research papers on criminal justice

Advertisement

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

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

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

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

20k Accesses

7 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

Decision-Making in the Courtroom: Jury

Is forensic evidence impartial cognitive biases in forensic analysis.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scope of Available Research and Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Findings

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

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

Human Nature

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

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

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

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

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

Environment and Culture

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

Individual Characteristics

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

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

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

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

Case-Specific

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

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

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

Interventions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Vanessa Meterko & Glinda Cooper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanessa Meterko .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statement

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

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

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

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Accepted : 08 December 2020

Published : 23 June 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Criminal Justice

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• Criminal Law Follow Following
• Criminology Follow Following
• Law Follow Following
• Criminal Procedure Follow Following
• Crime Follow Following
• International Criminal Law Follow Following
• Critical Criminology Follow Following
• Philosophy of Criminal Law Follow Following
• Philosophy Of Law Follow Following
• Human Rights Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Criminal Justice Resources

Articles and papers/reports, selected books and law-related material, statistics/data, organizations, other sources, 50-state surveys, historical archives/research, what is happening in criminal justice, getting help, introduction.

This guide is meant to serve as a starting place for people researching criminal justice and related criminal law issues.  It focuses primarly on issues related to the United States.  For more criminal law sources (particularly for 1L's), be sure to check out our guides for Criminal Law and Law and Public Policy  and the Kennedy School Library's Criminal Justice guide.

Subject Guide

Indexing/abstracting resources focused on criminal justice

• Crime and Delinquency Abstracts Covers 1963-1972. National Council on Crime and Delinquency and National Clearinghouse for Mental Health Information. Previously,
• Criminal Justice Abstracts (Harvard Key Login) Criminal Justice Abstracts provides comprehensive coverage of U.S. and international criminal justice literature including scholarly journals, books, dissertations, governmental and non-governmental studies and reports, unpublished papers, magazines, newsletters and other materials. In addition to criminal justice and criminology, topics covered include criminal law and procedure, corrections and prisons, police and policing, criminal investigation, forensic sciences and investigation, history of crime, substance abuse and addiction, and probation and parole. 1968-current. more... less... Criminal Justice Abstracts provides comprehensive coverage of U.S. and international criminal justice literature including scholarly journals, books, dissertations, governmental and non-governmental studies and reports, unpublished papers, magazines, newsletters and other materials. In addition to criminal justice and criminology, topics covered include criminal law and procedure, corrections and prisons, police and policing, criminal investigation, forensic sciences and investigation, history of crime, substance abuse and addiction, and probation and parole.
• NCJRS The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) is a federally funded resource offering justice and substance abuse information to support research, policy, and program development worldwide. The NCJRS Abstracts Database contains summaries of the more than 185,000 criminal justice publications housed in the NCJRS Library collection. Most documents published by NCJRS sponsoring agencies since 1995 are available in full-text online. A link is included with the abstract when the full-text is available. Use the Thesaurus Term Search to search for materials in the NCJRS Abstracts Database using an NCJRS controlled vocabulary. This controlled vocabulary is used to assign relevant indexing terms to the documents in the NCJRS collection.

Finding legal articles and papers

• Index to Legal Periodicals and Books
• Index to Legal Periodicals Retrospective: 1908-1981 (Law Login Required) covers back to 1908 more... less... This retrospective database indexes over 750 legal periodicals published in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Annual surveys of the laws of a jurisdiction, annual surveys of the federal courts, yearbooks, annual institutes, and annual reviews of the work in a given field or on a given topic will also be covered.
• More resources for finding legal articles

Multidisciplinary databases

• Academic Search Premier (Harvard Login) more... less... Academic Search Premier (ASP) is a multi-disciplinary database that includes citations and abstracts from over 4,700 scholarly publications (journals, magazines and newspapers). Full text is available for more than 3,600 of the publications and is searchable.
• JSTOR more... less... Includes all titles in the JSTOR collection, excluding recent issues. JSTOR (www.jstor.org) is a not-for-profit organization with a dual mission to create and maintain a trusted archive of important scholarly journals, and to provide access to these journals as widely as possible. Content in JSTOR spans many disciplines, primarily in the humanities and social sciences. For complete lists of titles and collections, please refer to http://www.jstor.org/about/collection.list.html.

Other social science databases related to criminal justice

• PAIS International (Harvard Login) provides access to materials about public policy, including academic journal articles, yearbooks, books, reports and pamphlets. Items indexed include works by academics, agencies, international organizations and federal, state and local governments from 1972 to the present. PAIS covers over 1,600 journals and roughly 8,000 books each year. PAIS is international in scope and contains items in many romance languages. more... less... PAIS International indexes the public and social policy literature of public administration, political science, economics, finance, international relations, law, and health care, International in scope, PAIS indexes publications in English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. The database is comprised of abstracts of thousands of journal articles, books, directories, conference proceedings, government documents and statistical yearbooks.
• More academic resources by field
• Law and Public Policy Guide
• Urban Studies Abstracts (Harvard Login) more... less... Electronic index and abstracts to the literature in the area of urban studies, including urban affairs, community development, and urban history. The backfile of this index has been digitized, providing coverage back to 1973.

Selected Journals and newsletters

• Annual Review of Criminal Procedure (Georgetown) Latest issue available in print at Law School KF9619 .G46

• Federal Sentencing Reporter also on Lexis

Congressional publications/government reports

• CRS reports
• House and Senate Hearings, Congressional Record Permanent Digital Collection, and Digital US Bills and Resolutions
• Federal Legislative History
• US Department of Justice
• PolicyFile (Harvard Login) Abstracts of and links to domestic and international public policy issue published by think tanks, university research programs, & research organizations. more... less... PolicyFile provides abstracts (more than half of the abstracts link to the full text documents) of domestic and international public policy issues. The public policy reports and studies are published by think tanks, university research programs, research organizations which include the OECD, IMF, World Bank, the Rand Corporation, and a number of federal agencies. The database search engine allows users to search by title, author, subject, organization and keyword.
• Rutgers University Don M. Gottsfredson School of Criminal Justice Gray Literature Database

Rules of Criminal Procedure

• Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Federal Rules of Practice & Procedure) Includes postings of proposed rule changes. From the uscourts.gov website.
• Rulemaking (Pending Rules)(US Courts)

Model Penal Code

• Criminal Law: Model Penal Code
• Model Penal Code and Commentaries (official draft and revised comments) : with text of Model penal code as adopted at the 1962 Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute at Washington, D.C., May 24, 1962.
• Model penal code : official draft and explanatory notes : complete text of Model penal code as adopted at the 1962 Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute at Washington, D.C., May 24, 1962.
• Model Penal Code (ALI Library) Includes drafts

Selected Criminal Law Treatises, Basic Texts and Practice Manuals

Below are sources related to criminal law generally or focused on federal criminal law.  For a particular jurisdiction, look for secondary sources related to that particular state.  For constitutional issues, see also secondary sources related to constitutional law more generally.

• United States Attorneys Manual
• Legal Division Reference Book
• United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual

Search and Seizure

• Search and Seizure also on Lexis

Sources for criminal justice statistics generally

• Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Currently in transition (no longer funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics), but still a good starting place. Data included as of 2013.
• Bureau of Justice Statistics
• FBI Uniform Crime Reports Annual report is Crime in the United States .
• National Crime Victimization Survey See also NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool and National Crime Victimization Survey Resource Guide .
• Justice Research and Statistics Association
• National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
• United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) Interactive Sourcebook
• Sunlight Criminal Justice Project Its Hall of Justice provides a searchable inventory of publically available criminal justice data sets and research.
• Arrest Data Analysis Tool underlying data from FBI's UCR (Uniform Crime Reports)
• Measures for Justice
• State Criminal Caseloads
• United States Historical Corrections Statistics - 1850-1984 from BJS abstract: "The introductory chapter contains a brief history of Federal corrections data collection efforts. Summary information on capital punishment includes data on illegal lynchings by race and offense, regional comparisons of the number of persons executed, the number under the death sentence, the number of women executed, and the number of persons removed from the death sentence other than by execution. Prison statistics cover the number in Federal, State, and juvenile facilities; the average sentence by sex, region, race, and offense; length of sentence; and type of release. Statistics also cover facility staff, inmate-staff ratio, and jail inmates. Probation and parole statistics address the numbers under supervision (both adults and juveniles), average caseload, terminations by method of termination, the average length of parole and percent with favorable outcome, and probationer and parolee profiles. Implications are drawn for current data collection efforts, and the appendix contains limited information on military prisons."
• Crime Solutions.gov

Crime Mapping

• NIJ Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety

Specialized sources of statistics/data

• Death Penalty Information Center
• Federal Sentencing Statistics
• The Counted: People Killed by Police in the US (The Guardian)
• Washington Post (People Shot Dead by Police)
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Protection's (OJJDP's) Statistical Briefing Book
• Stanford Open Policing Project Data on vehicle and pedestrian stops from law enforcement departments across the country.
• Corporate Prosecution Registry
• Police Crime Data
• Monitoring of Federal Criminal Sentences Series
• Citizen Police Data Project focused on Chicago
• Chicago Data Collaborative "Collaborative members collect data from institutions at all points of contact in the Cook County criminal justice system, including the Chicago Police Department, the Illinois State Police, the Office of the State's Attorney, and the Cook County Jail."
• Washington Post (Unsolved Homicide Database)
• American Violence Run by the NYU Marron Institute of Urban Management, the initial iteration of this databases includes city-level figures on murder rates in more than 80 of the largest 100 U.S. cities. According to the website, the second iteration will feature neighborhood-level figures on violent crime in 30-50 cities with available data.
• Police Data Initiative "This site provides a consolidated and interactive listing of open and soon-to-be-opened data sets that more than 130 local law enforcement agencies have identified as important to their communities, and provides critical and timely resources, including technical guidance and best practices, success stories, how-to articles and links to related efforts." See map of participating agencies" .

Other sources for statistics

• American Fact Finder
• See Judicial Workload, Jury Verdicts and Crime Statistics generally
• Harvard Dataverse more... less... The Harvard-MIT Data Center is the principal repository of quantitative social science data at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The majority of its holdings are available to Harvard and MIT affiliates directly via its web site through its search engine. Graduate students and faculty with a Harvard or MIT Library card can check out paper code books from libraries at either institution, under Harvard's and MIT's reciprocal borrowing agreement. In addition, the Data Center has negotiated a special agreement for undergraduates and summer graduate students, who are not covered by the standard agreement.
• Proquest Statistical Insight (Harvard Login) more... less... Proquest Statistical Insight is a bibliographic database that indexes and abstracts the statistical content of selected United States government publications, state government publications, business and association publications, and intergovernmental publications. The abstracts may also contain a link to the full text of the table and/or a link to the agency's web site where the full text of the publication may be viewed and downloaded.
• Data.gov Includes data from the Department of Justice and other agencies.
• Data Citation Index (Web of Science)
• Historical Statistics of the United States (Harvard Login) more... less... Presents the U.S. in statistics from Colonial times to the present. Included are statistics on U.S. population, including characteristics, vital statistics, internal and international migration. Statistics on work and welfare, economic structure and performance, economic sectors, and governance and international relations. Tables may be downloaded for use in spreadsheets and other applications. This electronic database is also in a five volume hard copy set.

Books, reports and articles about criminal justice statistics and records

• Data and Civil Rights: Criminal Justice Primer Part of larger conference on Data and Civil Rights http://www.datacivilrights.org/ ; includes write-up from conference http://www.datacivilrights.org/pubs/2014-1030/CriminalJustice-Writeup.pdf
• Ensuring the Quality, Credibility, and Relevance of U.S. Justice Statistics (2009)
• Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault
• Modernizing Crime Statistics: Report 1: Defining and Classifying Crime

Case Processing and Court Statistics

• Federal Criminal Case Processing Statistics
• State Court Caseload Statistics See also Data Collection: Court Statistics Project and CSP Data Viewer .
• Statistics and Reports (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts)

Criminal Records

• Search Systems A mega search site with links to public records by state, county, city and also by record type. A great place to start your research. more... less... From the website: We've located, analyzed, described, and organized links to over 55,000 databases by type and location to help you find property, criminal, court, birth, death, marriage, divorce records, licenses, deeds, mortgages, corporate records, business registration, and many other public record resources quickly, easily, and for free.
• BRB Publications BRB Publications maintains a page with links to more than 300 local, state and federal websites offering free access to public records.
• National Sex Offender Public Registry From the US Department of Justice. This site also has links to all 50 states, District of Columbia, US territories, and tribal registry websites.
• FBI's Sex Offender Database websites An alternate source for state level sex offender databases.
• FBI's Bureau of Prisons Inmate Finder
• VINELink VINELink is the online version of VINE (Victim Information and Notification Everyday), the National Victim Notification Network. This service allows crime victims to obtain timely and reliable information about criminal cases and the custody status of offenders 24 hours a day.

Research Organizations and Advocacy Groups

• Vera Institute of Justice
• Agencies, Think Tanks and Advocacy Groups
• Urban Institute-Crime and Justice
• National Center for State Courts
• National Conference of State Legislatures
• Innocence Project
• Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice (UPenn Law)
• Capital Jury Project

Professional Organizations

• American Bar Association (Criminal Justice section)
• National District Attorneys Association
• American Correctional Association
• National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Research guides from other libraries

• MSU Libraries, Criminal Justice Resources
• Georgetown Law Criminal Law and Justice Guide
• Harvard Kennedy School Library, Criminal Justice
• Criminal Law Prof Blog
• White Collar Crime Prof Blog

50-State-Surveys

• ABA Collateral Consequences Database
• National Conference of State Legislatures-Civil and Criminal Justice

HIstorical Archives/Projects

• National Death Penalty Archives
• ProQuest History Vault (Harvard Login)

Updates from popular criminal justice resources

New books in the library, new books in general.

• New Books Received at Rutgers

Ask Us! Submit a question  or search the knowledge base.

Call  Reference Desk, 617-495-4516

Text  Ask a Librarian, 617-702-2728

Email  research @law.harvard.edu

Meet  Consult a Librarian

Classes View Training Calendar or Request an Insta-Class

Visit Us Library and Reference Hours

• Last Updated: Apr 12, 2024 4:50 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/criminaljustice

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Reflections on Criminal Justice Reform: Challenges and Opportunities

Pamela k. lattimore.

RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27703 USA

Associated Data

Data are cited from a variety of sources. Much of the BJS data cited are available from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. The SVORI data and the Second Chance Act AORDP data are also available from NACJD.

Considerable efforts and resources have been expended to enact reforms to the criminal justice system over the last five decades. Concerns about dramatic increases in violent crime beginning in the late Sixties and accelerating into the 1980s led to the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Crime” that included implementation of more punitive policies and dramatic increases in incarceration and community supervision. More recent reform efforts have focused on strategies to reduce the negative impacts of policing, the disparate impacts of pretrial practices, and better strategies for reducing criminal behavior. Renewed interest in strategies and interventions to reduce criminal behavior has coincided with a focus on identifying “what works.” Recent increases in violence have shifted the national dialog from a focus on progressive reforms to reduce reliance on punitive measures and the disparate impact of the legal system on some groups to a focus on increased investment in “tough on crime” criminal justice approaches. This essay offers some reflections on the “Waged Wars” and the efforts to identify “What Works” based on nearly 40 years of work evaluating criminal justice reform efforts.

The last fifty-plus years have seen considerable efforts and resources expended to enact reforms to the criminal justice system. Some of the earliest reforms of this era were driven by dramatic increases in violence leading to more punitive policies. More recently, reform efforts have focused on strategies to reduce the negative impacts of policing, the disparate impacts of pretrial practices, and better strategies for reducing criminal behavior. Renewed interest in strategies and interventions to reduce criminal behavior has coincided with a focus on identifying “what works.” Recent increases in violence have shifted the national dialog about reform. The shift may be due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 epidemic or concerns about the United States returning to the escalating rise in violence and homicide in the 1980s and 1990s. Whichever proves true, the current rise of violence, at a minimum, has changed the tenor of policymaker discussions, from a focus on progressive reforms to reduce reliance on punitive measures and the disparate impact of the legal system on some groups to a focus on increased investment in “tough on crime” criminal justice approaches.

It is, then, an interesting time for those concerned about justice in America. Countervailing forces are at play that have generated a consistent call for reform, but with profound differences in views about what reform should entail. The impetus for reform is myriad: Concerns about the deaths of Black Americans by law enforcement agencies and officers who may employ excessive use of force with minorities; pressures to reduce pretrial incarceration that results in crowded jails and detention of those who have not been found guilty; prison incarcerations rates that remain the highest in the Western world; millions of individuals who live under community supervision and the burden of fees and fines that they will never be able to pay; and, in the aftermath of the worst pandemic in more than a century, increasing violence, particularly homicides and gun violence. This last change has led to fear and demands for action from communities under threat, but it exists alongside of other changes that point to the need for progressive changes rather than reversion to, or greater investment in, get-tough policies.

How did we get here? What have we learned from more than 50 years of efforts at reform? How can we do better? In this essay, I offer some reflections based on my nearly 40 years of evaluating criminal justice reform efforts. 1

Part I: Waging “War”

The landscape of criminal justice reform sits at the intersection of criminal behavior and legal system response. Perceptions of crime drive policy responses. Perceptions of those responsible for crime also drive responses. And perceptions of those responses result in demands for change. To establish context for the observations that follow, this section describes trends in crime, the population of justice-involved individuals, and the expenditures supporting the sprawling criminal justice enterprise in the United States since the mid-to-late twentieth century.

But first, my perspective: Over the last nearly 40 years, I have observed justice system reform efforts since working, while a first-year graduate student in 1983, on a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant that funded a randomized control trial of what would now be termed a reentry program (Lattimore et al., 1990 ). After graduate school, I spent 10 years at NIJ, where I was exposed to policy making and the relevance of research for both policy and practice. I taught for several years at a university. And, for most of my career, I have been in the trenches at a not-for-profit social science research firm. Throughout my career, I have conducted research and evaluation on a broad array of topics and have spent most of my time contemplating the challenges of reform. I’ve evaluated single programs, large federal initiatives, and efforts by philanthropies to effect reform. I’ve used administrative data to model criminal recidivism to address—to the degree statistical methods allow—various dimensions of recidivism (type, frequency, and seriousness). I’ve developed recidivism models for the practical purpose of assessing risk for those on community supervision and to explore the effects of covariates and interventions on recidivism and other outcomes. I’ve participated in research attempting to understand the shortcomings of and potential biases in justice data and the models that must necessarily use those data. While most of my work has focused on community corrections (e.g., probation and post-release interventions and behavior) and reentry, I have studied jail diversion programs, jail and pretrial reform, and efforts focused on criminal record expungement. These experiences have illuminated for me that punitiveness is built into the American criminal justice system—a punitiveness that traps many people from the time they are first arrested until they die.

Crime and Correctional Population Trends

The 1960s witnessed a dramatic rise in crime in the United States, and led to the so-called “War on Crime,” the “War on Drugs,” and a variety of policy responses, culminating with the passage of the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Act of 1994 (“The 1994 Crime Act”; Pub. L. 103–322). Figure  1 shows the violent crime rate in the United States from 1960 to 1994. 2 In 1960, the violent crime rate in the United States was 161 per 100,000 people; by 1994 the rate had increased more than four-fold to nearly 714 per 100,000. 3 As can be seen, the linear trend was highly explanatory (R-square = 0.96)—however, there were two obvious downturns in the trend line—between 1980 and 1985 and, perhaps, between 1991 and 1994.

US Violent Crime Rate, 1960–1994

Homicides followed a similar pattern. Figure  2 shows the number of homicides each year between 1960 and 1994. In 12 years (1960 to 1972), the number of homicides doubled from 9,100 to 18,670. By 1994, the number had grown to 23,330—but it is worth noting that there were multiple downturns over this period, including a drop of more than 4,000 between 1980 and 1984. These figures show the backdrop to the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Crime” that led reformers to call for more punitive sentencing, including mandatory minimum sentences, “three-strikes laws” that mandated long sentences for repeat offenders, and truth-in-sentencing statutes that required individuals to serve most of their sentences before being eligible for release. This was also the period when the 1966 Bail Reform Act, which sought to reduce pretrial detention through the offer of money bond, was supplanted in 1984 by the Pretrial Reform Act, which once again led to increased reliance on pretrial detention.

