . Cambridge University Press.

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, M. R. (2018). The role of bail and pretrial detention in the reproduction of racial inequalities. Sociology Compass, 12 , e12576.

Miller, L. L. (2008). The perils of federalism: Race, poverty, and the politics of crime control . Oxford University Press.

Mitchell, O. (2005). A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21 , 439–466.

Mooney, A. C., Giannella, E., Glymour, M. M., Neilands, T. B., Morris, M. D., Tulsky, J., & Sudhinaraset, M. (2018). Racial/ethnic disparities in arrests for drug possession after California proposition 47, 2011–2016. American Journal of Public Health, 108 , 987–993.

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). https://doi.org/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, W. M., & Marion, N. E. (2008). Political party platforms: Symbolic politics and criminal justice policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19 , 397–413.

Ouss, A., & Stevenson, M. (2022). Does cash bail deter misconduct? Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3335138

Packer, H. (1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113 , 1–68.

Page, J. (2011). The toughest beat: Politics, punishment, and the prison officers union in California . Oxford University Press.

Petersilia, J. (2016). Realigning corrections, California style. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664 , 8–13.

Peterson, R. D., & Krivo, L. J. (2010). Divergent social worlds: Neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide . Russell Sage Foundation.

Phelps, M. S. (2016). Possibilities and contestation in twenty-first-century US criminal justice downsizing. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 12 , 153–170.

Pickett, J. T. (2019). Public opinion and criminal justice policy: Theory and research. Annual Review of Criminology, 2 , 405–428.

Pickett, J. T., Ivanov, S., & Wozniak, K. H. (2022). Selling effective violence prevention policies to the public: A nationally representative framing experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 18 , 387–409.

Porter, N. (2021). Racial impact statements, sentencing project . Retrieved July 16 2022, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/racial-impact-statements/

Provine, D. M., Varsanyi, M. W., Lewis, P. G., & Decker, S. H. (2016). Policing immigrants: Local law enforcement on the front lines . University of Chicago Press.

Raphael, S. (2021). The intended and unintended consequences of ban the box. Annual Review of Criminology, 4 (1), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-022137

Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2013). Why are so many Americans in prison? Russell Sage Foundation.

Rein, M., & Schön, D. A. (1977). Problem setting in policy research. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 235–251). Lexington Books.

Reiter, K., & Chesnut, K. (2018). Correctional autonomy and authority in the rise of mass incarceration. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14 , 49–68.

Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169.

Rubin, A. T. (2016). Penal change as penal layering: A case study of proto-prison adoption and capital punishment reduction, 1785–1822. Punishment and Society, 18 , 420–441.

Sample, L. L., & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislators’ accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19 , 40–62.

Sample, L. L., Evans, M. K., & Anderson, A. L. (2011). Sex offender community notification laws: Are their effects symbolic or instrumental in nature? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22 , 27–49.

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. (2011). The failure of race neutral policies: How mandatory terms and sentencing enhancements contribute to mass racialized incarceration. Crime & Delinquency, 57 , 56–81.

Schneider, A. & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87 (2), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939044

Schneider, A., & Sidney, M. (2006). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? The Policy Studies Journal, 37 , 103–119.

Seeds, C. (2017). Bifurcation nation: American penal policy in late mass incarceration. Punishment and Society, 19 , 590–610.

Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality . University of Chicago Press.

Smith, K., & Larimer, C. (2017). The public policy theory primer (3rd Edition). Taylor & Francis.

Spencer, K. B., Charbonneau, A. K., & Glaser, J. (2016). Implicit bias and policing. Social and personality. Psychology Compass, 10 , 50–63.

Subramanian, R., & Delaney, R. (2014). Playbook for change? States reconsider mandatory sentences . Vera Institute of Justice.

Tewksbury, R. (2002). Validity and utility of the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry. Federal Probation, 66 , 21–26.

Thielo, A. J., Cullen, F. T., Cohen, D. M., & Chouhy, C. (2016). Rehabilitation in a red state: Public support for correctional reform in Texas. Criminology & Public Policy, 15 , 137–170.

Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform . Harvard University Press.

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. (2012). The imprisonment penalty for Young Black and Hispanic Males: A crime-specific analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49 , 56–80.