United States Murder and Non-negligent Manslaughter Rate, 1960–1994

The 1994 Crime Act, enacted during the Clinton Administration, continued the tough-on-crime era by enabling more incarceration and longer periods of incarceration that resulted in large increases in correctional populations. In particular, the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) Incentive Grant Program, funded by the Act, provided $3 billion to states to expand their jail and prisons capacities between FY1996 and FY2001 and to encourage states to eliminate indeterminate sentencing in favor of laws that required individuals to serve at least 85% of their imposed sentences.

Figure  3 shows the dramatic rise in the number of state and federal prisoners prior to passage of the 1994 Crime Act—the number of prisoners more than tripled between 1980 and 1994. 4 The increase in numbers of prisoners was not due to shifts from jail to prison or from probation to prison, given that all correctional populations increased dramatically over this 14-year period—jail populations increased 164% (183,988 to 486,474), probation increased 166% (1,118,097 to 2,981,022), and parole increased 213% (220,438 to 690,371).

State and Federal Prisoners in the US, 1960–1994

So, what happened after passage of the 1994 Crime Act? Fig.  4 shows the violent crime rate from 1960 through 2020. As can be seen, the decrease in the violent crime rate that began prior to passage of the 1994 Crime Act continued. And, notably, it preceded the influx of federal funding to put more police on the streets, build more jails and prisons, and place more individuals into the custody of local, state, and federal correctional agencies. Even with a small increase between 2019 and 2020, the violent crime rate in 2020 was 398.5 per 100,000 individuals, well below its 1991 peak of 758.2. 5

United States Violent Crime Rate (violent crimes per 100,000 population), 1960–2020

Figure  5 shows the US homicide rate from 1960 to 2020. Consistent with the overall violent crime rate, the homicide rate in 2020 remained well below the peak of 10.2 that occurred in 1981. (Rates also may have risen in 2021—as evidenced by reports of large increases in major U.S. cities—but an official report of the 2021 number and rate for the U.S. was not available as of the time of this writing.) The rise in this rate from 2019 to 2020 was more than 27%— worthy of attention and concern. It represents the largest year-over-year increase between 1960 and 2020. However, there have been other years where the rate increased about 10% (1966, 1967, 1968, 2015, and 2016), only then to drop back in subsequent years. Further, it is difficult to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused massive disruptions, is a factor in the increase in homicides or to know whether the homicide rate will abate as the pandemic ebbs. Finally, it bears emphasizing that during this 60-year period there have been years when the homicide rate fell by nearly 10% (e.g., 1996, 1999). From a policy perspective, it seems prudent to be responsive to increases in crime but also not to over-react to one or two years of data—particularly during times of considerable upheaval.

United States Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter Rate, 1960–2020

The growth in correctional populations, including prisoners, that began in the 1970s continued well into the twenty-first century—in other words, long after the crime rate began to abate in 1992. Figure  6 shows the prison population and total correctional population (state and federal prison plus jail, probation, and parole populations summed) between 1980 and 2020. Both trends peaked in 2009 at 1,615,500 prisoners and 7,405,209 incarcerated or on supervision. Year-over-year decreases, however, have been modest (Fig.  7 ), averaging about 1% (ignoring the steep decline between 2019 and 2020). The impact of factors associated with COVID-19, including policy and practice responses, resulted in a 15% decrease in the numbers of state and federal prisoners and a 14% decrease in the total number of adults under correctional control. Based on ongoing projects in pretrial and probation, as well as anecdotal evidence related to court closures and subsequent backlogs, it is reasonable to assume that some, if not most, of the decline in populations in 2020 was due to releases that exceeded new admissions as individuals completed their sentences and delays in court processing reduced new admissions. To the extent that these factors played a role, it is likely that in the immediate near term, we will see numbers rebound to values closer to what prevailed in 2019.

United States Prison and Total Correctional Populations, 1980–2020

Year-over-Year Change in Prison and Total Correctional Populations, 2981–2020

Responding with Toughness (and Dollars)

The increase in crime beginning in the 1960s led to a political demand for a punitive response emphasized by Richard Nixon’s “War on Crime” and “War on Drugs.” In 1970, Congress passed four anticrime bills that revised Federal drug laws and penalties, addressed evidence gathering against organized crime, authorized preventive detention and “no-knock” warrants, and provided $3.5 billion to state and local law enforcement. 6 Subsequent administrations continued these efforts, punctuated by the Crime Act of 1994. As described by the U.S. Department of Justice:

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 … is the largest crime bill in the history of the country and will provide for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs …. The Crime Bill provides $2.6 billion in additional funding for the FBI, DEA, INS, United States Attorneys, and other Justice Department components, as well as the Federal courts and the Treasury Department. 7

Much of the funding went to state and local agencies to encourage the adoption of mandatory minimum sentences, “three strikes” laws, and to hire 100,000 police officers and build prisons and jails. This funding was intended to steer the highly decentralized United States criminal justice “system” towards a more punitive approach to crime; this system encompasses all levels of government (local, state, and federal) and all branches of government (executive, judicial, legislative).

The nation’s crime rate peaked in 1992. So, this “largest crime bill in the history of the country” began a dramatic increase in funding for justice expenditures just as crime had already begun to decline. Figure  8 shows that expenditures increased roughly 50% in real dollars between 1997 and 2017—from $188 billion to more than $300 billion dollars (Buehler,  2021 ). 8 More than half of that increase-—$65.4 billion additional—went to police protection. Roughly $50 billion additional went to the judiciary and corrections.

United States Justice Expenditures, 1997–2017

So, what did these increases buy? Dramatically declining crime rates (Figs. ​ (Figs.4 4 and ​ and5) 5 ) suggest that numbers of crimes also declined. That can be seen in Fig.  9 , which shows offenses known and an estimate of offenses cleared for selected years between 1980 and 2019. 9 In 1991, there were 11,651,612 known property offenses and 1,682,487 known violent offenses—these numbers declined 47% and 34% by 2019.

Offenses Known and Cleared in the US, Selected Years 1980–2019

Declining numbers of crimes and dramatic increases in expenditures on policing and justice system operation would suggest that there should have been improvements in offense clearance rates during this time. This did not happen. Crime clearance rates stayed roughly constant, which means that the numbers of offenses cleared declined by percentages like declines in the number of offenses over this period—49% for property offenses and 33% for violent offenses. More than 750,000 violent offenses and more than 2 million property offenses were cleared in 1991 compared to about 500,000 violent offenses and 1 million property offenses in 2019.

Presently, as violent crime ticks up, we are hearing renewed calls for “tough-on-crime” measures. Some opinion writers have compared 2022 to Nixon’s era. Kevin Boyle noted:

[Nixon] already had his core message set in the early days of his 1968 campaign. In a February speech in New Hampshire, he said: “When a nation with the greatest tradition of the rule of law is torn apart by lawlessness, when a nation which has been the symbol of equality of opportunity is torn apart by racial strife … then I say it’s time for new leadership in the United States of America.” There it is: the fusion of crime, race and fear that Nixon believed would carry him to the presidency. 10

Responding to the recent increase in violent crime, President Joseph Biden proposed the Safer America Plan to provide $37 billion “to support law enforcement and crime prevention.” 11 The Plan includes more than $12 billion in funds for 100,000 additional police officers through the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. This proposal echoes the “100,000 cops on the street” that was a centerpiece of the 1994 Crime Act, which created the COPS office and program. Unlike the 1994 Crime Act, however, the Safer America Plan does not include funding for prisons and jails. Both the 1994 Crime Act and the Safer America Plan address gun violence, strengthen penalties for drug offenses, and provide support for programs and interventions to make communities safer and to address criminal recidivism.

The previous 50 or 60 years witnessed reforms efforts other than these that largely focused on bolstering the justice system infrastructure. The 1966 Bail Reform Act sought to reduce pretrial detention through the offer of money bond, but subsequently was supplanted by the 1984 Pretrial Reform Act that once again promoted pretrial detention. 12 This century—as jail populations exceeded 700,000, with most held prior to conviction—there has been considerable attention to eliminate money bond, which disproportionately leads to pretrial detention for poor and marginalized individuals (and release for the “well-heeled”). Private philanthropy has led much of this focus on pretrial and bail reform. For example, the MacArthur Foundation has spent several hundred million dollars on their Safety and Justice Challenge since 2015 with a goal of reducing jail populations and eliminating racial and ethnic disparity. 13 The Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) took a different approach and has invested substantial sums in the development and validation of a pretrial assessment instrument (the Public Safety Assessment or PSA) that provides assessments of the likelihood an individual will fail to appear to court or be arrested for a new crime or new violent crime if released while awaiting trial. 14 Although assessment algorithms have been criticized for lack of transparency and for perpetuating racial bias, the PSA scoring algorithm is publicly available and has not shown evidence of racial bias in a series of local validations conducted by RTI for LJAF. New York and New Jersey are among the states that have attempted to reduce reliance on money bond. However, as violent crime has increased, these efforts have faced considerable pushback.

The bail bonds industry has been a vocal opponent of efforts to reduce or eliminate the use of money bond. This industry is not the only one that profits from the imposition of punishment. As Page and Soss ( 2021 ) recently reported, “Over the past 35 years, public and private actors have turned US criminal justice institutions into a vast network of revenue-generating operations. Today, practices such as fines, fees, forfeitures, prison charges, and bail premiums transfer billions of dollars from oppressed communities to governments and corporations.” Fines, fees, and forfeitures generally profit the governments and agencies that impose them—although supervision fees to private probation services benefit businesses, as do fees for electronic monitoring, and drug testing. The Prison Policy Institute reports that there are more than 4,000 companies that profit from mass incarceration. 15 Court and supervision fees can quickly add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars, burdening people with crushing debt and the threat of jail if they don’t pay. 16 There can be other consequences as well. After Florida passed a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to individuals once they had completed their carceral or community sentence, the State specified that the right to vote would not be restored until an individual had paid all outstanding fees and fines. In addition, mistakenly voting with outstanding fees and fines is a felony. 17

Other work to reform pretrial justice includes early provision of defense counsel, and implementation of diversion programs for individuals charged with low-level offenses or who have behavioral health issues. The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants in the United States a right to counsel. In some jurisdictions (and the Federal court system), this is the responsibility of an office of public defense. In others, private defense counsel is appointed by the Court. Regardless, public defense is widely understood to be poorly funded. As noted by Arnold Ventures, a philanthropy currently working to improve access to defense, “The resulting system is fragmented and underfunded; lacks quality control and oversight; and fails to safeguard the rights of the vast majority of people charged with crimes who are represented by public defenders or indigent counsel.” 18

Mental health problems are prevalent among individuals incarcerated in local jails and prisons. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a report by Bronson and Berzofsky ( 2017 ), reported that “prisoners and jail inmates were three to five times as likely to have met the threshold for SPD [serious psychological distress] as adults in the general U.S. population.” Bronson and Berzofsky further reported that 44% of individuals in jail reported being told they had a mental disorder. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration’s GAINS Center has been at the forefront of efforts to implement jail diversion programs for individuals with mental health or substance use disorders and has also played a significant role in the establishment of treatment courts. 19 Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) for law enforcement to improve interaction outcomes between law enforcement and individuals in crisis. The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) notes that “The lack of mental health crisis services across the U.S. has resulted in law enforcement officers serving as first responders to most crises. A Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program is an innovative, community-based approach to improve the outcomes of these encounters.” 20 Non-law enforcement responses—such as the CAHOOTS program that was developed in Eugene, Oregon—to certain calls for service are also being tested in multiple communities. 21 Despite multiple efforts to identify appropriate alternatives to jail, individuals with mental health disorders continue to disproportionately fill the nation’s jails.

A Recapitulation

The 1970 crime bills that passed early in Nixon’s presidency set the stage for the infusion of federal dollars that has provided billions of dollars in funding for police and prisons. Between 1970 and 1994, the number of adults in state and federal prisons in the United States increased from less than 200,000 to nearly 1 million. In 2019, that number stood at more than 1.4 million down from its peak in 2009. Another 734,500 individuals were in jail and more than 4.3 million were in the community on probation or parole. Although representing a dramatic decline since these populations peaked about 2009, this still means that more than 6 million adults were under the supervision of federal, state, and local corrections agencies in 2019.

Thus, it is important to recognize that we are at a very different place from the Nixon era. Today, the numbers (and rates) of individuals who are “justice-involved” remain at near record highs. As the progressive efforts of the twenty-first century encounter headwinds, it is worth waving a caution flag as the “remedies” of the twentieth century—more police, “stop and frisk,” increased pretrial detention—are once again being proposed to address violent crime.

Part II: Finding “What Works”

The 1994 Crime Act and subsequent reauthorizations also included funding for a variety of programs, including drug courts, prison drug treatment programs, and other programs focused on facilitating reentry and reducing criminal recidivism. Subsequent legislation authorized other Federal investments that resurrected rehabilitation as a goal of correctional policy. The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) provided $100 million (and some limited supplements) to agencies to develop programs that began in prison and continued into the community and were intended to improve outcomes across a range of domains—community reintegration, employment, family, health (including mental health), housing, substance abuse, supervision compliance and, of course, recidivism (see Lattimore et al., 2005b ; Winterfield et al., 2006 ; Lattimore & Visher, 2013 , 2021 ; Visher et al., 2017 ). Congress did not reauthorize SVORI but instead authorized the Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) managed by the U.S. Department of Labor; PRI (now the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders or RExO program) provides funding for employment-focused programs for non-violent offenders. In 2006, a third reentry-focused initiative was funded—the Marriage and Incarceration Initiative was managed by the Department of Health and Human Services and focused on strengthening marriage and families for male correctional populations. In 2008, Congress passed the Second Chance Act (SCA) to provide grants for prison and jail reentry programs. The SCA grant program administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) was reauthorized in 2018; it continues to provide reentry grants to state and local agencies (see Lindquist et al., 2021 ). These initiatives all primarily focused on supporting efforts at the state and local level. The First Step Act of 2018 focused on reforms for the federal prison system. These efforts signified a substantial increase in efforts aimed at determining “what works” to reduce criminal behavior—and provided an opportunity to rebut the “nothing works” in correctional programming that followed the publication of research by Lipton ( 1975 ).

Elsewhere, I have summarized some of the research into Federal initiatives that I have conducted over the years (Lattimore, 2020 ). These studies comprise work in dozens of states, involving thousands of individuals and have included studies of drug treatment, jail diversion, jail and prison reentry, and probation. Some involved evaluation of a substantial Federal investment, such as the multi-site evaluation of SVORI.

These evaluations, as has been largely true of those conducted by others, have produced mixed results. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on the effectiveness of adult correctional programming have yielded findings of modest or negligible effects (e.g., Aos et al., 2006 ; Bitney et al., 2017 ; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007 ; MacKenzie, 2006 ; Sherman, et al., 1997 ). In an updated inventory of research- and evidence-based adult programming, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Wanner, 2018 ) identified a variety of programs for which evidence suggests significant if modest effect sizes. As has been identified by others (e.g., MacKenzie, 2006 ), the most effective programs focused on individual change, including, for example, cognitive behavior therapy (estimated effect size of -0.11). Treatment-oriented intensive supervision programs were found to reduce recidivism by about 15%, while surveillance-oriented intensive supervision was found to have no demonstrated effects. Several types of work and educational programs (correctional industries, basic adult education, prison-based vocational education, and job training and assistance in the community) were found to reduce recidivism between 5 and 22%. Most non-zero treatment effect sizes were between about 5% and 15%. Lipsey and Cullen ( 2007 ) also suggest 14% to 22% reductions in recidivism for adult rehabilitation treatment programs.

Two thoughts about these small effects warrant consideration. The first, of course, is why reducing criminal behavior appears to be so difficult. Second, however, is that, in recognizing the first, perhaps we should adapt more realistic expectations about what can be achieved and acknowledge that even small effects can have a meaningful impact on public safety.

Challenges: Why Is Effective Criminal Justice Reform So Difficult?

One issue with most federal funding streams is “short timelines.” For example, typical of grant programs of this type, SVORI grantees were given three years of funding. During this time, they had to develop a programmatic strategy, establish interagency working arrangements, identify program and service providers, develop a strategy for identifying potential participants, and implement their programs. Three years is a very short time to develop a program that incorporates needs assessment, provides a multiplicity of services and programs within an institution, and creates a path for continuation of services as individuals are released to various communities across a state.

The “short timelines” problem underlies, and contributes to, a variety of other considerations that can plague efforts to identify “what works.” Based on my experiences, these considerations, which I discuss further below, include the following:

• People: Justice-involved individuals have multiple needs and there is an emerging question as to whether addressing these needs is the best path to desistance.
• Programs: Interventions often lack adequate logic models and are poorly implemented.
• Methods: Evaluations frequently are underpowered and unlikely to scale the alpha 0.05 hurdle typically used to identify statistically significant effects.

First, it is important to recognize that justice-involved individuals face serious and complex challenges that are difficult to remedy. Many scholars have highlighted the myriad of challenges faced by individuals returning to the community from prison (e.g., see Petersilia, 2003 ; Travis, 2005 ; Travis & Visher, 2005 ). In interviews conducted with 1,697 men and 357 women who participated in the SVORI multisite evaluation, 95% of women and 94% of men said at the time of prison release that they needed more education. Nearly as many—86% of women and 82% of men—said they needed job training. More than two-thirds indicated that they needed help with their criminal thinking and three-quarters said they needed life skills training. They were somewhat less likely to report needing substance use disorder or mental health treatment but still—at the time of prison release—66% of the women and 37% of the men reported needing substance use treatment and 55% of the women and 22% of the men reported needing mental health treatment.

Half of these individuals had participated in SVORI programs while incarcerated and the proportions reported reflect their self-assessment of need after in-prison receipt of programming. Figure  10 shows the percentages of SVORI and non-SVORI groups who reported receiving a select set of services and programs during their incarceration. Several things standout: (1) The receipt of programs and services during incarceration was much less than the indicated need at the time of release; and (2) SVORI program participants were more likely to report receiving services than the comparison group members who were not in SVORI programs.

Self-reported service receipt during incarceration for SVORI program evaluation participants. Note: * =  p  <  = 0.05. Educ = educational programming, EmplSrv = employment-related services, CrimAtt = programs for criminal attitudes including cognitive behavior therapy, LifeSk = life skills, AODTx = substance abuse treatment, and MHTx = mental health treatment. Sample sizes were SVORI men (863), non-SVORI men (834), SVORI women (153) and non-SVORI women (204).

Source: Lattimore & Visher (2009)

More recently, Lindquist et al. ( 2021 ) completed a seven-site evaluation of Second Chance Act reentry programs that were a mix of jail- and prison-based programs. About half of the study participants reported having received substance use disorder treatment and about one-third reported having received mental health treatment. At release, they reported limited-service receipt. For example, there was no significant difference between receipt of educational programming (23% of SCA program participants compared with 17% for comparison group members). SCA program participants were more likely to report receiving any employment services (60% versus 40%), which included job assistance, employment preparation, trade or job training programs, vocational or technical certifications, and transitional job placement or subsidized employment. SCA program participants were also more likely to report receiving cognitive behavioral services (58% versus 41%). But, again, not all program participants received services despite needing them and some comparison subjects received services.

Limited access to treatment by program participants and some access to treatment by comparison subjects were also observed in a multi-site study of pre- and post-booking jail diversion programs for individuals with co-occurring substance use disorder and serious mental illness (Broner et al., 2004 ; Lattimore et al., 2003 ). Across eight study sites, 971 diverted subjects and 995 non-diverted subjects were included in this evaluation; the research found only modest differences in the receipt of services and treatment at 3- and 12-months follow-up. For example, at the 3-month interview, 26% of both groups reported receiving substance abuse counseling, and at the 12-month interview, 0.7% of those diverted versus no non-diverted participant received two or more substance abuse counseling sessions. At 3 months, 38% of the diverted subjects and 30% of the non-diverted reported mental health counseling versus 41% and 38% at 12 months, respectively.

The service needs expressed by these individuals reflect their lack of education, job experience, vocational skills, and life skills, as well as the substance abuse and mental health issues identified among justice-involved individuals. The intervention response to these needs is reflected in the variety of services prescribed in the typical “reentry program bucket.” These involve the services and programs shown in Fig.  10 , as well as case management and reentry planning to coordinate services with respect to needs.

The identification of needs followed by efforts to meet those needs underlies the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) approach to addressing justice-involved populations (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 1994 , 2006 ; Latessa, 2020 ). The RNR approach to addressing criminal behavior is premised on the assumption that if you address identified needs that are correlated with criminal behavior, that behavior will be reduced. In other words, recidivism can be addressed by providing individuals the education and job skills and treatment they need to find gainful employment, reduce substance use, and mitigate symptoms of mental illness. Latessa ( 2020 ) recently discussed the RNR approach, reiterating the importance of assessing individual criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs to improve reentry programs. He also reiterated the importance of focusing resources on those identified as high (or higher) risk by actuarial risk assessment instruments—pointing to important work he conducted with colleagues that found that interventions reduced recidivism among high-risk individuals and increased it among low-risk individuals (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002 ; Latessa et al., 2010 ). This approach to reentry programming is reflected in the requirements of most federal grants—like the SVORI and SCA—that require programs to incorporate reentry planning that includes needs assessment and services that address criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs.

As noted, most justice-involved individuals have limited education and few job skills, and many have behavioral health issues, anger management issues, and limited life skills. But if addressing these deficits is the key to successfully rehabilitating large numbers of individuals caught in the carceral and community justice system, the meager results of recent research suggests two possibilities. First, this is the right approach, but poor or incomplete implementation has so far impeded findings of substantial effects (a common conclusion since the Martinson report). Second, alternatively, this approach is wrong (or insufficient), and new thinking about the “what and how” of rehabilitative programming is needed. I address the second idea next and turn to the first idea shortly.

MacKenzie ( 2006 ) and others (e.g., Andrews and Bonta, 2006 ; Andrews et al., 1990 ; Aos et al., 2006 ; Lipsey, 1995 ; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007 ) have stressed that programs focused on individual change have been found to be effective more often than those providing practical services. The SVORI evaluation also found support for this conclusion. Services we classified as “practical” (e.g., case manager, employment services, life skills, needs assessment, reentry planning, and reentry program) were associated with either no or a deleterious impact on arrest chances—although few were statistically different from a null effect. Individual-change services (e.g., anger management, programs for criminal attitudes including cognitive behavior therapy, education, help with personal relationships, and substance abuse treatment) were associated with positive impacts on arrest. The original SVORI evaluation had a follow-up period of about 2 years and findings suggested that the overall impact of SVORI program participation on rearrest and reincarceration were positive but not statistically significant. In contrast to these findings, a longer follow-up that extended at least 56 months showed participation in SVORI programs was associated with longer times to arrest and fewer arrests after release for both men and women. For the men, SVORI program participation was associated with a longer time to reincarceration and fewer reincarcerations, although the latter result was not statistically significant ( p  = 0.18). For the women, the reincarceration results were mixed and not significant.

Support for positive impacts of programs focused on individual change are consistent with theories associated with identity transformation and desistance from criminal activity. Bushway ( 2020 ) has recently discussed two alternative views of desistance, contrasting the implications of desistance either as a process (i.e., the gradual withdrawal from criminal activity) or reflective of an identify shift towards a more prosocial identity. In examining these two ideas, Bushway posits that the second suggests that individuals with a history of a high rate of offending may simply stop (as opposed to reducing the frequency of criminal acts). If individuals do (or can or will) stop, the implication is clear: policies that focus on an individual’s criminal history (e.g., for employment or parole decisions) may fail to recognize that the individual has changed. This change may be evidenced by in-prison good behavior (e.g., completing programs and staying out of trouble) or positive steps following release (e.g., actively seeking meaningful employment or engaging in positive relationships). Tellingly, Bushway ( 2020 ) notes: “Individuals involved in crime get information about how they are perceived by others through their involvement in the criminal justice system. Formal labels of ‘criminal’ are assigned and maintained by the criminal justice system. As a result, identity models are much more consistent theoretically with an empirical approach that revolves around measures of criminal justice involvement rather than criminal offending per se.” He goes on to discuss the relationship of identity-based models of stark breaks and criminal career models. In short, reflecting insights that labeling theorists have long emphasized, the labels the criminal justice system and society place on individuals may impede the desistance process that is the supposed goal of the system.

The second consideration are concerns about program design and implementation—What is the underlying logic model or theory of change? Is there adequate time to develop the program and train staff to implement it appropriately? Is the resulting program implemented with fidelity? The two or three years usually provided to implement complex programs suggest that these goals are unlikely to be met. The “notorious” findings of Martinson (1975) that “nothing works” was more appropriately interpreted as “nothing was implemented.” Unfortunately, nearly 50 years later, we largely observe something similar—not “nothing” but “something” that is far short of what was intended.

As discussed in detail by Taxman (2020), the usual approach to program development and testing skips over important formative steps, doesn’t allow time for pilot testing, and provides little opportunity for staff training or for achievement and maintenance of program fidelity (if there is even a program logic model). From an evaluator’s perspective, this short timeline imposes multiple challenges. An evaluator must identify study participants (and control or comparison subjects), follow them largely while they are in the program, and hope to have at least one year of post-program follow-up—generally without being able to accommodate the impact of likely weak implementation on evaluation power to detect effects.

Thus, it may not be surprising that effects are generally small. However, these small effects may not be negligible from a public safety perspective. In a study of the effects of non-residential drug treatment for a cohort of probationers, Lattimore et al. ( 2005a ) found that treatment reduced the number of probationers with a felony arrest by 23% during the first year and 11% over the first two years. The total number of arrests was also reduced by 17% over 12 months and 14% over 24 months. “Back of the envelope” calculations suggested that if treatment cost $1,000 per individual, it would have been cost effective to provide treatment to all members of the cohort as long as the (average) cost of arrest (and all related criminal justice processing and corrections) exceeds about $6,463.

Another example is to consider that the impact of a treatment effect in the 10% range applied across all prison releases would imply the aversion of many crimes. For example, assuming 750,000 prison releases each year over a five-year period and a 66% rearrest rate within 3 years (and no additional arrests after 3 years), then 3.75 million prisoners will be released over the five years; of these individuals, 2.475 million will be arrested at least once during the three years following release. A 10% reduction in first-time rearrests would mean 247,500 fewer first-time rearrests. To the extent that many offenders are arrested multiple times, this figure represents a lower bound on the number of averted arrests. A similar analysis could be conducted assuming 2,000,000 probation admissions each year and a 39% rearrest rate within 3 years. In this case, there would be 10,000,000 probation admissions that would generate 3.9 million first-time arrests over the three years after admission to probation. A 10% reduction in first-time rearrests would mean 390,000 fewer arrests. In total, therefore, reducing recidivism—as measured by rearrest by 10% for these hypothetical correctional populations—would translate into 637,500 averted arrests. Extrapolating further and assuming that roughly 10% of the arrests were for violent crime and 90% for property crime, and applying the inverse of the crime clearance rates for these two types of crime to generate a “crimes averted” count, we find that a 10% reduction in recidivism for these two populations would translate into 140,110 violent and 3,519,939 property crimes averted. 22 Thus, “modest” improvements in recidivism may provide substantial public benefits—in crimes averted, and lower demands on law enforcement, prosecution, and correctional resources. 23

The third consideration is the adequacy of the evaluation methods we routinely apply to this complex problem of inadequate interventions that are partially and sometimes poorly implemented. At minimum, we need to explicitly recognize the impacts of the following:

• Programs partially implemented and partially treated control conditions.
• Recidivism outcomes conditioned on an intermediate outcome.
• Follow-up periods too short to accommodate short-term failure followed by long-term success.
• Focusing on a binary indicator of recidivism ignores frequency and seriousness of offending.

The impact of partial treatment of both treatment and control groups on effect sizes and the consequential impact on statistical power is seldom discussed—either in initial estimates of needed sample sizes or in subsequent discussions of findings. As shown earlier and is true for most justice evaluations, the control or comparison condition is almost never “nothing.” Instead, it is generally “business as usual” (BAU) that means whatever the current standard of treatment entails. Thus, the treatment group may receive some services that aren’t available to the control group, but in many cases both groups have access to specific services and programs although the treatment group may get priority.

As we saw in Fig.  10 , treatment was reported by some individuals in both the SVORI and non-SVORI groups. Table ​ Table1 1 shows the implications of partial treatment using data from the SVORI evaluation. 24 The percent treated for the SVORI and non-SVORI men are shown in columns three and four. Column 2 presents the effect sizes for four interventions as identified by Wanner ( 2018 ). If we assume that the recidivism rate without treatment is 20%, 25 the observed recidivism rate for the SVORI and non-SVORI men as a result of receiving each treatment is shown in columns four and five. Column six shows that the observed differences in recidivism between the two groups in this “thought experiment” are less than two percent—an effect size that would never be detected with typical correctional program evaluations. 26

Hypothetical treatment effects with incomplete treatment of the treatment group and partial treatment of the comparison group, assuming untreated recidivism rate is 20 percent

* Estimates from Wanner ( 2018 ).

Similar findings emerge when considering the effects on recidivism of interventions such as job training programs that are intended to improve outcomes intermediate to recidivism. Consider the hypothetical impact of a prison job training program on post-release employment and recidivism. The underlying theory of change is that training will increase post-release employment and having a job will reduce recidivism. 27 Suppose the job training program boosts post-release employment by 30% and that, without the program, 50% of released individuals will find a job. A 30% improvement means that 65% of program participants will find employment. Randomly assigning 100 of 200 individuals to receive the program would result in 50 of those in the control group and 65 of those in the treatment group to find employment. (This outcome assumes everyone in the treatment group receives treatment.) Table ​ Table2 2 shows the treatment effect on recidivism under various assumptions about the impact of employment on recidivism. The table assumes a 50% recidivism rate for the unemployed so, e.g., if the effect of a job is to reduce recidivism by 10% employed individuals will have a recidivism rate of 45%. If there is no effect—i.e., recidivism is independent of being employed—we observe 50% failure for both groups and there is no effect on recidivism rates even if the program is successful at increasing employment by 30%. On the other hand, if being employed eliminates recidivism, no one who is employed will be recidivists and 50% of those unemployed will be recidivists—or 25 of the control group and 17.5 of the treated group. The last column in Table ​ Table2 2 shows the conditional effect of job training on recidivism under the various effects of employment on recidivism shown in column 1. The effects shown in the last column are the same regardless of the assumption about the recidivism rate of the unemployed. So, employment must have a very substantial effect on the recidivism rate to result in a large effect on the observed recidivism rate when, as is reasonable to assume, some members of the control group who didn’t have the training will find employment. As before, this finding underscores the need to carefully consider the mechanism affecting recidivism and potential threats to effect sizes and statistical power.

Hypothetical effects of job training on employment and recidivism assuming job training increases employment by 30% and control (untreated) employment is 50%

A third concern is that follow-up periods which typically are 2 years or less may be too short to observe positive impacts of interventions (Lattimore & Visher, 2020). Although this may seem counterintuitive, it is what was observed for the SVORI multisite evaluation. The initial SVORI evaluation focused on the impact of participation with at least 21 months of follow-up following release from prison and showed positive but insignificant differences in rearrests for the SVORI and non-SVORI groups. A subsequent NIJ award provided funding for a long-term (at least 56 months) examination of recidivism for 11 of the 12 adult programs (Visher et al., 2017 ; also see Lattimore et al., 2012 ). In contrast to the findings in the original study, participation in SVORI programs was associated with longer times to arrest and fewer arrests after release for both men and women during the extended follow-up period of at least 56 months. Although untestable post hoc, one plausible hypothesis is that the early period following release is chaotic for many individuals leaving prison and failure is likely. Only after the initial “settling out period” are individuals in a position to take advantage of what was learned during program participation. In any event, these findings suggest the need to conduct more, longer-term evaluations of reentry programs.

A final consideration is the indicator of recidivism used to judge the success of a program. Recidivism, which is a return to criminal behavior, is almost never observed. Instead, researchers and practitioners rely on proxies that are measures of justice system indicators that a crime has occurred—arrest, conviction, and incarceration for new offenses—and, for those on supervision, violation of conditions and revocation of supervision. A recent National Academy of Sciences’ publication ( 2022 ) highlights some of the limitations of recidivism as a measure of post-release outcomes, arguing that indicators of success and measures that allow for the observation of desisting behavior (defined by the panel as a process—not the sharp break advanced by Bushway) should be used instead. These are valid points but certainly in the short run the funders of interventions and those responsible for public safety are unlikely to be willing to ignore new criminal activity as an outcome.

It is worth highlighting, however, some of the limitations of the binary indicator of any new event that is the usual measure adopted by many researchers (e.g., “any new arrest within x years”) and practitioners (e.g., “return to our Department within 3 years”). These simple measures ignore important dimensions of recidivism. These include type of offense (e.g., violent, property, drug), seriousness of offense (e.g., homicide, felony assault, misdemeanor assault), and frequency of offending (equivalent to time to the recidivism event). As a result, a typical recidivism outcome treats as identical minor acts committed, e.g., 20 months following release, and serious crimes committed immediately. Note too that this binary indicator fails in terms of being able to recognize desisting behavior, that is, where time between events increases or the seriousness of the offense decreases. Survival methods and count or event models address the frequency consideration. Competing hazard models allow one to examine differences between a few categories of offending (e.g., violent, property, drug, other). The only approach that appears to have tackled the seriousness dimension is the work by Sherman and colleagues (Sherman et al., 2016 ; also, see www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/thecambridgecrimeharminde ) who have developed a Crime Harm Index that is based on potential sentences for non-victimless crimes. To date, statistical methods that can accommodate the three dimensions simultaneously do not, to my knowledge, exist. At a minimum, however, researchers should use the methods that are available to fully explore their recidivism outcomes. Logistic regression models are easy to estimate and the results are easily interpretable. But an intervention may be useful if it increases the time to a new offense or reduces the seriousness of new criminal behavior.

The last forty years or so have seen strides at identifying interventions that are promising, but much work remains to be done to find programs that result in substantial, broad-based improvements. Challenges in program development and implementation, partial treatment of treatment groups and control groups, and limited focus on recidivism as a binary indicator of failure were highlighted as some of the issues confronting practitioners and evaluators. 28 There is reason for optimism—if expectations are realistic from both a programmatic and methodological perspective: Identify promising programs, apply best practices of implementation science, calculate reasonable statistical expectations, and build on what has been tried.

Conclusions

In the past several decades, dramatic increases in crime resulted in large-scale legislative changes and expenditures. Correctional populations dramatically increased even as crime rates plunged. In addition, despite large increases in funding to law enforcement and other justice agencies, the number of offenses cleared declined. During this time, there were multiple federal initiatives focused on reducing criminal recidivism. Some, such as the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) programs, focused singularly on reducing drug use, while others focused broadly on addressing the multi-faceted needs of justice-involved individuals.

These changes occurred in a context of a highly decentralized approach to criminal justice, one that creates a myriad of costs and incentives. For example, if a federally funded reentry program reduces crime, the immediate agency beneficiaries are local law enforcement (due to fewer crimes to solve), prosecution (due to fewer crimes to prosecute), and the courts (due to fewer cases to try). That can reduce admissions to prison. But for cost-savings to occur, agencies have to respond to reductions in crime by reducing costs. That tends to run counter to the natural inclination of administrators, especially if it means reducing staffing. And it runs counter to what happened as crime declined over the last roughly 30 years.

We increasingly have research evidence that some programs can reduce recidivism, but many challenges, such as underpowered research designs, sometimes undermines this evidence. Even so, it is important to note that even modest reductions in recidivism imply opportunities to avert substantial numbers of crimes and subsequent criminal justice system processing and costs.

This essay suggests that it is time to embrace the modest improvements in recidivism that have been forthcoming from programs that have been subjected to the most rigorous evaluations. And it suggests that it is time to downsize our expectations for a “silver bullet” and, instead, prepare for a long-term and sustained investment in programming that will improve, refine and augment programs and approaches that “work.” By using “what works” today as the basis for the successful adaptation of multi-faceted programs that address the multiplicity of offender needs, criminal justice policy and practice will develop the tools needed to help a heterogeneous population of prisoners successfully reenter their communities.

Finally, as policymakers grapple with a recent increase in violent crime, it is important to recognize that the “tough-on-crime” responses of the twentieth century led to a 252% increase in the number of citizens under legal system control—including a 312% increase in prison populations—between 1980 and 2000. Correctional populations peaked in 2008 but in 2019 remain 255% above 1980 levels with more than 6.5 million individuals in prisons, jails, or on probation or parole. 29 As the current administration proposes the Safer America Plan, it is important that proper attention be addressed to assure that the result of these expenditures is not to reinvigorate the mass incarceration and mass supervision that followed the adaptation of the as the 1984 Pretrial Reform Act and the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Act of 1994. And it is important that we attend to widespread support for high-quality implementation of programs that have been shown to reduce recidivism.

is a Principal Scientist with RTI International’s Justice Practice Area. She has more than 35 years of experience evaluating interventions, investigating the causes and correlates of criminal behavior, and developing approaches to improve criminal justice operations. She was principal investigator for multi-site, multi-method evaluations including the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Initiative, the Second Chase Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Program Evaluation, and the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment. She is principal investigator for research examining pretrial risk assessment, policy, and practice; state-level reforms for adult probation; implementation and impact of criminal record expungement; development and implementation of dynamic risk assessment algorithms for Georgia probation and parole; and the long-term impact of a three-state RCT of the 5-Key Reentry Program Model. She is a past Chair of the American Society of Criminology Division on Corrections and Sentencing, a Fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology, and a recipient of the American Correctional Association Peter P. Lejins Researcher Award, the American Society of Criminology Division on Corrections and Sentencing Distinguished Scholar Award, and the Academy of Experimental Criminology Joan McCord Award. Dr. Lattimore has published extensively, has served on the editorial boards of multiple journals, and was the inaugural co-editor of the annual series Handbook on Corrections and Sentencing published by Routledge Press.

Data Availability

1 Some of the ideas presented here were initially explored in Lattimore ( 2020 ) and Lattimore et al. ( 2021 ).

2 Data 1960 to 1984 are FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data; downloaded March 5, 2006; data from 1985 to 2020 are from https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend , downloaded July 12, 2022.

3 Violent crime commands the most attention and hence is the focus here, but property crimes are much more prevalent—directly affecting many more individuals. Property crime rates also increased in the 1960s and 1970s. The property crime rate increased from 1,726.3 per 100,000 in 1960 to 4,660.2 in 1994—an 170% increase. The property crime rate peaked in 1980 at 5,353.3 per 100,000—a 210% increase over 1960.

4 Data for 1960 and 1970 prisoners are from Cahalan, M.W. and Parsons, L.A. ( 1986 ). Data from 1980–2014 are from Glaze, L., Minton, T., & West, H. (Date of version: 12/08/ 2009 ) and Kaeble, D., Glaze, L., Tsoutis, A., & Minton, T. ( 2015 ). Data from 2015–2020 are from Kluckow, DSW, & Zeng, Z. (Date of version: 3/31/ 2022 ).

5 As noted in footnote 3, property crime rates also rose between 1960 and 1980—peaking at 5,353.3 per 100,000. With some minor fluctuations, the property crime rate has declined steadily since the 1980s and was 1958.2 per 100,000 in 2020.

6 The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (PL 91–513); the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (PL 91–452); the District of Columbia Court Reorganization and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 (PL 91–358); and the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970.

7 https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt

8 The trend shown in Fig.  9 continued a trend. Between 1982 and 1997, total justice expenditures increased 125% from $84.1 billion to $189.5 billion (2007 dollars), Kyckelhahn, T. ( 2011 ).

9 Data are from the FBI Crime in the United States publications for 1980, 1991, 1995, 2000, 2010 and 2019 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/ . Numbers of offenses cleared were estimated by multiplying the offenses known by the offense clearance rates reported by the FBI.

10 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/31/opinion/richard-nixon-america-trump.html

11 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/01/fact-sheet-president-bidens-safer-america-plan-2/

12 For some thoughts on recommendations for reforms for pretrial and sentencing see Lattimore, Spohn, & DeMichele ( 2021 ). This volume also has recommendations for reform across the justice system.

13 Safety and Justice Challenge.

14 https://www.arnoldventures.org/

15 https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/economics_of_incarceration/

16 For an example of how a minor traffic offense can result in thousands of dollars in fines and fees for extensive terms of private probation see In Small-Town Georgia, A Broken Taillight Can Lead to Spiraling Debt—In These Times.

17 See for example, https://www.propublica.org/article/florida-felonies-voter-fraud

18 https://www.arnoldventures.org/work/public-defense

19 https://www.samhsa.gov/gains-center

20 https://www.nami.org/Advocacy/Crisis-Intervention/Crisis-Intervention-Team-(CIT)-Programs

21 https://www.eugene-or.gov/4508/CAHOOTS

22 In 2005, the Uniform Crime Reports reported 1,197,089 known violent offenses and 8,935,714 known property offenses or a ratio of about 1:9. Clearance rates were 45.5% for violent and 16.3% for property crimes known to police. The estimated total number of arrests for 2005 was 14,094, 186. Thus, the violent and property arrests account for about 72% of all arrests. Of course, these estimates rest on many assumptions—in some cases, these assumptions would imply that we are estimating the lower bound, since each member of our study population is allowed only one arrest while many will have many more than one. On the other hand, to the extent that individuals are arrested who have committed no offenses, the estimates would over represent the impact of a reduction in crime. The goal here was not to generate a precise estimate but to illustrate that a 10% reduction in recidivism translates into substantial reductions in crime.