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Charis E. Kubrin & Rebecca Tublitz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charis E. Kubrin .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kubrin, C.E., Tublitz, R. How to Think about Criminal Justice Reform: Conceptual and Practical Considerations. Am J Crim Just 47 , 1050–1070 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09712-6

Download citation

Received : 16 November 2022

Accepted : 01 December 2022

Published : 20 December 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09712-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Criminal justice reform
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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."

The study of crime and punishment has become increasingly central to our understanding of how society works.  Crime varies widely across time and place, for example, and is deeply intertwined with multiple forms of social stratification.   Societal reactions to crime in the form of mass incarceration have in turn been linked to increasing racial and economic inequality.  This research cluster draws together faculty in sociology and across the university to address these and other fundamental questions about crime and its control.  The Program in Criminal Justice at the Kennedy School is a key institutional hub for intellectual dialogue.

Affiliated Graduate Students

Lawrence D. Bobo

Joscha legewie, christopher muller, amelia o'halloran, robert j. sampson, david showalter, johnny smith, adaner usmani, jocelyn viterna, christopher winship, sandra susan smith awarded radcliffe institute fellowship.

See more here.

Ya-Wen Lei's book receives ASA awards!

The Gilded Cage has been awarded an Honorable Mention for the Max Weber Book Award by the Organizations, Occupations, and Work section, the Asia/Transnational Book Award from the Asia and Asian America Section and 2024 Best Book Award in the Communication...

Six Class of 2024 students receive prestigious Hoopes Prize

The department would like to congratulate six graduating seniors who received the 2024 Thomas Temple Hoopes Prize. The Hoopes Prize is awarded to undergraduates on the basis of outstanding scholarly work or research, usually in the form of a senior thesis...

Four students win NSF GRFP in 2023 and 2024!

Bernadette Blashill, Clayton Covington, and Siri Neerchal have each been awarded a three-year National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program Fellowship (NSF GRFP) in 2024. Hannah Craig (pictured) was awarded an NSF GRFP fellowship in...

Christopher Winship contributes to Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard's column in The Crimson

Harvard, Academic Freedom, and the New Wars of Religion, Christopher Winship contributes to Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard's column in The Crimson.

• EndNote X3 XML
• EndNote 7 XML
• Endnote tagged

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.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Discretion and the criminal justice process, additional details.

90 South Bayles Avenue , Port Washington , NY 11050 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

Legal Principles Governing Restitution in Criminal Law

Restitution in criminal law is governed by a distinct set of legal principles that aim to provide victims with fair compensation for their losses while holding offenders accountable for their crimes. Key principles include satisfaction of specific statutory and procedural requirements, direct causation between the defendant's conduct and the victim's quantifiable losses, and evaluating the defendant's assets to determine their ability to pay. Courts must also provide clear jury instructions, and victims must be given an opportunity to present evidence to support their restitution claims. As the nuances of restitution continue to evolve, understanding these governing principles is essential for achieving justice.

Table of Contents

Eligibility for Restitution Orders

In the context of criminal law, the eligibility for restitution orders is contingent upon the satisfaction of specific statutory and procedural requirements, which vary by jurisdiction but generally involve a showing of direct causation between the defendant's criminal conduct and the victim's quantifiable losses. A vital aspect of this process is obtaining victim consent, which is often a prerequisite for the court to ponder a restitution order. This consent may be implicit, such as when the victim requests restitution, or explicit, as in cases where the victim formally agrees to participate in the restitution process. Additionally, the court must assess the defendant's assets to determine their ability to pay restitution. This involves evaluating the defendant's financial situation, including their income, expenses, and net worth, to verify that the restitution order is reasonable and feasible. By carefully weighing these factors, courts can make restitution orders that are fair, effective, and provide meaningful compensation to victims of criminal offenses.

Types of Restitution Awards

The types of restitution awards available in criminal law are varied and serve distinct purposes. Monetary damage awards, for instance, provide financial compensation to victims for tangible losses incurred as a direct result of the offense. Additionally, restorative justice payments and compensatory restitution orders offer further avenues for victims to seek redress and reparation.

Monetary Damage Awards

Monetary damage awards, a primary type of restitution, compensate victims for quantifiable economic losses directly resulting from the defendant's criminal actions. These awards are designed to restore victims to their pre-crime financial status, thereby promoting justice and accountability. In calculating monetary damage awards, courts consider various factors, including lost wages, medical expenses, and property damage. However, this approach can lead to economic inefficiencies, as it may create incentives for victims to exaggerate their losses or engage in fraudulent activities. Additionally, insurance implications must also be considered, as victims may already be compensated by their insurance providers for some of the losses. In such cases, restitution awards may lead to double recovery, which can be unfair to the defendant and the criminal justice system as a whole. To mitigate these issues, courts must carefully assess the evidence and guarantee that monetary damage awards are fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the victim's losses. By doing so, the criminal justice system can promote accountability while minimizing economic inefficiencies and unfair insurance implications.