23 A model-based estimate of the effect of non-residential drug treatment on 134,000 drug-involved individuals admitted to probation in Florida showed treatment reduced arrests by more than 20% (Lattimore et al., 2005a , 2005b ). This analysis was extended to a cost-effectiveness framework in which it was shown that it would be cost effective to spend $1000 treating all drug-involved probations as long as the average cost of an arrest averted (including arrest, and the costs of judicial processing and corrections) is at least $6,463.

where R = recidivism rate for the group, r = recidivism rate in the absence of treatment, T = percentage of group that is treated, and p = the percentage reduction in recidivism due to treatment (the treatment effect). Differences in outcomes are constant with respect to the assumed recidivism rate in the absence of treatment.

25 Differences in outcomes are constant with respect to the assumed recidivism rate without treatment.

26 Lipsey ( 1998 ) discusses the issue of underpowered evaluations.

27 A similar example was presented in Lattimore, Visher, & Steffey ( 2010 ).

28 Although not addressed here because of page limitations additional important methodological considerations include whether a comparison group exists for some interventions such as incarceration (see Lattimore & Visher 2021 for a brief discussion) and, even more challenging, whether replication is even possible given the heterogeneity of context and populations. For an interesting consideration of the implications of the latter for examining the impact of incarceration see Mears, Cochran & Cullen ( 2015 ).

29 Correctional populations dropped dramatically in 2020 as law enforcement and the criminal justice system adapted to COVID-19.

Publisher's Note

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

• Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct . Anderson.
• Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. 4. Lexis/Nexis/Matthew Bende; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrews DA, Ziner I, Hoge RD, Bonta J, Gendreau P, Cullen FT. Does correctional treatment work: A clinically-relevant and psychologically-informed meta-analysis. Criminology. 1990; 28 :369–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aos S, Miller M, Drake E. Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bitney K, Drake E, Grice J, Hirsch M, Lee S. The effectiveness of reentry programs for incarcerated persons: Findings for the Washington Statewide Reentry Council (Document Number 17–05- 1901) Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Broner N, Lattimore PK, Cowell AJ, Schlenger W. Effects of diversion on adults with mental illness co-occurring with substance use: Outcomes from a national multi-site study. Behavior Sciences and the Law. 2004; 22 :519–541. doi: 10.1002/bsl.605. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronson, J., & Berzofsky, M. (2017). Indicators of mental health problems reported by prisoners and jail inmates, 2011–12. Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 250612.
• Buehler ED. Justice expenditures and employment in the United States, 2017 , available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-256093. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bushway, S. (2020). What if people decide to desist? Implications for policy. (2020). In B. Orrell (Ed.), Rethinking reentry: An AEI working group summary (pp. 7–38). American Enterprise Institute.
• Cahalan MW, Parsons LA. Historical corrections statistics in the United States, 1850–1984 , available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-10529. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaze, L., Minton, T., & West, H. (2009). Correctional populations in the United States . Date of version: 12/08/09, available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Kaeble, D., Glaze, L., Tsoutis, A., & Minton, T. (2015). Correctional populations in the United States . Date of version December 2015. Available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-249513. US Department of Justice.
• Kluckow, D.S.W., & Zeng, Z. (2022). Correctional populations in the United States . Available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NCJ-303184. Date of version: 3/31/2022. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Kyckelhahn, T. (2011 ). Justice expenditures and employment, FY 1982–2007 Statistical tables, Appendix Table 1 . Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts Program.
• Latessa EJ. Triaging of services for individuals returning from prison. In: Orrell B, editor. Rethinking reentry: An AEI working group summary. American Enterprise Institute; 2020. pp. 7–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Latessa, E.J., Lovins, L.B., & Smith, P. (2010). Follow-up evaluation of Ohio’s community-based correctional facility and halfway house programs—Outcome study . University of Cincinnati. https://www.uc.edu/ccjr/reports.html .
• Lattimore PK. Considering reentry program evaluation: Thoughts from the SVORI (and other) evaluations. In: Orrell B, editor. Rethinking reentry: An AEI working group summary. American Enterprise Institute; 2020. pp. 7–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., Cowell, A. J., Dawes, D., Steffey, D. M., Tueller, S. J., & Visher, C. (2012). Prisoner reentry services: What worked for SVORI evaluation participants? Prepared for NIJ.
• Lattimore PK, Broner N, Sherman R, Frisman L, Shafer M. A comparison of pre-booking and post-booking diversion programs for mentally ill substance using individuals with justice involvement. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 2003; 19 (1):30–64. doi: 10.1177/1043986202239741. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore PK, Krebs CP, Koetse W, Lindquist C, Cowell AJ. Predicting the effect of substance abuse treatment on probationer recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2005; 1 :159–189. doi: 10.1007/s11292-005-1617-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore, P.K., Spohn, C., & DeMichele, M. (2021) Reimagining Pretrial and Sentencing. In The Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform, A better path forward for criminal justice (pp. 16–27) . Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/a-better-path-forward-for-criminal-justice/ .
• Lattimore PK, Visher C. The impact of prison reentry services on short-term outcomes: Evidence from a multi-site evaluation. Evaluation Review. 2013; 37 :274–313. doi: 10.1177/0193841X13519105. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore, P. K., & Visher, C. A. (2021). Considerations on the multi-site evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. In. P. K. Lattimore, B. M. Huebner, & F. S. Taxman (Eds.), Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward: Building on the record (pp. 312–335). Routledge.
• Lattimore PK, Visher CA, Brumbaugh S, Lindquist C, Winterfield L. Implementation of prisoner reentry programs: Findings from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative multi-site evaluation. Justice Research and Policy. 2005; 7 (2):87–109. doi: 10.3818/JRP.7.2.2005.87. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore PK, Visher C, Steffey DM. Prisoner reentry in the first decade of the 21st century. Victims and Offenders. 2010; 5 :253–267. doi: 10.1080/15564886.2010.485907. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattimore PK, Witte AD, Baker JR. Experimental assessment of the effect of vocational training on youthful property offenders. Evaluation Review. 1990; 14 :115–133. doi: 10.1177/0193841X9001400201. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindquist, C., Buck Willison, J., & Lattimore, P. K. (2021). Key findings and implications of the cross-site evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance FY 2011 Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects. In. P. K. Lattimore, B. M. Huebner, & F. S. Taxman (Eds.), Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward: Building on the record (pp. 312–335). Routledge.
• Lipsey MW. What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquency? In: McGuire J, editor. What works reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice. Wiley; 1995. pp. 63–78. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipsey, M. W. (1998). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for applied experimental research. In: Bickman Leonard, Rog Debra J. (eds.) Handbook of applied social research methods (pp 39–68). Sage.
• Lipsey MW, Cullen FT. The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2007; 3 :297–320. doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipton, D.S. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: a survey of treatment evaluation studies. Praeger Publishers.
• Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community-based correctional facilities and halfway house program s. University of Cincinnati. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237720823 .
• MacKenzie D. What works in corrections? Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mears DP, Cochran JC, Cullen FT. Incarceration heterogeneity and its implications for assessing the effectiveness of imprisonment on recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2015; 26 (7):691–712. doi: 10.1177/0887403414528950. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). The limits of recidivism: Measuring success after prison . The National Academies Press. 10.17226/26459.
• Page, J., & Soss, J. (2021). Predatory dimensions of criminal justice. Science , 374(6565), 291–294 10.1126/science.abj7782. [ PubMed ]
• Petersilia J. When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman L, Gottfredson D, MacKenzie D, Eck J, Reuter P, Bushway S. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman, L., Neyroud, P.W. and Neyroud, E., 2016. The Cambridge crime harm index: Measuring total harm from crime based on sentencing guidelines. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , 10 (3 ), 171–183.
• The Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform. (2021). A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice . Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/a-better-path-forward-for-criminal-justice/ .
• Travis J. But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner Reentry. Urban Institute Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Travis, J., & Visher, C., eds. (2005). Prisoner reentry and crime in America . Cambridge University Press.
• Visher C, Lattimore PK, Barrick K, Tueller SJ. Evaluating the long-term effects of prisoner reentry services on recidivism: What types of services matter? Justice Quarterly. 2017; 34 (1):136–165. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2015.1115539. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanner P. Inventory of evidence-based, research-based, and promising programs for adult corrections (Document Number 18–02-1901) Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winterfield L, Lattimore PK, Steffey DM, Brumbaugh SM, Lindquist CH. The serious and violent offender reentry initiative: Measuring the effects on service delivery. Western Criminology Review. 2006; 7 (2):3–19. [ Google Scholar ]

135+ Amazing Criminal Justice Research Topics In 2023

Are you a law student or enrolled in law college? Are you looking for criminal justice research topics? Here, in this blog, you can find your criminal justice research topics. Statanalytca.com explains the 135 amazing criminal research paper topic ideas for 2023 in this blog.

When we listen to the word criminal justice, many words come into our mind like “victim,” “enforcement,” “crimes,” “courts,” “prison,” and law sanctions. Criminal justice is a term that governments make to justice for people, reduce and make decisions to prevent crimes. Governments make law sanctions to reduce crimes. Every country has a different criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system in the United States is a complex system of federal, state, and local laws, with state and federal constitutions, international treaties, and customary law. Each layer of government shares responsibility for a different aspect of the process. Federal law enforcement agencies enforce laws that may be broken by people who are not in their jurisdiction.

For example : When an individual from New York City travels to Florida to commit a crime such as a robbery or murder they will be arrested by the Florida police and handed over to federal authorities.

A criminal justice research paper necessarily requires accuracy, attention, and patience. Sometimes students are confused about writing criminal research paper topics, or they have a shortage of time to complete research papers.

Most college students ask for assignments to write criminal justice research papers. If you want criminal justice research paper help, you can take our trusted  research paper assignment help .

How To Choose A Good Research Topics

Table of Contents

Choosing a research topic is a very challenging task. You should pick a topic that is both interesting and relevant to your audience. You should analyze the crime report before choosing the criminal justice research topics. Research the types of crimes in your country and where your country ranks in the global crime index.

Some research topics include the following:

• The role of law enforcement, prosecutors, and public defenders.
• Challenges with eyewitness identifications.
• Different types of evidence are used in criminal cases.
• The effect of jury selection on trials.
• How criminal justice impacts mental health.

What Is a Research Paper in Criminal Justice?

A research paper in criminal justice is an academic paper presenting findings from research on a specific criminal justice topic. These papers typically require extensive research and analysis of primary and secondary sources, such as case studies, official reports, statistics, and academic literature. The research paper aims to contribute new knowledge to the criminal justice field, identify trends or patterns, or assess the effectiveness of interventions or policies.

Research papers in criminal justice typically follow a standard academic format, including an introduction that sets the context and research questions, a literature review that summarizes existing research, a methodology section that outlines the research design and data collection methods, a results section that presents findings, and a conclusion that summarizes the research’s significance and implications.

Criminal justice research papers may focus on various topics, including the legal system’s operations, law enforcement practices, corrections, crime prevention, and victimization. These papers may be used to inform policymakers, practitioners, and academics about the state of the criminal justice system and suggest evidence-based solutions to improve its effectiveness and fairness.

Let’s Discuss The Criminal Justice Research Topics-

Here in this section, we will tell you some of the best criminal justice research topics for 2023:-

Basic Criminology and Criminal Justice Research Topics

• Basic criminal Research Topics.
• History of Criminal Ethics.
• Criminology as Social Science.
• Criminology and Public Policy.
• Advantages of Private Prisons.
• Civil Crimes vs War Crimes.
• Offenses Against Religion & Cultural Traits.
• Causes of victimization.

Court Cases Criminal Justice Research Topics

• Can victims of crime receive help?
• How serious are shoplifting incidents?
• When do felony disenfranchisement laws apply?
• Is organized crime and corruption synonymous?
• What is legal help available to victims of date rape?
• What is the difference between civil and criminal cases?
• Forensic science: how effective is it in modern criminal justice?
• Is there a link between substance abuse, crime, and substance use?
• Who is eligible for the protection program, and what protection is provided?
• Prison rape and violence: What can be done to prevent sexual and domestic violence in prison?

Controversial Criminal Justice Research Topics

• Gun control causes.
• Struggle with mental health issues.
• Police officers’ legal rights are limited.
• College Violence Causes.
• Gun violence and prevention policies.
• Crimes Propaganda and Modern Music Culture.
• Race and politics of criminal justice.
• An investigation into victim services.
• Eyewitness Evidence Importance.
• Legal codes used in America.
• Zero tolerance policy and crime rates.
• Sexual assault.
• culture, and gender equality.
• What is the best way to reduce recidivism?
• pros and cons of prisons in America.
• Criminalization of poverty.
• Gender and Punishment.
• The effects of drugs on children’s development.
• Effects of drug addiction on mental health.
• Youth offenders and Bootcamps.

Debate Criminal Justice Research Topics

• Failures in criminal justice.
• Criminal justice system expectations.
• Statistical analysis in criminal justice.
• Debate on criminal justice act.
• criminal justice trend evaluation.
• Trends in the criminal justice system.
• Criminal justice system corrections in the USA.
• Find the solution to prevent crimes.

Criminology Research Topics On Theories

• Is employment related to law violations?
• What is the relationship between family status and legal violations?
• Is gender related to the type of law violation?
• What is the relationship between citizenship and law enforcement?
• How does education relate to crime levels?
• How does gun ownership relate to breaking the law?
• Is there a link between immigration status and law violations?
• What types of crimes are common at what ages?
• How does the type of crime relate to the level of aggression?

Top 10 Hot Criminology Research Topics

• Crime is explained culturally.
• The media’s role in criminology.
• The advantages of convict criminology.
• The major issues in postmodern criminology.
• Is politics influencing criminal behavior?
• How does DAWN collect information?
• The shortcomings of crime mapping.
• Crime rates and community deterioration.
• Certain personality traits trigger criminal behavior.
• Does experimental criminology have an impact on social policy?

Criminal Justice Research Topics Based On Crime and Communities

• The impact of community policing on crime prevention in urban areas.
• The effectiveness of restorative justice programs in reducing recidivism rates.
• The relationship between poverty and crime in urban communities.
• The role of race and ethnicity in criminal justice outcomes and disparities.
• The effectiveness of community-based interventions in reducing juvenile delinquency.
• The impact of gun laws on violent crime in urban communities.
• Social media’s role in spreading crime and its effects on communities.
• The effectiveness of drug courts in reducing drug-related crimes and improving public safety.
• The relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior in urban communities.
• The impact of immigration policies on crime and public safety in urban areas.
• The effectiveness of re-entry programs for ex-offenders in reducing recidivism and promoting successful reintegration into society.
• The impact of community-based victim services on the criminal justice system and crime prevention.
• The relationship between neighborhood social disorganization and crime rates.
• The role of technology in improving crime prevention and solving crimes in urban communities.
• The effectiveness of community-based diversion programs for non-violent offenders.
• The impact of neighborhood watch programs on crime prevention and community safety.
• The role of community involvement in addressing hate crimes and bias incidents.
• The impact of domestic violence on communities and the criminal justice response.
• The effectiveness of drug treatment programs in reducing drug-related crime and improving public health.
• The criminal justice system’s impact on marginalized communities and efforts to promote equity and justice.

Criminal Justice Research Topics On Racism and Discrimination

• Eliminating discrimination in the criminal justice system.
• Gender Bias in Eyewitnesses.
• African American Legislative Apartheid.
• Racial Discrimination in College Campuses.
• How criminal justice law is enacted on Migrants.
• Inequality in the criminal justice system Research.

General Criminal Justice Research Topics

• Police brutality and excessive force
• Criminal profiling and investigation techniques
• Restorative justice programs
• Cybercrime and cyberterrorism
• Gun control policies and their effectiveness
• The impact of race and ethnicity on sentencing
• Juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention
• Wrongful convictions and the death penalty
• Gender and crime
• Drug policy and its impact on crime.
• Community policing and trust-building strategies
• The effectiveness of rehabilitation and reentry programs for offenders
• Domestic violence and its impact on victims
• Crime prevention through environmental design
• Forensic science and the reliability of evidence in criminal investigations
• Corruption in law enforcement and the criminal justice system
• Mental health treatment for inmates and offenders
• Human trafficking and modern-day slavery
• The use of technology in criminal investigations and surveillance
• The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the criminal justice system.

Types of Criminal Justice Research Topics  

• Homicide, serial murders, and serial murder are the most popular topics in murder studies.
• A case study of robbery crime, unusual daylight robbery in a news article.
• Identity Theft and Ways to Protect, the prevalence of identity theft in the community, causes, and effects of cell phone theft.
• Analysis and critique of Current fraud cases, Fraud and business ethics, fraud schemes, and investigation.

International Criminal Law Topics

• Criminal ethics, criminal law research assignment paper.
• Criminal courtroom observation reaction.
• Childhood obesity.
• Crime Prevention.
• International crimes and their laws.
• International criminal court.
• Human Rights and Inequality.
• Rape Cases.

Criminal Justice Research Topics For College Students

• The Impact of Police Body Cameras on Law Enforcement Accountability
• Violent Crime Reduction Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Programs
• Racial Disparities in Sentencing and Their Implications for Justice
• The Role of Mental Health Services in Diverting Offenders from the Criminal Justice System
• Media Effects on Perceptions of Crime and Criminal Conduct
• Examining the Use of Technology in Solving Crimes and Enhancing Investigations
• Juvenile Justice Policies: Rehabilitation vs. Punishment
• The Intersection of Immigration Policies and Criminal Justice Outcomes
• Criminal Profiling and its Reliability in Solving Crimes
• The Effect of Minimum Sentence Laws on Incarceration Rates and Public Safety.

Criminology Research Topics

• Armed Crime Groups History Motives.
• Cyber Criminology Correction Methods.
• Art Fraud Cooperation.
• Drunk Driving Prevention Ads.
• Identity Theft & Social Media.
• Topic on Child Abuse & TV Violence.
• Aggression Against Homeless People.
• Unemployment & Street Situation Analysis.
• Forensic Research Identification Methods.
• Crime Witnesses PTSD Rehabilitation.

Career With The Criminology Major

There are a variety of jobs you can get with a criminology degree. We sort listed the top 8 trending jobs that you can get with a criminology degree:

• Criminologist.
• Private investigator 
• Forensic scientist .
• Correction officer.
• Jury consultant.
• Loss prevention specialist 
• Clinical social worker.

Tips On How To Write Criminal Justice Research Topics

A step-by-step guide on how to write criminal justice research topics:

• Choose a particular topic.
• Read the given materials and take some notes.
• Come up with a thesis.
• Create an outline for your project.
• Write down all the information that you have collected.
• Start with a cover page, and an intro.
• List the technique you used and the results you got.
• Include a discussion.
• Always write a conclusion.
• Don’t forget to correct your grammar mistakes.
• Revise, proofread, and if it is incorrect then edit.

Importance of Criminal Justice Research Papers In 2023

Here are some important of criminal justice research papers in 2023: 

1. Informed Policy-Making

Criminal justice research papers provide valuable data and insights that policymakers use to develop effective laws and policies, enhancing the fairness and efficiency of the justice system.

2. Evidence-Based Practices

Research papers help identify evidence-based strategies for law enforcement, corrections, and crime prevention, leading to better outcomes and reduced rates of reoffending.

3. Transparency and Accountability

By revealing systemic issues and gaps, research papers push for greater transparency and accountability within the criminal justice system, fostering public trust.

4. Improved Decision-Making

Policymakers, law enforcement, and other stakeholders use research findings to make informed decisions on resource allocation and allocation of efforts.

5. Advancing Knowledge

Criminal justice research papers contribute to the body of knowledge in the field, allowing researchers and academics to build on existing findings and develop innovative approaches to understanding crime and justice.

6. Addressing Disparities

Research papers shed light on disparities in the justice system, such as racial or socioeconomic disparities, prompting efforts to address and rectify these inequalities.

7. Enhancing Public Awareness

Research papers raise public awareness about issues like wrongful convictions, mental health challenges, and the impact of crime on communities, spurring advocacy and societal change.

Get More Criminal Justice Research Topics At Statanalytica.com

Hope you choose criminal justice research topics for this blog. If you have any difficulty choosing criminal justice research topics, you can contact us at any time. Our professional writers are available to suggest criminal justice research topics ideas and research paper help.

Here are some of the benefits of taking criminal justice research topics that you can hire us.

• Professional Guidance.
• Improvement in Grades.
• A Better Understanding of the Subject.
• 24 Hours Availability.
• On-time Delivery.
• Free Corrections.
• Money-Back Guarantee.
• Affordable Deals.

So, you can contact us for any type of paper writing service and impress your teacher or professor by choosing a good criminal justice research topic.

This is the end of this post about criminal justice research topics. However, diverse criminal justice research topics offer unique insights into various aspects of the criminal justice system. These research areas are crucial for policymakers, practitioners, and academics to comprehensively understand the system’s challenges and develop effective interventions that improve its fairness and effectiveness. 

On the other hand, we mentioned more than 135 criminal justice research topics based on different categories. So that it is easier for you to choose the best criminal justice research topics.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1.what are some criminal justice research topics.

Research Topics in Criminal Justice System: 1. Capital Punishment. 2. Community Corrections. 3. Crime Prevention. 4. Criminal Courts. 5. Criminal Justice Ethics. 6. Criminal Law. 7. Criminal Specialisation. 8. Drug Courts.

Q2. How do I choose a research topic?

Two main ways to find a research topic: through your academic interests or by self-initiation. You can find a topic through your academic focus, talk to your professors and classmates about what they’re working on, and they can point you in the right direction and introduce you to the process of conducting research. The other option is to start with The idea that interests you.

Related Posts

Step by Step Guide on The Best Way to Finance Car

The Best Way on How to Get Fund For Business to Grow it Efficiently

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Criminal Justice

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Criminal justice is a term used to describe the system of law enforcement, courts, and corrections that works together to prevent and respond to criminal behavior. It involves the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of individuals who violate the law. The criminal justice system is responsible for maintaining public safety, upholding the law, and ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their actions. The system is designed to protect the rights of individuals and ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially. Criminal justice involves various professionals, including police officers, lawyers, judges, probation officers, and correctional staff, who work together to achieve the goals of the system.

This page provides an overview of the criminal justice system, including its historical evolution, components, policies, and issues. The overview begins with a discussion of the historical perspective of criminal justice, outlining the significant events that have shaped the system over time. The components of the criminal justice system, including law enforcement, courts, and corrections, are also examined in detail. Additionally, the survey explores the effectiveness of different criminal justice policies and their impact on crime rates. The criminal justice issues of racial and ethnic disparities, overcrowding in correctional facilities, mental health, and domestic violence are also discussed. The overview concludes with a discussion of the emerging trends in the criminal justice system, including advances in technology and social media’s role in criminal justice, and implications for the future of criminal justice. This page highlights the importance of understanding the criminal justice system and its issues to develop effective policies and strategies for addressing crime and promoting justice.

I. Introduction

A. Background information on criminal justice B. Importance of studying criminal justice C. Thesis statement

II. Historical Perspective of Criminal Justice

A. Evolution of criminal justice system B. Important events in the history of criminal justice C. Changes in the criminal justice system over time

III. Criminal Justice System

A. Law enforcement B. Courts C. Corrections D. Role of each component in the criminal justice system

IV. Criminal Justice Process

A. Investigation B. Arrest and Booking C. Charging and Plea Bargaining D. Trial and Sentencing E. Appeals

V. Criminal Justice Ethics

A. Ethical Principles B. Ethical Issues in Law Enforcement C. Ethical Issues in the Courts D. Ethical Issues in Corrections E. Ethics and Professionalism in the Criminal Justice System

VI. Criminal Justice Policies

A. Overview of criminal justice policies B. The effectiveness of different criminal justice policies C. The impact of policies on crime rates D. Evaluating Criminal Justice Policies

VII. Criminal Justice Issues

A. Racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system B. Overcrowding in correctional facilities C. Mental health issues and the criminal justice system D. Violence against women and domestic violence

VIII. Future of Criminal Justice

A. Emerging trends in the criminal justice system B. Advances in technology and its impact on criminal justice C. The role of social media in criminal justice

IX. Conclusion

A. Summary of key points B. Implications for the future of criminal justice C. Recommendations for future research

The criminal justice system plays a critical role in maintaining social order, upholding the law, and protecting the public from criminal behavior. It is a complex system that involves a range of actors, including law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and correctional staff. Together, these actors work to prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal activity, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that justice is served fairly and impartially.

The criminal justice system has a long and complex history, with its roots dating back to ancient societies. Over time, the system has evolved and developed, reflecting changes in society and advances in technology. Today, the criminal justice system is an essential component of modern democratic societies, with the responsibility of enforcing the law and maintaining public safety.

The purpose of this page is to provide an overview of the criminal justice system, including its history, components, policies, and issues. The survey will examine the different components of the criminal justice system, including law enforcement, courts, and corrections. Additionally, the effectiveness of different criminal justice policies will be discussed, along with the impact of these policies on crime rates. The overview will also examine several criminal justice issues, including racial and ethnic disparities, overcrowding in correctional facilities, mental health, and domestic violence.

Overall, this page aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the criminal justice system and its key issues. By doing so, the paper will contribute to the ongoing discussion of how to improve the criminal justice system, promote justice, and ensure public safety.

The criminal justice system has a long and complex history, with its roots dating back to ancient societies. The earliest known legal codes were developed in ancient civilizations, such as Babylon, Greece, and Rome. These codes established basic principles of law and justice, including the idea that individuals should be held accountable for their actions and punished for violating the law.

During the Middle Ages, criminal justice systems were typically run by the church or local feudal lords. Punishments were often harsh and arbitrary, with offenders subjected to public humiliation, torture, and execution. However, the Enlightenment of the 18th century brought about significant changes in the criminal justice system, with the development of new theories of punishment based on the concepts of rehabilitation and deterrence.

In the 19th century, the criminal justice system underwent significant changes, as a result of the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of modern democratic societies. Law enforcement agencies were established to maintain public order and respond to criminal activity, while courts were established to ensure that justice was served fairly and impartially. The emergence of correctional facilities, such as prisons and jails, provided a new means of punishing and rehabilitating offenders.

In the 20th century, the criminal justice system continued to evolve, with the development of new technologies, such as forensic science and DNA analysis. The system also faced new challenges, including the rise of organized crime and the impact of the civil rights movement on law enforcement practices.

Today, the criminal justice system remains a critical component of modern societies, with the responsibility of upholding the law and maintaining public safety. However, the system continues to face significant challenges, including issues of racial and ethnic disparities, overcrowding in correctional facilities, and the impact of mental health and domestic violence on the criminal justice system. The history of the criminal justice system provides important insights into its development, challenges, and potential for reform.

The criminal justice system is composed of several interconnected components, each with its own specific roles and responsibilities. These components work together to ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially. The main components of the criminal justice system are law enforcement, courts, and corrections.

A. Law Enforcement

Law enforcement agencies are responsible for enforcing the law and maintaining public order. This includes responding to emergency situations, investigating crimes, and apprehending suspects. The most visible law enforcement agency is the police, who are responsible for responding to emergency situations, conducting investigations, and making arrests. Other law enforcement agencies include federal agencies, such as the FBI and the DEA, and state agencies, such as the highway patrol and the state bureau of investigation.

Courts are responsible for adjudicating criminal cases and ensuring that justice is served fairly and impartially. The court system is composed of several levels, including trial courts, appellate courts, and the supreme court. Trial courts are responsible for hearing evidence and determining guilt or innocence, while appellate courts review decisions made by trial courts to ensure that legal procedures were followed correctly.

C. Corrections

Corrections refers to the management of individuals who have been found guilty of a crime and sentenced to a term of incarceration, probation, or parole. Correctional facilities, such as prisons and jails, are responsible for housing and caring for individuals who have been sentenced to imprisonment. Probation and parole officers are responsible for supervising individuals who have been released from prison and ensuring that they comply with the conditions of their release.

In addition to these main components, the criminal justice system also includes other key actors, such as prosecutors, defense attorneys, and victim advocates. Prosecutors are responsible for bringing charges against individuals who have been accused of committing a crime, while defense attorneys are responsible for representing the accused in court. Victim advocates are responsible for providing support and assistance to victims of crime, including information about the criminal justice system and access to services and resources.

Overall, the components of the criminal justice system work together to ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially. Each component plays a critical role in maintaining public safety and upholding the law.

The criminal justice process refers to the series of steps that are followed in the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of criminal cases. While the exact process may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the type of crime involved, the basic stages of the criminal justice process include investigation, arrest and booking, charging and plea bargaining, trial and sentencing, and appeals.

A. Investigation

The investigation stage of the criminal justice process involves gathering evidence and information about a suspected crime. This may involve interviewing witnesses, collecting physical evidence, and analyzing forensic evidence. Law enforcement agencies are primarily responsible for conducting investigations, although other agencies, such as the FBI and the DEA, may also be involved in certain types of cases.

B. Arrest and Booking

If law enforcement officers believe that they have enough evidence to support an arrest, they may take the suspect into custody. The suspect will then be taken to a booking facility, where they will be photographed, fingerprinted, and processed. During this stage, the suspect may be held in jail until a bail hearing is held, which will determine whether they will be released from custody pending trial.

C. Charging and Plea Bargaining

Once a suspect has been arrested and booked, prosecutors will determine whether there is enough evidence to support charges being filed against them. If charges are filed, the suspect will be arraigned, and a plea will be entered. In some cases, the prosecutor and defense attorney may engage in plea bargaining, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence.

D. Trial and Sentencing

If the defendant pleads not guilty, a trial will be held to determine guilt or innocence. During the trial, evidence will be presented, witnesses will be called, and the defendant will have the opportunity to present a defense. If the defendant is found guilty, they will be sentenced by a judge, who will determine the appropriate punishment based on the nature of the crime and the defendant’s criminal history.

If the defendant is found guilty, they may have the opportunity to appeal their conviction to a higher court. During the appeals process, the defendant’s attorney will argue that errors were made during the trial that may have affected the outcome of the case. If the appeal is successful, the case may be sent back to the trial court for a new trial or sentencing.

Overall, the criminal justice process is designed to ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially. Each stage of the process serves an important role in protecting the rights of the accused, while also ensuring that those who have committed crimes are held accountable for their actions.

Ethics play an important role in the criminal justice system. They guide the behavior of law enforcement officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and other key actors in the criminal justice process. Ethical violations can have serious consequences, including the dismissal of charges, the reversal of convictions, and the loss of professional licenses.

A. Ethical Principles

There are several key ethical principles that guide the behavior of those who work in the criminal justice system. These include:

• Integrity: Criminal justice professionals must act with honesty and uphold high moral and ethical standards.
• Fairness: Criminal justice professionals must treat all individuals equally and without bias.
• Respect: Criminal justice professionals must treat all individuals with respect and dignity, regardless of their background or circumstances.
• Responsibility: Criminal justice professionals must take responsibility for their actions and be accountable for their decisions.

B. Ethical Issues in Law Enforcement

Law enforcement officers face a variety of ethical issues on a daily basis. These may include the use of excessive force, racial profiling, and the temptation to engage in corrupt activities such as accepting bribes or engaging in drug trafficking. Ethical law enforcement officers must balance the need to enforce the law with the need to protect individual rights and freedoms.

C. Ethical Issues in the Courts

Judges and other court personnel must also adhere to strict ethical standards. They must be fair and impartial in their decisions, and they must not engage in activities that may create a conflict of interest. Ethical issues in the courts may include the acceptance of gifts or favors, the imposition of biased sentencing, or the failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

D. Ethical Issues in Corrections

Correctional officers and other personnel who work in correctional facilities must also adhere to ethical standards. They must treat all individuals with respect and dignity, and they must not engage in abusive or discriminatory behavior. Ethical issues in corrections may include the use of excessive force, the mistreatment of inmates, or the failure to provide adequate medical care.

E. Ethics and Professionalism in the Criminal Justice System

Overall, ethical behavior is essential to maintaining professionalism in the criminal justice system. Criminal justice professionals must act with integrity, fairness, respect, and responsibility in order to ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially. By upholding these ethical principles, criminal justice professionals can earn the trust and respect of the communities they serve, and help to build a more just and equitable society.

A. Overview of Criminal Justice Policies

Criminal justice policies refer to the laws, regulations, and practices that guide the operation of the criminal justice system. These policies are designed to address a range of issues related to crime and punishment, including the definition of criminal behavior, the procedures used in criminal trials, the sentencing of offenders, and the management of correctional institutions. Criminal justice policies are created at the local, state, and federal levels of government and are influenced by a wide range of factors, including political ideologies, public opinion, and empirical research.

B. The Effectiveness of Different Criminal Justice Policies

There are various types of criminal justice policies, and their effectiveness can vary widely depending on their implementation, enforcement, and other factors. For example, substantive criminal law defines criminal behavior and establishes the penalties for violating the law. Procedural law establishes the rules and procedures that govern the criminal justice system, including the rights of defendants and the process of evidence gathering. Sentencing policy determines the punishment that will be imposed on offenders who are found guilty of criminal behavior, and correctional policy establishes the rules and procedures for managing offenders who have been sentenced to prison or other forms of confinement.

The effectiveness of criminal justice policies depends on several factors. One key factor is their ability to deter crime. Policies that are more severe, such as those that impose mandatory minimum sentences or that rely heavily on incarceration, may be more effective at deterring crime than policies that are less severe. However, research has shown that policies that focus on prevention, rehabilitation, and community-based solutions may be more effective in reducing crime rates in the long term.

Another factor that affects the effectiveness of criminal justice policies is their impact on recidivism, which refers to the likelihood that an offender will reoffend after being released from prison or other forms of confinement. Policies that focus on rehabilitation, such as educational programs, vocational training, and mental health services, may be more effective at reducing recidivism than policies that rely solely on punishment.

C. The Impact of Policies on Crime Rates

Criminal justice policies can have a significant impact on crime rates. Some policies, such as those that provide resources for crime prevention programs or that target high-crime areas, can help to reduce crime rates. Other policies, such as those that impose mandatory minimum sentences or that rely heavily on incarceration, may not be as effective at reducing crime rates and may contribute to issues like mass incarceration.

Research has shown that policies that focus on prevention, rehabilitation, and community-based solutions may be more effective in reducing crime rates in the long term than policies that rely solely on punishment. For example, programs that provide at-risk youth with positive role models, job training, and other resources have been shown to be effective in reducing crime rates. Similarly, restorative justice programs that focus on repairing harm caused by criminal behavior may be more effective at reducing recidivism than traditional punitive measures.

D. Evaluating Criminal Justice Policies

It is important to evaluate criminal justice policies to determine their effectiveness in reducing crime and promoting public safety. Evaluation can also help to identify policies that may have unintended consequences or that are disproportionately impacting certain groups of individuals, such as people of color or low-income communities. By carefully evaluating criminal justice policies, policymakers can make informed decisions that promote justice, equity, and public safety.

Evaluation can take many forms, including empirical research, data analysis, and stakeholder engagement. For example, researchers may use statistical methods to evaluate the impact of a particular policy on crime rates or recidivism. Stakeholder engagement may involve seeking input from community members, law enforcement officials, and other stakeholders to better understand the impact of a policy on different groups of individuals.

A. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

One of the most significant issues facing the criminal justice system today is racial and ethnic disparities. People of color are disproportionately represented at every stage of the criminal justice process, from arrest to sentencing. This disparity is particularly evident in drug-related offenses, where people of color are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to longer terms than their white counterparts, despite similar rates of drug use. The causes of these disparities are complex and multifaceted, but they are likely influenced by a range of factors, including implicit bias, systemic racism, and socioeconomic inequality. Addressing these disparities will require a multifaceted approach, including better data collection, training to address implicit bias, and reforms to sentencing and other policies.

B. Overcrowding in Correctional Facilities

Overcrowding in correctional facilities is another major issue facing the criminal justice system. The United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, with over 2 million people currently incarcerated in state and federal prisons. This has led to significant overcrowding in many facilities, which can lead to a range of negative outcomes, including increased violence, poor health outcomes, and limited access to rehabilitative programs. Addressing this issue will require a range of policy reforms, including sentencing reform, increased use of alternatives to incarceration, and improved conditions and programming within correctional facilities.

C. Mental Health Issues and the Criminal Justice System

Mental health issues are a significant concern in the criminal justice system. A large proportion of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system have a mental health condition, and many struggle to access the care and support they need. This can result in a range of negative outcomes, including increased rates of incarceration, higher rates of recidivism, and limited access to necessary treatment and services. Addressing this issue will require a range of policy reforms, including improved screening and assessment of mental health conditions, increased access to mental health services, and increased use of diversion programs for people with mental health conditions.

D. Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence

Violence against women and domestic violence are significant issues in the criminal justice system. Women are disproportionately impacted by violence and abuse, and they often face significant barriers to seeking help and accessing the justice system. The criminal justice system plays an important role in responding to and preventing violence against women and domestic violence, but there are significant challenges in addressing these issues. Addressing this issue will require a range of policy reforms, including improved training for law enforcement and other criminal justice professionals, increased funding for victim services, and improved coordination between criminal justice agencies and community-based organizations.

In conclusion, there are a range of significant issues facing the criminal justice system today, including racial and ethnic disparities, overcrowding in correctional facilities, mental health issues, and violence against women and domestic violence. Addressing these issues will require a multifaceted approach that involves policy reforms, community engagement, and a commitment to justice and equity.

A. Emerging Trends in the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is constantly evolving, and there are several emerging trends that are likely to shape its future. One such trend is the increased focus on rehabilitation and reentry programs for people who have been incarcerated. As the public becomes more aware of the limitations of punishment-based approaches to crime, there is growing interest in programs that address the root causes of criminal behavior and provide support to people as they transition back into their communities. Another emerging trend is the use of data analytics and predictive policing, which are being used to identify crime patterns and allocate resources more effectively.

B. Advances in Technology and its Impact on Criminal Justice

Advances in technology are having a significant impact on the criminal justice system, both in terms of the way crimes are committed and the way they are investigated and prosecuted. For example, cybercrime is becoming increasingly prevalent, and law enforcement agencies must stay up to date with the latest technological tools and techniques in order to combat it effectively. In addition, advances in forensic science and DNA analysis are improving the accuracy of criminal investigations and increasing the chances of solving crimes. However, these advances also raise important ethical questions about privacy and civil liberties, and policymakers must grapple with these issues as technology continues to evolve.

C. The Role of Social Media in Criminal Justice

Social media has become an increasingly important tool in criminal justice, both for law enforcement agencies and for the public at large. Social media platforms can be used to share information about crimes, locate missing persons, and identify suspects. However, they can also be used to spread misinformation and contribute to the spread of rumors and false accusations. As the role of social media in criminal justice continues to evolve, it will be important for law enforcement agencies to use these tools responsibly and for policymakers to develop guidelines and regulations to ensure that they are used in a fair and ethical manner.

In conclusion, the future of the criminal justice system is shaped by a range of factors, including emerging trends, advances in technology, and the role of social media. As policymakers and criminal justice professionals navigate these changes, it will be important to balance the need for public safety with concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and the fair administration of justice. By staying up to date with the latest developments and engaging in ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, we can work towards a future in which the criminal justice system is effective, equitable, and responsive to the needs of all members of society.

A. Summary of Key Points

The criminal justice system is a complex network of institutions, policies, and practices that is designed to maintain public safety and enforce the law. In this research paper, we explored the historical perspective of criminal justice, its components, processes, ethics, policies, and issues. We also discussed the future of criminal justice, including emerging trends, advances in technology, and the role of social media.

B. Implications for the Future of Criminal Justice

The criminal justice system is facing a number of challenges, including racial and ethnic disparities, overcrowding in correctional facilities, mental health issues, and violence against women and domestic violence. In order to address these challenges, we need to continue to invest in evidence-based practices and policies that prioritize rehabilitation and reentry programs, address the root causes of crime, and promote equity and fairness in the criminal justice system. We also need to embrace new technologies and use them responsibly and ethically, while balancing the need for public safety with concerns about privacy and civil liberties.

C. Recommendations for Future Research

There is still much that we do not know about the criminal justice system and its impact on society. As such, there is a need for continued research in this area. Future studies should explore the effectiveness of different criminal justice policies and practices, examine the factors that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities, and evaluate the impact of emerging technologies and social media on the criminal justice system. By conducting rigorous research and engaging in ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, we can work towards a more effective and equitable criminal justice system.