Restorative Justice Payments

Beyond monetary damage awards, restorative justice payments offer an alternative approach to restitution, focusing on symbolic reparation and repairing the harm caused by the defendant's actions. This approach prioritizes community engagement and victim empathy, recognizing that financial compensation alone may not adequately address the harm inflicted. Restorative justice payments aim to provide a sense of closure and reparation for victims, while also promoting accountability and rehabilitation for defendants.

Some notable features of restorative justice payments include:

• Apology and acknowledgment : Defendants may be required to issue a formal apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing, providing victims with a sense of validation and recognition.
• Community service : Defendants may be ordered to perform community service or volunteer work, which can help to repair harm and promote community engagement.
• Symbolic restitution : Defendants may be required to make symbolic gestures, such as returning stolen property or restoring damaged property, to provide tangible restitution to victims.

Compensatory Restitution Orders

In criminal law, compensatory restitution orders constitute a crucial type of restitution award, mandating defendants to reimburse victims for tangible losses and expenses directly resulting from their criminal actions. These orders aim to restore victims to their pre-crime state, aligning with the restitution goals of making victims whole and holding offenders accountable.

Compensatory restitution orders prioritize order fairness, safeguarding that defendants are not unduly burdened while still providing adequate compensation to victims. By doing so, these orders promote accountability, reparation, and rehabilitation, ultimately contributing to a more just and equitable criminal justice system.

Calculating Restitution Amounts

When calculating restitution amounts, a critical step is to accurately quantify the losses incurred by the victim. This involves determining the actual monetary losses, as well as valuing intangible harms such as emotional distress or loss of reputation. A thorough and itemized assessment of damages is vital to guarantee that the restitution amount accurately reflects the victim's losses.

Determining Loss Amounts

Calculating restitution amounts requires a meticulous assessment of the financial harm inflicted on victims to guarantee that offenders are held accountable for their criminal actions. This process involves a thorough examination of the economic consequences of the crime, taking into account both direct and indirect losses. In determining loss amounts, the court must engage in a rigorous economic analysis to quantify the financial harm suffered by the victim.

To facilitate accuracy, forensic accounting techniques are often employed to trace and track the flow of funds, identify hidden assets, and uncover fraudulent transactions. The following factors are typically considered when determining loss amounts:

• Direct losses, such as stolen funds or damaged property
• Indirect losses, including lost wages, business opportunities, or reputational harm
• Consequential losses, such as legal fees, medical expenses, or therapy costs

Valuing Intangible Harm

Valuing intangible harm, a complex and often contentious aspect of restitution, requires courts to quantify the non-monetary consequences of criminal behavior, such as emotional distress, loss of enjoyment, and diminished quality of life. This process involves assigning a monetary value to intangible losses, which can be challenging due to their subjective nature. Courts must rely on expert testimony, medical records, and other evidence to establish a causal link between the criminal conduct and the intangible harm suffered.

Pain measurement and emotional quantification are vital in this regard. By using standardized assessment tools and psychological evaluations, courts can better understand the extent of the victim's emotional distress and quantify their losses accordingly. For instance, a victim of domestic violence may experience anxiety, depression, and PTSD, which can be quantified through expert testimony and psychological evaluations. By considering these factors, courts can arrive at a more accurate restitution amount that reflects the full extent of the victim's intangible harm. Ultimately, valuing intangible harm requires a nuanced and sensitive approach that acknowledges the complexities of human suffering and provides victims with a measure of justice.

Itemizing Damages

In determining restitution amounts, courts must meticulously itemize damages to guarantee that victims receive fair compensation for their tangible and intangible losses. This involves a thorough economic analysis of the harm suffered, taking into account both the direct and indirect consequences of the criminal offense.

To achieve this, courts typically engage in damage categorization, separating losses into distinct categories to facilitate accurate calculation. Some key considerations in this process include:

• Tangible losses : These comprise quantifiable expenses such as medical bills, property repair costs, and lost income.
• Intangible losses : This category includes non-monetary harms, such as emotional distress, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
• Consequential losses : These are indirect losses resulting from the initial harm, like the cost of ongoing medical treatment or the impact on future earning capacity.