In conclusion, the criminal justice system plays a critical role in maintaining public safety and upholding the rule of law. However, it is also a complex and multifaceted system that is shaped by a range of historical, social, and technological factors. By understanding these factors and working to address the challenges that the criminal justice system faces, we can build a future in which justice is fair, equitable, and accessible to all.

References:

• American Civil Liberties Union. (2021). Criminal Law Reform. https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/criminal-law-reform
• Austin, J. (2018). The Future of Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press.
• Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2021). Criminal Justice System Flowchart. https://www.bjs.gov/content/crimjustice_system/crimflow.cfm
• Clear, T. R. (2019). The Rise of Mass Incarceration: An Historical Overview. In J. F. Travis & B. Waul (Eds.), The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences (pp. 1-20). The National Academies Press.
• Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. (2021). Criminal Justice Policy. https://www.cjpf.org/policy.html
• Davis, A. Y. (2016). Are Prisons Obsolete? Seven Stories Press.
• Equal Justice Initiative. (2021). Criminal Justice Reform. https://eji.org/issues/criminal-justice-reform/
• Garland, D. (2019). The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford University Press.
• Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Di Leone, B. A. L., Culotta, C. M., & DiTomasso, N. A. (2014). The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 526-545.
• Hudson, B. A. (2019). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.
• International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2021). Criminal Justice Reform. https://www.theiacp.org/policy-center/criminal-justice-reform
• Jacobs, J. B. (2018). The Eternal Criminal Record. Harvard University Press.
• Lerman, A. E., & Weaver, V. M. (2014). Arresting Citizenship: The Democratic Consequences of American Crime Control. University of Chicago Press.
• National Criminal Justice Association. (2021). Criminal Justice Policy. https://www.ncja.org/policy-advocacy/criminal-justice-policy
• Pager, D. (2019). Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. University of Chicago Press.
• Rios, V. M. (2011). Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York University Press.
• Sampson, R. J. (2018). American Society of Criminology 2017 Presidential Address: Criminology in the Public Sphere. Criminology, 56(3), 533-547.
• Shelden, R. G. (2019). The Future of Criminal Justice. Routledge.
• Thompson, S. (2020). Mass Incarceration and the Challenge of Democracy. University of Michigan Press.
• Western, B. (2018). Homeward: Life in the Year After Prison. Russell Sage Foundation.

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.

CrimeSolutions - The Evidence-Based Guide for Justice Agencies in Search of Practices and Programs that Really Work

Science supports corrections agencies and the larger criminal justice system by delivering precise, reliable processes capable of generating consistent, repeatable outcomes.

The National Institute of Justice is tasked by Congress with producing real-world benefits, through scientific innovation, for justice agencies, their stakeholders and the public.

One important way NIJ accomplishes this goal is through program evaluation. Program evaluation methods, themselves the product of rigorous science, have established not all science-based program and practice innovations are equally reliable. With the pace of scientific discovery around the world accelerating as never before, justice agencies seek assurance the particular science underlying an existing or contemplated program or practice is sound, and the program or practice, if properly implemented, can work as intended. [1]

NIJ has an established, evidence-based online resource to help justice agencies find and refine reliable solutions.

CrimeSolutions: A road map to justice system practices and programs

To help agencies know what works, what doesn’t, and what’s promising, NIJ’s CrimeSolutions has established a process for identifying and rating programs and practices that aim to:

• Prevent or reduce crime, delinquency or related problem behaviors.
• Prevent, intervene, or respond to victimization.
• Assist persons convicted of a crime or at-risk populations of individuals with potential to become involved in the justice system.

Rated programs and practices are included in an online clearinghouse.

The terms “program” and “practice” have particular meanings in CrimeSolutions. A “program” is a specific set of activities, carried out according to guidelines, to achieve a defined purpose. Program profiles on CrimeSolutions tell us whether a specific program was successful in achieving justice-related outcomes when it was carefully evaluated.

A “practice” is a general category of programs, strategies or procedures that share similar characteristics, in terms of the issues they address and how they address them. Practice profiles tell us about the aggregate results from multiple evaluations of similar programs, strategies or procedures.

CrimeSolutions employs a standardized process to evaluate programs and practices in order to determine both (1) the reliability of the science methods used to evaluate effectiveness, and (2) the level of effectiveness, if any, of the program or practice under evaluation.

This article discusses key aspects of the purpose, design, benefits and limitations of the CrimeSolutions resource, providing links to key program web resources.

Of perhaps greatest utility, it explains to the reader where to find and how to take advantage of CrimeSolutions when searching for or studying a program or practice, or deciding whether to implement it.

Overview of CrimeSolutions

The CrimeSolutions clearinghouse identifies justice system programs and practices that have been submitted to rigorous scientific evaluations. The CrimeSolutions evaluation process closely examines programs and practices for scientific evidence of effectiveness. If the evidence is strong and clear enough, a program will be rated “Effective,” “Promising,” or “No Effects.” If the evidence is insufficiently strong and clear, however, CrimeSolutions reviewers will withhold an effectiveness rating. Those unrated programs or practices are deemed to be emerging, inconclusive or unclear.

Table 1 shows, as of May 2021, totals of rated programs and practices and subtotals for those focused-on corrections.

Programs and practices selected for CrimeSolutions review are first identified, screened, reviewed and rated, through a standardized process. See How We Review and Rate Programs form Start to Finish and How We Review and Rate Practices from Start to Finish . 

Two certified program reviewers assess each screened program and practice with objective scoring instruments. Reviewers examine scientific evaluations of programs. Broader practices are reviewed by reference to meta-analyses that synthesize existing rigorous evaluations of those practices.

The importance of evidence-based practices and rigorous science

At the core of CrimeSolutions’ effectiveness ratings is the reliance on available, rigorous evidence. Programs and practices are considered evidence-based when their effectiveness has been demonstrated by causal evidence demonstrated in high quality outcome evaluations. The use of scientific methods yields causal evidence by ruling out alternative explanations for observed change.

The more rigorous the scientific method used to evaluate a program or practice, the more certain an effectiveness rating will be. The science must be sufficiently strong and certain before CrimeSolutions will assign an effectiveness rating for a given practice or program.

The so-called gold standard of evaluation methods is the randomized controlled trial, or RCT. In RCTs, participants are randomly divided into treatment and control groups. Carefully controlled and measured division of participants ensures that, to the extent possible, the only difference between the groups is one receives the experimental treatment and the other does not. As an evaluable method, the randomized controlled trial is uniquely capable of isolating and measuring the effect of experimental treatment. Beyond randomization, RCTs must be well-coordinated, with provisions to ensure, for instance, there is no contamination between the treatment and control groups.

In some studies, a rigorous comparison is either not feasible, or not needed to establish the answer to the scientific inquiry. A randomized trial would not be feasible when, for example, denial of the treatment to a control group would be unethical, or the subject of a study is retrospective. And generally, RCTs rely on relatively large sample sizes to demonstrate measurable effect.

The distinct value of CrimeSolutions for different professional audiences

Having objective scientific evaluations of available corrections programs and practices can offer immediate benefits for a variety of stakeholders, including academic researchers engaged in program evaluations, practitioners, policymakers and trainers.

Some of those CrimeSolutions benefits, by audience group, are:

Corrections professionals may be able to improve program or practice effectiveness by one or more of the following actions:

• Familiarizing themselves with rated and evaluated programs in their field.
• Replicating a program or practice found in CrimeSolutions.
• Adapting a program or practice from CrimeSolutions.

Policymakers can shape funding decisions by:

• Creating incentives to use evaluated and rated programs and practices.
• Creating incentives for ongoing innovations and creation of evidence-based programs and practices.

Program trainers can improve training by:

• Developing training materials for evaluated and rated programs.

Researchers can improve justice programming and become more informed on criminal justice research by:

• Consulting CrimeSolutions evidence standards to strengthen evaluation designs.
• For programs rated “Promising” by CrimeSolutions, focusing on using rigorous evaluation designs to build the body of evidence and potentially increase confidence in program effectiveness.
• For programs or practices rated “Inconclusive” by CrimeSolutions, researchers may have an opportunity to build the program evidence base sufficiently for a subsequent CrimeSolutions evaluation to establish, with the requisite degree of scientific certainty, a program or practice is promising or effective or has no effects.
• Improve the available body of knowledge: Where an existing program or practice has been rated “Promising” by CrimeSolutions, there is incentive for independent researchers to conduct additional evaluation work, using a more rigorous scientific design where applicable, such as an RCT, to test or re-test program strength and effectiveness.

Limitations of CrimeSolutions

Anyone interested in tapping the benefits of CrimeSolutions’ ratings of program and practice effectiveness should bear in mind certain practical or possible limitations of the resource. They include:

• The fact a program or practice works in one setting, with a particular population, does not mean it will be equally effective in every setting, or for different populations. Adopters of programs or practices rated Effective or Promising on CrimeSolutions should be prepared to evaluate scientifically the program or practice once applied in their own environment.
• Programs often have mixed results for various outcomes – some positive, some negative. CrimeSolutions assigns ratings to programs based on the preponderance of evidence from up to three studies that have assessed outcomes related to crime, delinquency, or victimization prevention, intervention or response.
• Although CrimeSolutions is a rich resource, with more than 700 posted programs or practices, not all criminal justice, juvenile justice and victim services programs and practices have qualified for CrimeSolutions rating. Agencies should take care to select programming well matched to their needs.

CrimeSolutions’ eight-step process for reviewing and rating programs and practices

CrimeSolutions follows the eight-step evaluation process to determine whether a given program or practice will receive a rating:

• Preliminary Program Identification — programs and practices identified through literature searches and nominations from the field.
• Initial Program Screening — programs and practices reviewed to confirm they fall within the substantive scope of CrimeSolutions.
• Expanded Literature Search — expanded search to all evaluations and research and program materials that may be of interest to reviewers.
• Initial Evidence Screening — identified studies reviewed to determine whether the criteria for “evidence” of effectiveness has been met.
• Selection of Evidence Base — senior researcher selects evaluations or meta-analyses that follow rigorous study designs and methods.
• Expert Review — two certified reviewers perform an evidence review, using a scoring instrument, that assesses the quality and strength of the evidence, as well as the extent to which the evidence indicates the program or practice achieves its goals.
• Study Classification — each study is assigned one of five classifications on the quality of the study.
• Effectiveness Rating — CrimeSolutions assigns evidence ratings addressing program or practice effectiveness. For practices, ratings are assigned by outcome; one practice could receive multiple, differing ratings, based on how effective it is in addressing various outcomes.

Evidence ratings falling into three classes:

• Effective — Strong evidence to indicate the program achieves justice-related outcome(s) when implemented with fidelity to the design.
• Promising — Some evidence to indicate that the program achieves justice-related outcome(s) when implemented with fidelity to the design.
• No Effects — Strong evidence to indicate the program had no effects or had harmful effects.

Not all programs and practices that make it past the initial review receive a rating. Many evaluations are determined by reviewers to be inconclusive, and for those programs or practices no rating is assigned.

Examples of corrections practices rated by CrimeSolutions

The following are two examples of correctional practices rated by CrimeSolutions:

Rehabilitation programs for adult offenders

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults convicted of a crime by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning and access to education and employment. Adults may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system.

Evidence Rating for Outcomes — A single outcome was rated “Promising” for this practice. Looking at 634 independent effect sizes, researchers found a statistically significant mean effect size of 0.203 for recidivism. This finding indicated those who participated in rehabilitation programs demonstrated reductions in criminal offending, compared with a control group who did not participate.

Practice Goals/Target Population — Rehabilitation programs are designed to reduce recidivism among adults convicted of a crime by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning and access to education and employment. Adults convicted of a crime may become participants in rehabilitation programs at multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system, and programs are typically provided in conjunction with some form of sanction (e.g., incarceration or probation). Therefore, most programs are delivered to persons within correctional settings, or in community settings following their release (i.e., probation or parole-based programs). Community-based settings may be delivered in inpatient facilities, such as psychiatric hospitals and outpatient treatment centers, or in supportive residential housing such as halfway houses. In addition, some rehabilitation programs (such as drug courts) serve as alternatives to incarceration, diverting individuals into services in the community rather than into correctional facilities.

Practice Components — Rehabilitation programs do not generally follow a common, well-defined treatment protocol. [2] Instead, interventions and services may vary significantly by program. All programs address at least one of the risk factors commonly associated with offending (such as mental health status, substance use, education level or employment status). For example, a drug court program may provide for treatment only to address substance abuse issues. More commonly, however, rehabilitation programs combine multiple services: for example, a drug court program that provides not only substance abuse treatment, but also individual counseling and vocational training.

The general types of treatment services provided by rehabilitation programs include group work (structured via protocol or psychoeducational content); cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or CBT-like components (thinking skills, relapse prevention or anger management); counseling (group, individual, mentoring); academic work (GED or college classes); employment-related (work-release, job placement, vocational training); supportive residential (therapeutic community, halfway house); drug court or other specialized court; multimodal, mixed treatments (individual case management); intensive supervision (reduced probation or parole); or restorative interventions (mediation, reparations, community service).

Practice Theory — Effective rehabilitation programs typically use treatment methods that are based on behavioral and social learning theories of change. Behavioral theory suggests individuals are conditioned to behave in a certain way based on experiences with reinforcement and punishment (Skinner 1965). In contrast, social learning theory posits people learn behaviors from one another, through observation, imitation and modeling. [3] Therefore, rehabilitation programs are designed to reduce criminal behaviors through the positive reinforcement of conventional behaviors learned through observation or modeling. [4] For example, a program may help a participant learn how to manage his or her anger by modeling appropriate responses instead.

Treatment in secure corrections for serious juvenile offenders (2015)

This practice includes interventions targeting serious (violent and chronic) juveniles sentenced to serve time in secure corrections. The overall goal is to decrease recidivism rates when juveniles are released and return to the community. The practice is rated Effective for reducing general recidivism and serious recidivism of violent and chronic justice-involved youth.

Evidence Rating for Outcomes — An Effective rating was assigned to two outcomes for this practice:

• Crime & Delinquency — Multiple crime/offense types. To determine the impact of treatment on general recidivism rates, researchers examined 30 comparisons, between treatment groups and control groups, which used intent-to-treat data. The authors found a significant odds ratio of 1.307 in favor of the treatment group, meaning chronic and violent justice-involved youth who received treatment in secure corrections had lower recidivism rates than comparison group juveniles who did not receive treatment.
• Crime & Delinquency — Serious recidivism. Researchers examined 15 comparisons, looking at serious recidivism (which included reincarceration or reinstitutionalization) of justice-involved youth. The authors calculated a significant odds ratio of 1.354, meaning the treatment provided in secure confinement significantly reduced the serious recidivism of chronic and violent justice-involved youth.

Practice Goals/Target Population — Interventions targeting serious (violent and chronic) justice-involved youth sentenced to serve time in secure corrections aim to decrease recidivism rates when juveniles are released and return to the community. These interventions can include psychological approaches, social and educational methods and environmental conditions, all of which support the learning of prosocial attitudes and behaviors.

A juvenile is generally defined as a young person aged 12 to 21 years old. This practice targets juveniles who commit violent offenses or chronically offend. Violent justice-involved youth are juveniles who have committed offenses in which someone has been hurt or seriously injured and requires medical attention. Violent offenses include murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, assault, robbery, endangerment and arson. Youth chronically involved in the juvenile justice system are those who have three or more previous legal adjudications.

Practice Components — There are a number of different types of treatment that may be available to justice-involved youth in secure corrections. The treatment types include behavioral, cognitive–behavioral, cognitive, education and nonbehavioral.

We created CrimeSolutions to help criminal justice, juvenile justice and crime victim service professionals better understand crime and identify program and practice solutions that address the unique needs of their communities.

CrimeSolutions helps justice professionals who are not social scientists improve the effectiveness of programs. The systematic, independent review process and evidence ratings are intended to give practitioners access to social science evidence that is otherwise difficult to obtain, and serve as a basis for gauging the quality of evidence. In short, CrimeSolutions strives to help practitioners answer the questions: has it worked, and in what context?

[note 1] In 2016, nearly 2.3 million research articles were published, according to the National Science Foundation, Science & Engineering Indicators 2018, National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181 (December 2018).

[note 2] Mark Lipsey and Francis Cullen, “The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews,” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3 no. 1 (2007):297–320.

[note 3] Alfred Bandura, “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Review 84 no. 2 (1977):191–215.

[note 4] Mark Lipsey and Francis Cullen, “The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews,” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3 no. 1 (2007):297–320.

Cite this Article

Read more about:.

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » 500+ Criminal Justice Research Topics

500+ Criminal Justice Research Topics

Criminal justice is a complex and critical field that encompasses various aspects of crime prevention, law enforcement, legal proceedings, and punishment. Research plays a crucial role in understanding and addressing the challenges and opportunities in this field. From studying the causes and consequences of crime to exploring the effectiveness of policies and interventions, there is a wide range of fascinating and important criminal justice research topics to explore. Whether you are a student, a scholar, a practitioner, or a curious citizen, delving into the world of criminal justice research can deepen your knowledge, sharpen your critical thinking skills, and contribute to creating a safer and fairer society. In this post, we will introduce some of the most compelling and relevant criminal justice research topics that you may find intriguing and informative.

Criminal Justice Research Topics

Criminal Justice Research Topics are as follows:

• The effectiveness of community policing in reducing crime rates
• The impact of body-worn cameras on police accountability and public trust
• The causes and consequences of police use of excessive force
• The role of race and ethnicity in police-citizen interactions and perceptions
• The effectiveness of diversion programs in reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentencing on crime rates and prison populations
• The challenges and opportunities of restorative justice as an alternative to punitive justice
• The role of mental health and substance abuse treatment in reducing criminal behavior
• The ethics and implications of using predictive policing algorithms
• The impact of private prisons on the criminal justice system and society
• The effectiveness of victim-offender mediation in reducing the harm of crime
• The prevalence and causes of wrongful convictions and the implications for justice
• The role of media in shaping public perceptions of crime and justice
• The effectiveness and fairness of the death penalty as a form of punishment
• The role of international law in addressing transnational crimes such as terrorism and human trafficking
• The impact of the War on Drugs on drug use, drug-related crime, and public health
• The effectiveness of gun control laws in reducing gun violence and crime rates
• The role of technology in enhancing or challenging the criminal justice system, such as DNA analysis or facial recognition software
• The prevalence and causes of domestic violence and the effectiveness of intervention programs
• The impact of sentencing disparities based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status
• The role of plea bargaining in the criminal justice system and the implications for justice
• The effectiveness of sex offender registries and notification laws in reducing sex crimes
• The impact of pretrial detention on defendants’ rights and outcomes
• The role of community-based corrections in reducing recidivism and promoting reentry
• The ethics and implications of using unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) for surveillance and law enforcement
• The effectiveness and implications of using risk assessment tools in pretrial decision-making
• The prevalence and impact of hate crimes and the challenges of prosecuting them
• The role of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials and the reliability of memory
• The effectiveness of drug courts in reducing drug-related crime and improving outcomes for offenders
• The impact of race and ethnicity on the administration of the death penalty
• The role of juries in the criminal justice system and the factors that affect their decisions
• The effectiveness and ethics of using informants in criminal investigations and prosecutions
• The prevalence and impact of cybercrime and the challenges of investigating and prosecuting it
• The effectiveness of juvenile justice reforms in promoting rehabilitation and reducing recidivism
• The impact of community-based policing on police-citizen relations and trust
• The role of social media in shaping perceptions of crime and justice
• The effectiveness of prison education and vocational training programs in promoting rehabilitation and reducing recidivism
• The prevalence and impact of human rights abuses in the criminal justice system, such as torture or discrimination
• The effectiveness of gang prevention and intervention programs in reducing gang-related crime
• The role of implicit bias in the criminal justice system and its impact on outcomes
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health, behavior, and reentry outcomes
• The impact of police body cameras on public trust and police accountability.
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for juvenile offenders.
• The impact of community policing on crime reduction
• The use of predictive policing in law enforcement
• The impact of decriminalizing marijuana on crime rates
• The role of mental health professionals in the criminal justice system
• The effectiveness of de-escalation training for police officers
• The impact of technology on police surveillance practices
• The relationship between gender and sentencing disparities in the criminal justice system
• The relationship between poverty and crime
• The effectiveness of restorative justice programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of the War on Drugs on mass incarceration
• The use of cognitive-behavioral therapy in offender rehabilitation
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for people with substance use disorders
• The role of implicit bias in jury selection
• The impact of police officer stress on use of force incidents
• The use of big data in criminal investigations and decision-making
• The effectiveness of restorative justice practices in school disciplinary policies
• The relationship between mental illness and homelessness in the criminal justice system
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentences on juvenile offenders
• The role of drug courts in the criminal justice system
• The effectiveness of offender reentry programs for people with disabilities
• The impact of restorative justice programs on victims of crime
• The use of therapeutic jurisprudence in the criminal justice system
• The relationship between race and ethnicity and the use of force by private security personnel
• The effectiveness of educational programs in correctional facilities
• The impact of eyewitness identification procedures on wrongful convictions
• The role of community-based policing in reducing crime rates
• The use of predictive analytics in bail decisions
• The effectiveness of correctional education programs on recidivism
• The impact of immigration enforcement policies on immigrant communities’ trust in law enforcement
• The relationship between mental health and juvenile detention
• The use of biometrics in criminal investigations and identification
• The effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism among people with co-occurring disorders
• The impact of gender and sexuality on hate crime victimization and reporting
• The role of cultural competence in police training
• The use of risk assessment tools in pretrial detention decisions
• The effectiveness of community supervision programs for people with substance use disorders
• The impact of social and economic policies on criminal justice outcomes
• The relationship between race and ethnicity and criminal case outcomes
• The use of therapeutic communities in correctional facilities
• The effectiveness of specialized courts for domestic violence cases
• The impact of gun violence on public safety and crime rates
• The role of eyewitness memory and recall in criminal investigations and trials
• The use of DNA evidence in criminal investigations and exoneration
• The effectiveness of probation and parole programs for people with disabilities
• The impact of victim impact statements on sentencing decisions
• The relationship between criminal justice policies and racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration rates
• The use of unmanned aerial vehicles in law enforcement
• The effectiveness of community-based restorative justice programs for juvenile offenders
• The impact of public defender workload on criminal case outcomes
• The role of community activism and advocacy in criminal justice reform
• The use of risk assessment tools in school disciplinary policies
• The effectiveness of family-focused interventions in reducing juvenile recidivism
• The impact of police officer race and ethnicity on use of force incidents
• The relationship between race and ethnicity and prosecutorial decision-making
• The use of virtual reality simulations in police training
• The effectiveness of mental health diversion programs for people with traumatic brain injuries
• The impact of juvenile life without parole sentences on individuals and society.
• The use of drones in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of community-based alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders
• The impact of wrongful convictions on the criminal justice system
• The role of implicit bias in criminal justice decision-making
• The use of risk assessment tools in child welfare investigations
• The effectiveness of offender reentry programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of hate crimes on marginalized communities
• The relationship between mental health and the use of force by police officers
• The use of body language analysis in criminal interrogations
• The effectiveness of community policing strategies in building trust between police and communities
• The impact of race on police use of force and police brutality
• The role of prosecutorial discretion in the criminal justice system
• The use of algorithms in pretrial detention decisions
• The effectiveness of victim-centered approaches to sexual assault investigations
• The impact of domestic violence on child custody decisions
• The relationship between social media and cybercrime
• The use of facial recognition technology in law enforcement
• The effectiveness of police officer training programs on cultural sensitivity and bias reduction
• The impact of the school-to-prison pipeline on youth
• The role of mental health courts in diversion programs
• The use of virtual reality technology in criminal justice education and training
• The effectiveness of crisis intervention teams in responding to mental health crises
• The impact of immigration policies on crime reporting and victimization rates in immigrant communities
• The relationship between police department size and use of force incidents
• The use of predictive analytics in parole and probation supervision
• The effectiveness of juvenile justice system diversion programs for LGBTQ+ youth
• The impact of bail reform on pretrial detention rates and recidivism
• The role of trauma-informed care in the criminal justice system
• The use of artificial intelligence in forensic investigations
• The effectiveness of prison entrepreneurship programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of COVID-19 on the criminal justice system
• The relationship between mental health and incarceration rates
• The use of social network analysis in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of drug testing and monitoring programs for probationers and parolees
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentences on drug offenses
• The role of the media in shaping public perceptions of crime and the criminal justice system
• The use of body-worn cameras in courtroom proceedings
• The effectiveness of mental health diversion programs for veterans involved in the criminal justice system
• The impact of race and ethnicity on the plea bargaining process
• The relationship between police department diversity and community trust
• The use of crime mapping in law enforcement strategies
• The effectiveness of animal therapy programs in correctional facilities
• The impact of the death penalty on families of victims and offenders
• The role of prosecutorial misconduct in wrongful convictions.
• Racial disparities in the use of capital punishment
• The effectiveness of electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration
• The role of restorative justice in reducing recidivism
• The relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior
• The effectiveness of drug courts in reducing drug-related offenses
• The impact of body-worn cameras on police behavior and citizen complaints
• The use of risk assessment tools in sentencing and release decisions
• The effectiveness of boot camp programs for juvenile offenders
• The use of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials
• The impact of victim-offender mediation on the criminal justice system
• The relationship between education level and criminal behavior
• The effectiveness of parole and probation in reducing recidivism
• The use of artificial intelligence in criminal justice decision-making
• The role of public defenders in the criminal justice system
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentences on the prison population
• The effectiveness of therapeutic courts for individuals with substance abuse disorders
• The impact of social media on the reporting of crimes and public perception of crime
• The effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy in reducing recidivism
• The impact of mental health courts on the criminal justice system
• The role of community service in reducing recidivism
• The relationship between domestic violence and gun ownership
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for individuals with mental illnesses
• The impact of sentencing guidelines on judicial discretion
• The use of police body language in detecting deception during interviews
• The relationship between incarceration and employment opportunities post-release
• The effectiveness of community-based supervision programs for released offenders
• The impact of the war on drugs on the criminal justice system
• The role of race and ethnicity in plea bargaining decisions
• The use of risk assessment tools in juvenile justice
• The effectiveness of animal-assisted therapy in correctional facilities
• The impact of restorative justice on the victims of crime
• The relationship between gun laws and gun violence rates
• The effectiveness of pretrial diversion programs for individuals with mental illnesses
• The role of reentry programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of mandatory arrest policies in domestic violence cases
• The use of polygraph tests in criminal investigations
• The relationship between gang membership and criminal behavior
• The effectiveness of drug treatment courts in reducing recidivism
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health and behavior
• The role of gun buyback programs in reducing gun violence
• The relationship between substance abuse and child abuse
• The effectiveness of victim impact panels in reducing drunk driving
• The impact of juvenile detention on mental health and behavior
• The use of forensic science in criminal investigations
• The relationship between race and wrongful convictions
• The effectiveness of prison education programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of police militarization on community trust and safety
• The relationship between race, ethnicity, and police use of force.
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentencing laws on incarceration rates.
• The effectiveness of community policing in reducing crime rates.
• The relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior.
• The role of gender in criminal justice sentencing and outcomes.
• The impact of the war on drugs on incarceration rates and drug use.
• The effectiveness of restorative justice programs in reducing recidivism.
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health and rehabilitation.
• The relationship between poverty and crime rates.
• The role of technology in modern policing and criminal justice.
• The effectiveness of drug courts in reducing drug-related crime.
• The relationship between immigration and crime rates.
• The impact of mandatory arrest policies in cases of domestic violence.
• The effectiveness of victim-offender mediation in reducing recidivism.
• The role of social media in modern crime and policing.
• The impact of police militarization on community trust and safety.
• The effectiveness of rehabilitation programs for incarcerated individuals.
• The relationship between gun ownership and violent crime.
• The impact of wrongful convictions on individuals and the criminal justice system.
• The role of race and ethnicity in jury selection and decision-making.
• The effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism.
• The relationship between education and crime rates.
• The impact of body-worn cameras on police officer behavior and decision-making.
• The effectiveness of drug treatment programs in reducing recidivism.
• The relationship between domestic violence and gun ownership.
• The impact of the death penalty on deterrence and sentencing outcomes.
• The role of implicit bias in policing and criminal justice decision-making.
• The effectiveness of community-based reentry programs for formerly incarcerated individuals.
• The relationship between crime rates and social inequality.
• The impact of predictive policing on crime rates and community trust.
• The effectiveness of probation and parole programs in reducing recidivism.
• The relationship between mental health and policing.
• The impact of police unions on police accountability and reform efforts.
• The role of the media in shaping public perceptions of crime and justice.
• The effectiveness of pretrial diversion programs in reducing incarceration rates.
• The relationship between police use of force and police training.
• The impact of mandatory minimum drug sentences on racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
• The effectiveness of juvenile detention alternatives in reducing recidivism.
• The relationship between mass incarceration and economic inequality.
• The impact of police body language on civilian compliance.
• The role of community organizations in crime prevention and intervention.
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for people with disabilities.
• The relationship between mental health and criminal justice reform.
• The impact of immigration policies on community safety and trust.
• The role of prosecutorial discretion in the criminal justice system.
• The effectiveness of job training programs for formerly incarcerated individuals.
• The relationship between race and drug policy.
• The impact of pretrial detention on case outcomes and incarceration rates.
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for offenders with mental health issues
• The prevalence and impact of police corruption and the challenges of rooting it out
• The role of victim impact statements in the criminal justice system and their impact on sentencing
• The impact of social inequality on crime rates and the criminal justice system
• The role of political ideology in shaping criminal justice policy and practice
• The effectiveness of rehabilitation and reentry programs for adult offenders
• The prevalence and impact of sexual harassment and assault within the criminal justice system
• The role of the Fourth Amendment in regulating police searches and seizures
• The effectiveness of restorative justice practices in addressing campus sexual assault
• The impact of mass incarceration on families and communities
• The ethics and implications of using artificial intelligence in criminal justice decision-making
• The role of bail reform in promoting justice and reducing pretrial detention
• The prevalence and impact of police misconduct and accountability mechanisms
• The effectiveness of drug policy reform in reducing drug-related harm and promoting public health
• The impact of globalization on transnational crimes and the challenges of international cooperation
• The role of prosecutorial discretion in shaping criminal justice outcomes
• The prevalence and impact of white-collar crime and the challenges of prosecution
• The role of public defenders in ensuring access to justice for indigent defendants
• The effectiveness of mental health courts in diverting mentally ill offenders from the criminal justice system
• The impact of the criminal justice system on immigrant communities and the challenges of immigrant detention and deportation
• The role of forgiveness in restorative justice and its implications for healing and reconciliation
• The effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution in reducing court congestion and promoting justice
• The prevalence and impact of hate speech and the challenges of regulating it
• The role of public opinion in shaping criminal justice policy and practice
• The effectiveness of community supervision in reducing recidivism and promoting reentry
• The impact of the criminalization of homelessness on vulnerable populations
• The role of community activism and advocacy in promoting criminal justice reform
• The effectiveness of therapeutic jurisprudence in promoting rehabilitation and well-being
• The prevalence and impact of police militarization and its implications for public safety and civil liberties
• The role of eyewitness identification procedures in criminal investigations and the reliability of identification evidence
• The effectiveness of harm reduction strategies in reducing drug-related harm and promoting public health
• The impact of the criminal justice system on Indigenous communities and the challenges of decolonizing justice
• The role of hate crime legislation in promoting justice and reducing hate-motivated violence
• The effectiveness of police training programs in reducing racial and ethnic bias and promoting cultural competence
• The prevalence and impact of gun violence and the challenges of gun control policy
• The role of the Eighth Amendment in regulating cruel and unusual punishment
• The effectiveness of problem-solving courts in addressing complex social issues and promoting justice
• The impact of the criminal justice system on LGBTQ+ communities and the challenges of achieving equality and inclusivity
• The role of victim services in promoting healing and well-being for crime victims
• The effectiveness of drug testing and monitoring programs in promoting rehabilitation and reducing recidivism
• The prevalence and impact of prison gangs and the challenges of managing them
• The role of implicit bias in eyewitness identification and the implications for justice
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for offenders with substance abuse issues
• The impact of social media on crime reporting and law enforcement
• The role of mental health diversion programs in reducing mass incarceration and promoting treatment
• The prevalence and impact of wrongful convictions of innocent people and the challenges of exoneration
• The relationship between immigration and crime rates
• The impact of drug courts on drug-related offenses and recidivism rates
• The use of restorative justice practices in the criminal justice system
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for people released from prison
• The use of polygraph tests in criminal investigations and court proceedings
• The impact of bail amounts on pretrial detention and case outcomes
• The relationship between gun ownership and crime rates
• The effectiveness of mental health screening and assessment for individuals involved in the criminal justice system
• The use of virtual courtrooms in criminal proceedings
• The impact of juvenile detention on mental health and future criminal behavior
• The relationship between poverty and crime rates
• The use of eyewitness identification procedures in criminal investigations and court proceedings
• The effectiveness of community service programs as a sentencing alternative
• The role of racial profiling in law enforcement practices
• The use of risk assessment tools in sentencing and parole decisions
• The impact of mandatory reporting laws on child abuse and neglect cases
• The relationship between parental incarceration and children’s wellbeing
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for drug-related offenses
• The use of cognitive-behavioral therapy in offender rehabilitation programs
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health and recidivism rates
• The relationship between social capital and crime rates
• The use of DNA evidence in criminal investigations and court proceedings
• The effectiveness of crisis response teams in reducing police use of force incidents
• The role of race and ethnicity in jury selection and decision-making
• The impact of court fines and fees on individuals involved in the criminal justice system
• The relationship between education and crime rates
• The use of risk assessment tools in domestic violence cases
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for individuals with substance use disorders
• The impact of court-appointed attorneys on case outcomes and access to justice
• The role of victim impact statements in sentencing decisions
• The use of mental health courts for individuals with co-occurring disorders
• The effectiveness of court-mandated treatment programs for drug offenders
• The impact of gender on the sentencing and treatment of offenders
• The relationship between drug policy and crime rates
• The use of forensic psychology in criminal investigations and court proceedings
• The effectiveness of cognitive interviewing techniques in witness testimony
• The impact of the media on public perceptions of the criminal justice system
• The relationship between neighborhood characteristics and crime rates
• The use of body-worn cameras in police-community interactions
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentences on sentencing disparities
• The role of mental health providers in prisons and jails
• The use of civil asset forfeiture in law enforcement practices
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for individuals with mental illness involved in the criminal justice system
• The impact of police militarization on community trust and police accountability
• The relationship between unemployment and crime rates
• The use of artificial intelligence in identifying and preventing human trafficking
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for individuals with traumatic brain injuries
• The impact of community-based alternatives to policing on public safety and crime rates.
• The impact of the militarization of police on community relations
• The effectiveness of restorative justice practices in reducing recidivism
• The relationship between socioeconomic status and juvenile delinquency
• The impact of police department culture on officer behavior
• The role of community courts in addressing low-level offenses
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for people who were formerly incarcerated
• The impact of body-worn cameras on police officer behavior and community perceptions
• The relationship between mental illness and police use of force
• The use of neuroscience in criminal sentencing
• The effectiveness of gun control policies in reducing gun violence
• The role of alternative dispute resolution in the criminal justice system
• The use of biometrics in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of gang prevention and intervention programs
• The impact of domestic violence on employment and economic stability
• The use of artificial intelligence in criminal investigations and sentencing
• The role of implicit bias in eyewitness identification
• The use of drug courts in addressing drug addiction and drug-related crimes
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for juvenile offenders
• The impact of social media on crime and victimization
• The relationship between mental health and incarceration of women
• The use of surveillance technologies in correctional facilities
• The effectiveness of victim-offender mediation programs
• The impact of prosecutorial discretion on plea bargaining outcomes
• The role of mental health assessments in competency to stand trial determinations
• The use of biographical information in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for people with mental illness
• The impact of police body language on community perceptions
• The relationship between criminal justice policies and racial disparities in healthcare
• The use of geospatial analysis in predicting crime patterns
• The effectiveness of community service programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of court fines and fees on people with low incomes
• The role of neuroscience in detecting deception
• The use of technology in victim advocacy and support services
• The effectiveness of juvenile justice diversion programs for LGBTQ+ youth
• The impact of parental incarceration on children and families
• The relationship between race and juvenile justice system involvement
• The use of facial recognition technology in correctional facilities
• The effectiveness of community-based mental health services in reducing incarceration rates
• The impact of prison labor on employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated people
• The role of community-based restorative justice in addressing hate crimes
• The use of predictive analytics in child welfare investigations
• The effectiveness of alternative sentencing programs for drug-related offenses
• The impact of immigration enforcement policies on crime reporting in immigrant communities
• The relationship between implicit bias and jury decision-making
• The use of technology in improving language access in the criminal justice system.
• The impact of police body language on citizen perceptions and trust
• The effectiveness of police academy training on officer decision-making in high-pressure situations
• The role of technology in the spread of human trafficking
• The relationship between mental health and probation and parole revocation rates
• The use of community courts in addressing quality of life offenses
• The effectiveness of prisoner reentry programs on family reunification and support systems
• The impact of public defender caseloads on the quality of legal representation
• The role of implicit bias in jury selection and decision-making
• The use of diversion programs for juveniles involved in prostitution
• The effectiveness of community supervision programs for offenders with serious mental illness
• The impact of immigration enforcement policies on the criminal justice system
• The relationship between recidivism rates and prison education and vocational programs
• The use of body-worn cameras in prison settings
• The effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution in reducing court congestion
• The impact of prison labor on reentry and recidivism rates
• The role of risk assessment tools in parole and probation decision-making
• The effectiveness of drug courts in addressing substance abuse and recidivism
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health and behavior in prison
• The relationship between domestic violence and firearm possession
• The use of mental health diversion programs for veterans involved in the criminal justice system
• The effectiveness of juvenile drug court programs on reducing recidivism
• The impact of private prisons on inmate rehabilitation and public safety
• The role of implicit bias in pretrial detention decisions
• The use of GPS monitoring in pretrial release and probation supervision
• The effectiveness of offender education and job training programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of collateral consequences on reentry and recidivism rates
• The use of crisis intervention teams in responding to mental health emergencies
• The effectiveness of community-based alternatives to detention for juveniles
• The role of public opinion in shaping criminal justice policy
• The effectiveness of police body-worn cameras in reducing police misconduct and excessive use of force
• The impact of incarceration on family dynamics and relationships
• The relationship between access to legal representation and case outcomes
• The use of community supervision and support programs for individuals with substance use disorders
• The impact of pretrial detention on case outcomes and recidivism rates
• The role of prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining and sentencing
• The use of facial recognition technology in criminal investigations and surveillance
• The effectiveness of problem-solving courts in addressing specialized criminal cases
• The impact of prison privatization on inmate rights and access to services
• The relationship between race, gender, and criminal justice outcomes
• The use of mental health courts in diversion programs
• The effectiveness of community policing strategies in building trust and reducing crime rates
• The impact of police militarization on community perceptions and police-citizen interactions
• The role of forensic evidence in criminal investigations and court proceedings
• The use of artificial intelligence in predicting criminal behavior and recidivism.
• The use of restorative justice in the criminal justice system
• The impact of police militarization on community policing efforts
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for individuals with substance use disorders
• The relationship between economic inequality and crime rates
• The use of artificial intelligence in pretrial risk assessment
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentences on non-violent drug offenses
• The impact of the War on Drugs on communities of color
• The relationship between mental health and probation violations
• The effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism rates
• The role of eyewitness testimony in wrongful convictions
• The use of facial recognition technology in criminal investigations and prosecutions
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for juvenile offenders
• The impact of probation and parole supervision on recidivism rates
• The relationship between police use of force and mental health disorders
• The use of predictive analytics in criminal sentencing
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for individuals with mental illness
• The impact of bail systems on low-income individuals and communities
• The role of implicit bias in sentencing decisions
• The use of social media in criminal investigations
• The impact of mandatory sentencing on judicial discretion
• The relationship between drug addiction and property crime
• The use of predictive analytics in risk assessment for pretrial release
• The effectiveness of substance abuse treatment programs in correctional facilities
• The impact of police body-worn cameras on police-citizen interactions
• The role of forensic evidence in wrongful convictions
• The use of drones in border patrol and immigration enforcement
• The effectiveness of community supervision programs for individuals with mental illness
• The impact of mandatory sentencing on the prison population and corrections costs
• The relationship between gang activity and violent crime
• The use of artificial intelligence in criminal investigations and evidence collection
• The effectiveness of juvenile diversion programs for first-time offenders
• The impact of prosecutorial misconduct on wrongful convictions
• The role of implicit bias in police use of force incidents
• The use of risk assessment tools in pretrial detention decisions for juvenile defendants
• The effectiveness of prison education programs in reducing recidivism rates
• The impact of racial profiling on policing practices and community trust
• The relationship between homelessness and criminal behavior
• The use of predictive analytics in identifying and preventing cybercrime
• The effectiveness of mental health treatment programs for incarcerated individuals
• The impact of the school-to-prison pipeline on students of color
• The role of community-based programs in reducing crime rates and recidivism
• The use of neuroscience in criminal investigations and sentencing decisions
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for individuals with co-occurring disorders
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health and recidivism rates.
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for offenders with substance use disorders
• The impact of judicial discretion on sentencing outcomes
• The relationship between access to legal representation and sentencing disparities
• The use of body-worn cameras in reducing police misconduct and brutality
• The impact of bail practices on pretrial detention and racial disparities
• The relationship between police unions and police accountability
• The effectiveness of community supervision in reducing recidivism
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health outcomes for inmates
• The relationship between criminal justice policies and racial wealth inequality
• The use of risk assessment tools in sentencing decisions
• The effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences in reducing crime rates
• The impact of victim impact statements on sentencing outcomes
• The relationship between criminal justice policies and environmental justice
• The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) in law enforcement
• The effectiveness of juvenile justice diversion programs for at-risk youth
• The impact of police militarization on community relations
• The relationship between immigration enforcement and public safety
• The use of artificial intelligence in predicting recidivism risk
• The effectiveness of police training on de-escalation tactics
• The relationship between the criminal justice system and income inequality
• The use of geographic profiling in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing incarceration rates
• The impact of mandatory arrest policies on domestic violence victims
• The relationship between criminal justice policies and public health outcomes
• The use of body-worn cameras in reducing false accusations against police officers
• The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy in reducing domestic violence recidivism
• The impact of race and ethnicity on police use of force during traffic stops
• The use of predictive analytics in parole and probation revocation decisions
• The effectiveness of offender treatment programs for intimate partner violence offenders
• The impact of prison education programs on post-release employment and recidivism
• The relationship between prison labor and modern-day slavery
• The use of predictive modeling to prevent child abuse and neglect
• The effectiveness of community courts in reducing recidivism rates
• The impact of community-based organizations on crime prevention
• The relationship between mental health and substance use disorders in the criminal justice system
• The use of mobile forensic technology in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of gender-responsive programming in reducing female recidivism rates
• The impact of anti-immigrant sentiment on policing in immigrant communities
• The relationship between police legitimacy and public trust
• The use of data analytics in law enforcement resource allocation
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for people with disabilities
• The impact of police misconduct on wrongful convictions
• The relationship between restorative justice and school discipline
• The use of location tracking technology in the criminal justice system
• The effectiveness of anti-bias training for law enforcement officers
• The impact of drug decriminalization on public safety and health.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

200+ Funny Research Topics

500+ Sports Research Topics

300+ American History Research Paper Topics

500+ Cyber Security Research Topics

500+ Environmental Research Topics

500+ Economics Research Topics

Research Paper

Category: criminal justice research paper examples.