Procedural Requirements for Restitution

Five key procedural requirements must be satisfied to guarantee that restitution is properly ordered and enforced in criminal cases. At the outset, a court filing is required, which involves submitting a written request for restitution to the court. This filing must be accompanied by supporting documentation, such as evidence of the victim's losses and expenses. Next, the court must provide clear jury instructions on the issue of restitution, clarifying that the jury understands the purpose and scope of restitution. This includes instructing the jury on how to calculate the amount of restitution owed to the victim. Thirdly, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to support the restitution claim, including testimony from the victim and other relevant witnesses. Fourthly, the defendant must be given an opportunity to respond to the restitution claim and present any opposing evidence. Finally, the court must issue a written order specifying the amount of restitution owed and the terms of payment. By satisfying these procedural requirements, courts can verify that restitution is fairly and accurately awarded to victims of crime.

Landmark Cases in Restitution Law

The development of restitution law has been shaped by several landmark cases, which have played a vital role in clarifying the principles and parameters of restitution in criminal law. These cases have not only provided guidance on the application of restitution but have also influenced the development of judicial discretion in restitution orders.

Some notable cases include:

• *R v. Zelenski* (1978), which established the principle that restitution should be considered in all cases where it is feasible and reasonable.
• *R v. Lindsay* (1987), which highlighted the importance of considering the victim's interests and the offender's ability to pay in determining restitution orders.
• *R v. Gallant* (1993), which emphasized the need for case analysis in determining the appropriate amount of restitution.

These landmark cases have contributed substantially to the evolution of restitution law, providing valuable insights into the factors that should be considered in awarding restitution. By analyzing these cases, it becomes clear that judicial discretion plays a pivotal role in ensuring that restitution orders are fair, reasonable, and effective in promoting justice for victims of crime.

Emerging Trends in Restitution

Recent years have witnessed a significant shift towards more innovative and victim-centric approaches to restitution, driven in part by advances in technology and changing societal attitudes towards crime and punishment. This shift is evident in the increasing use of digital platforms to facilitate restitution, such as online portals for victims to report crimes and track restitution payments.

These emerging trends in restitution are driven by technological advancements and global cooperation, and are aimed at providing more effective and victim-centric approaches to restitution.

Challenging and Enforcing Restitution

Effective restitution relies on a robust enforcement framework, which is often tested by defendants who seek to evade or contest their restitution obligations through various legal and procedural challenges. To overcome these challenges, it is crucial to identify and address common restitution barriers, such as inadequate investigation, lack of evidence, and insufficient resources.

To guarantee successful restitution, enforcement strategies must be tailored to the specific needs of each case. Some effective strategies include:

• Implementing regular monitoring and reporting mechanisms to track restitution payments
• Establishing clear communication channels between victims, prosecutors, and defendants
• Providing training and resources for law enforcement and judicial officials to effectively enforce restitution orders

Frequently Asked Questions

Can victims of criminal restitution claims appeal the restitution amount?.

Victims of criminal restitution claims can appeal the restitution amount, but the appeal process is limited, as courts exercise judicial discretion in determining restitution amounts, and appellate courts typically defer to these discretionary decisions.

Is Restitution Available for Crimes Committed Outside the Country?

In general, restitution for crimes committed outside a country's borders is limited by principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction and sovereign immunity, restricting a nation's authority to impose restitution for crimes committed in another sovereign state's territory.

Do Restitution Laws Apply to Juvenile Offenders?

Regarding juvenile offenders, restitution laws often incorporate age considerations, acknowledging developmental differences and potential sentencing disparities, leading to tailored approaches that balance accountability with rehabilitation and restorative justice.

Can Restitution Be Ordered for Emotional Distress Damages?

In determining restitution for emotional distress damages, courts often employ the Pain Calculus, a methodology that attempts to monetize intangible harm, and Distress Quantification, which assigns a numerical value to subjective suffering, to provide a fair and reasonable award.

Are Restitution Orders Affected by Bankruptcy Filings?

In bankruptcy proceedings, restitution orders may be affected by dischargeability analysis, which determines whether the debt is eligible for discharge. The automatic stay may also pause restitution payments, pending resolution of the bankruptcy case.

UNLOCK YOUR COPY