Criminal justice is the delivery of justice to those who have committed crimes. The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions whose goals are to identify and catch unlawful individuals to inflict a form of punishment on them. Other goals include the rehabilitation of offenders, preventing other crimes, and moral support for victims. The primary institutions of the criminal justice system are the police, prosecution and defense lawyers, the courts and prisons.

The sample research papers on criminal justice topics have been designed to serve as model papers for most criminological topics. These papers were written by several well-known discipline figures and emerging younger scholars who provide authoritative overviews coupled with insightful discussion that will quickly familiarize researchers and students alike with fundamental and detailed information for each criminal justice topic.

Browse criminal justice research paper examples below. Also be sure to check our list of Criminal Justice Research Paper Topics .

Is Football Transfer Betting a Gamble Worth Taking?

AI-Powered Live Casino Games: The Future of Personalized Gaming Experiences at live online casinos in Australia

Dosage Guidelines for White Maeng Da Kratom: Finding Your Optimal Amount

Decoding the Legal Landscape: Understanding Hawaii’s Sports Betting Regulations

• Biker Gangs
• Canadian Mafia
• Chinese Gangs
• Competitions
• Crescent City Corner
• Crime Family News
• Dial M for Mob
• Did You Know
• Early Days of Los Angeles
• Family Structure
• Featured Posts
• Gangland Wire
• Infographics
• Interactive Games
• Ladies of the Life
• Mafia News Roundup
• Mini-Series
• Mob Stories
• Mobster News
• The Boston Irish Mafia
• The Cradle of Cosa Nostra
• The Good The Bad and the Really Bad
• The Shakedown
• The Sicilian Mafia
• Through Their Eyes Thursday
• Tony T's Trivia

Top 25 Criminal Justice Research Topics to Write Papers About

Criminal justice is a popular education discipline. It is a complicated subject that needs lots of research work. Criminal justice education includes research projects on different topics. If you feel sure that you have enough time before the deadline, do the research yourself.

Yet, there are cases when you don’t have enough writing skills to create a research project. You may address someone from an online research paper writing service to prepare a custom academic paper for you professionally. You may order whatever research project topic you need. But what are the most popular topics of criminal justice research? Let’s see the top list.

The List of Criminal Justice Research Paper Writing Topics

• Criminology related to social sciences

Criminology is connected to different subjects. It makes investigations with the help of psychology, sociology, and law. Criminology is a discipline that uses many extra sciences.

• Age connection with the crime

Age is closely related to criminology justice. It is one of the most popular research topics. People of a certain age tend to commit a crime.

• The relationship between criminology and biology

Criminology uses biological and chemical tests to define the crime. Biology also helps understand the criminal’s behavior. So, it lets criminalists figure out the motive of a crime.

• Criminology analysis methods

The methods include the analysis of journals, books, or TV programs. It is a research method to analyze and systematize the crime data.

• Campus crime

There are cases when a crime is committed on campus. The research topic investigates to what extent crime affects students on the campus.

• Public policy

It is important to note that criminal justice is closely related to public policy. Laws control the court and criminology. Public rules of behavior define the punishment for a crime.

People commit a lot of crimes because of their aggression. Aggression may result from mental diseases or be a character trait. It may also be the result of emotional condition or being tired. It is a great catalyst for crimes.

• Classical criminology

The research topic is criminology of the past years. Its main point is that people’s choices always have reasons. It depends on the economic situation and individual opportunities.

• Classification of crimes

Classification is part of scientific criminology. There are three classification systems. The research includes measurements and analyzing crime data. It is important to get more information and analyze its amount and value.

• Child abuse

Child abuse topic is widespread in today’s world. It is a great part of criminology research. When writing a research paper, you should describe a child abuse case. Then you analyze the circumstances and the individuals’ behavior. You write about the reasons for the behavior and how to prevent such cases in the future.

• Crime prevention

Such research includes analyzing the community behavior and crime rate. Then you should suggest measures to prevent crime. This includes social work with the population.

• Criminology history

Crimes now result from the past historical conditions of society. So, it is important to describe and analyze past crime events.

• The relationship of criminology and politics

Politics also highly impact the crime rate. A lot of crimes are committed because of political viewpoints. It was a widespread issue in the past. The government imprisoned a lot of people because of their political actions.

• Criminology and prisoners

This topic concerns the convicted people and the imprisonment conditions. It investigates the number of prisons and the procedure of imprisonment. It is also about a criminal’s behavior when getting into prison.

• Crime mapping

It is a part of criminology that makes research on the location of a crime. The crime mapping analyzes the reasons why crime is more spread in one or another region.

• Cybersecurity

With the development of modern technologies, crime may be committed through the Internet. There are a lot of areas for criminals to start. Cybercrimes are a separate branch of criminology. You may choose one area and do research on it.

• Strategies of crime prevention

The research topic concerns the wide strategies of the government. Crime prevention has three categories depending on the type of analysis.

• The relationship between crime and education

The criminal behavior may be related to education. The research analyzes what education directions are most likely to cause criminal behavior. Educated people may have more opportunities to create a crime. This especially concerns law or medicine students.

• Theories of criminal justice

It is also a scientific branch of criminology. There are a lot of theories of criminology. You may choose one of them and prove if it is correct or not.

• Crime statistics

Statistics gather crime data. It helps find out who is at risk of becoming a criminal and how to prevent the incident.

• Home violence

Violence at home is related to child abuse. Yet, violence may present itself against a woman or older members of a family.

Courts have a very complicated system. The research may concern the laws on courts and the court procedure.

• Crimes at work

There is a lot of fraud at the workplace. It also concerns discrimination during employment.

• Critical criminology

This part of criminology is used to criticize the new theories and improve them.

• Court statistics

This is a branch of court criminology that studies the data on court procedures.

Choose the topic you know the best and start writing your research project.

• Recent Posts

• Is Football Transfer Betting a Gamble Worth Taking? - March 25, 2024
• AI-Powered Live Casino Games: The Future of Personalized Gaming Experiences at live online casinos in Australia - March 25, 2024
• Dosage Guidelines for White Maeng Da Kratom: Finding Your Optimal Amount - March 21, 2024

The Past and Present of Las Vegas

How the casino mob live on through slots and table games, you might also like.

The Cars of the Most Famous Gang Leaders and Mafia Bosses

The Most Common Weapons of the Mafia

Jack ‘Legs’ Diamond: Was He The REAL Teflon Don?

Connect with us.

Criminal Justice Research Paper

This sample criminal justice research paper features: 7200 words (approx. 24 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 27 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Introduction

Overview of the criminal justice process, the investigatory process, the adjudicatory stage, the criminal trial, plea bargaining, racial aspects of the criminal justice process, the relationship between substance and procedure.

• Bibliography

The criminal justice process consists of the steps taken by public officials to administer criminal punishment. Criminal justice experts distinguish between the investigative and adjudicative phases of the procedure. Before an investigation can begin, cases must be brought to the notice of officials; however, the boundaries between the two stages are sometimes unclear, and the same individuals may be involved in both investigation and adjudication. Despite these significant caveats, the label of investigative/adjudicative remains highly helpful.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code, more criminal justice research papers.

• Capital Punishment Research Paper
• Community Policing Research Paper
• Corporal Punishment Research Paper
• Criminal Investigation Research Paper
• Criminal Justice System Research Paper
• Plea Bargaining Research Paper
• Prostitution Research Paper
• Restorative Justice Research Paper
• Youth Gangs Research Paper

In general, the investigation stage is an inquisitorial procedure administered by police, whereas the adjudicatory stage is an adversarial process administered by judges and attorneys. Occasionally, prosecutors take the lead in the investigation, and occasionally, the police investigation continues even after the adversarial adjudication process has commenced. The contrast between police investigations done prior to a suspect being formally charged with an offense in court and the adjudication of those charges provides a sound overview of the criminal justice system, despite the occasional inaccuracy of this sweeping definition.

Although the term inquisitorial has certain negative connotations in Anglo-American legal culture, it refers only to the absence of named defendants in this instance. Obviously, there can be no adversary procedures without a defendant. During the earliest stages of an inquiry, when authorities may be uncertain as to whether a crime has been committed or the identity of the culprit, it is equally evident that no adversarial criminal justice procedure can exist. Many long-standing criminal justice problems, such as those regarding police interrogation and eyewitness identification hearings, include arguments on when the inquiry should end and the adjudicatory process should begin.

An essential distinction between investigative and adjudicative processes must be made at the outset. Obviously, it is conceivable to delegate judicial authority to the police by combining the investigation and trial. In such a system, the police, whether officially or clandestinely, have the authority to employ violence such as arrest and search in order to bring about a fair trial. In addition, they have the authority to punish alleged criminals without judicial authorization. Such systems, to which the term “police state” is aptly applied, have existed in numerous locations and eras. Even in cultures with a strong political commitment to due process, police occasionally penalize people without a trial. Consequently, the distinction between inquiry, which for practical reasons must be assigned to a paramilitary executive agency, and adjudication, which is made more rather than less important by the existence of a paramilitary police force, is not arbitrary. It is the best institutional system that humans have devised so far for defending themselves from private crime without submitting to arbitrary state authority.

Criminal justice is not the only recognized method of coercive social control. After a civil, as opposed to a criminal, hearing, individuals who are mentally ill and a threat to themselves or others may be committed to institutions indefinitely. The state may seize contraband and the fruits or instruments of crime, such as an airplane used to carry drugs, in both civil and criminal forfeiture actions. When permitted by statute or judicial judgment, the government, like private individuals, may file a civil case seeking punitive damages. The criminal justice system is the most comprehensive and famous form of coercive social control, but it is by no means the only one.

The criminal justice system in the United States is extremely variable. Federal practice differs from state practice, and state practice differs from state practice. Different police departments employ distinct investigative methods, and different court systems follow distinct protocols. Following will be an abundance of words such as “typically,” “commonly,” and “generally.” It would be impossible to make a statement about the American criminal justice system that could not be qualified by an exception. Despite this, the following description may be informative, given that real people only go to jail in exceptional circumstances defined by the laws of a single jurisdiction, which may deviate from the norm in a number of significant ways.

Typically, an investigation into a crime contains three components. First, public officials, typically the police, must become aware that a crime has been or will be committed. Second, law enforcement officials must identify the suspect or suspects. Finally, they must collect and maintain evidence that the courts will accept as establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the suspect’s guilt.

There are two fundamental ways for law enforcement to learn about criminal activity. Officers may personally observe the crime or its evidence, or they may receive a report or complaint from a third party. Surprisingly many crimes are found by police by direct observation, despite the fact that it may appear that this occurs quite infrequently. Police on patrol may see suspicious behavior, such as a vehicle circling slowly in an after-hours commercial area with a license plate belonging to a recently reported stolen vehicle. In addition, a large number of crimes, including prostitution, illicit firearms, and drug offenses, do not involve anyone willing to file a police report. Despite the fact that these cases frequently involve cooperating informants, effective investigation rely heavily on undercover police personnel.

Citizen reports are another important source of crime information. Not all crimes are reported to the police, and not all recorded crimes actually occurred or occurred as the initial informant indicated. Rarely are false reports motivated by retaliation or insurance fraud. The failure to report crimes is significantly more common.

There are a lot of reasons why crime victims and witnesses may not come forward. They may view the likelihood of apprehending the criminal as insufficient to warrant their time in reporting and testifying. They may fear retribution from the perpetrator or those acting on his behalf. They may be related to the criminal or on friendly or intimate terms with him. When researchers estimate the crime rate by surveying sample populations and asking how often the respondents have been victimized (victimization surveys), the rate of actual crime appears to be significantly higher than the rate of reported crime. There is consensus that homicide and auto theft are the most often reported crimes. Additionally, it is well acknowledged that sexual assault and domestic violence are underreported.

Once the police have decided that a crime has been committed, they must identify the criminal (or perpetrators). They must also collect court-admissible evidence of guilt. Although these two procedures are closely linked, they are not identical, as some of the evidence police frequently utilize to identify the likely perpetrator is inadmissible in court. For instance, police investigations frequently rely significantly on the statements of informants based on what they have heard rather than what they have personally observed. Even if the informant were willing to testify (which is frequently not the case), the hearsay rule would preclude the informant from testifying about what he or she has overheard others say about the crime. The criminal history of individuals previously arrested or convicted for acts similar to the one under investigation is another crucial example. The police often consider the records of potential suspects, although character-evidence standards normally prohibit courts from admitting such evidence.

Even when the evidence at hand is admissible in court, the authorities must consider its probative value when picking potential suspects. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable and may provide police with wholly wrong descriptions of the perpetrator. Rarely, people may confess to crimes they did not commit. Far more frequently, people assign crimes in which they participated to others who were not involved or who were involved to a lesser extent. False alibi and other similar excuses can be used by witnesses to protect the guilty. Physical evidence is not susceptible to fraud, but it may be misleading in other ways, such as when illegal substances are discovered in a vehicle with multiple passengers who accuse each other of sole possession.

Faced with these obstacles and under severe time and budget constraints, the police must pick prospective suspects. Due to the fact that police departments frequently evaluate the performance of their officers based on the clearance rate (the proportion of reported crimes that result in an arrest), the police may have an incentive to focus on the most likely suspect, regardless of how unlikely his guilt is in comparison to that of unknown persons. On the other hand, the police may have very strong suspicions about the suspect’s identity, yet be unable to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with acceptable evidence.

The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Constitution to govern certain aspects of police investigations. The police may not detain people on the street for investigation without objective evidence of criminal activity; they may not search homes without a judicial warrant based on probable cause; they may search vehicles based on a determination of probable cause, without first obtaining a judicial warrant; and they may not arrest an individual without probable cause to believe the individual has committed an offense. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.

Almost entirely, these prohibitions are implemented through the rejection of evidence gathered in violation of the applicable constitutional requirements. Police that are more concerned with seizing a drug shipment than prosecuting the courier may have less incentive to acquire a warrant before searching for the contraband. As long as their testimony is likely to be accepted in court, police who are willing to lie about how they collected evidence have no motivation to comply with the regulations.

Thus, the police investigation follows a dialectical or give-and-take process, in which investigators create a hypothesis regarding the identity of the perpetrator and collect evidence tending to substantiate that hypothesis until fresh information emerges exonerating the suspect. Without a knowledge of the prospective criminals’ identity, there would be no way to discriminate between proof and entirely irrelevant data. The police do not have the means to begin each inquiry by determining the alibi of every person in the city. However, the selection of suspects affects the collected evidence; if the police focus on Smith as the perpetrator, Jones will not be required to stand in a lineup.

“Realistic” fiction of the police-procedural sort, whether in print or on screen, captures the essence of this procedure reasonably well. However, police fiction dramatically exaggerates the epistemic authority of the investigative procedure. The fictitious police never miss a suspect. In reality, only approximately 20% of all reported offenses are cleared by arrest.

Observers have always known that not all arrested individuals are guilty, but DNA testing has revealed that the investigation process is more susceptible to false positives than previously supposed. A quarter of conclusive DNA tests conducted at the request of the police nationwide exonerate the criminal. In circumstances when tangible evidence permits testing, this is excellent news for the innocent (and bad news for the guilty). In the vast majority of situations where physical evidence does not permit scientific verification of identity, however, police investigations frequently identify the wrong person as the perpetrator. This is not an encouraging trend.

In a society where the vast majority of crimes go unreported and only around one-fifth of reported crimes result in an arrest, it is evident that law enforcement officers must make difficult decisions regarding the allocation of their limited resources. Neighborhoods must be assigned patrol officers. Certain types of crimes must be assigned detectives and undercover agents. Should undercover detectives focus on drug laws or prostitution laws? How strongly should police patrol efforts be concentrated in a high-crime area? Residents (usually impoverished and frequently disproportionately racial minorities) may be denied police protection unjustly if there are insufficient police officers. There may be either the perception or the actuality of discriminating overenforcement if there are too many police officers.

The model of a police-dominated inquiry followed by judicial adjudication must be changed to incorporate instances in which prosecutors lead the investigation. Typically, prosecutorial investigations involve “white collar” crimes of an economic or political character, or organized crimes involving narcotics, gambling, and loan sharking. Prior to pressing charges, prosecutors in white-collar cases typically conduct witness interviews and take sworn testimony before an investigative grand jury. In the case involving organized crime, prosecutors must collaborate closely with the police or federal agents. The prosecutors assist the cops’ petitions for warrants for electronic surveillance and negotiate immunity for informants, while the officers recruit or plant informants and carry out the arrests and searches.

In the United States, the adjudicatory procedure differs substantially from one jurisdiction to another, although being generally comparable across the country. The majority of instances begin with an arrest by the police. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution necessitates a timely finding of reasonable cause to believe an individual has committed a crime. If the judicial judgment of probable cause was not made prior to the arrest by the issuing of a warrant or the return of an indictment by a grand jury, the arrested individual must be taken before a judicial official for a determination of probable cause. The Court has recognized a presumption that imprisonment without judicial authorisation that exceeds forty-eight hours is unlawful, notwithstanding the fact that the time period preceding this initial appearance is not precisely defined.

The hearing on probable cause need not be more complex than the procedure for issuing an arrest warrant. No official charge is required at this time, and the Supreme Court has determined that the right to counsel does not emerge until a formal charge is lodged, whether by indictment, information, or complaint. Despite this, it is normal practice to perform multiple functions at the initial court appearance if the court deems that probable cause exists. It is possible to set bail or other terms of pretrial release, to appoint counsel for the destitute, and to set a date for further proceedings.

The time between arrest and court appearance affords the police the opportunity to question the defendant in accordance with the Miranda rights. Once the suspect is represented by counsel, it is extremely improbable that he will provide information, and any questioning by the police after the defendant’s right to counsel has attached is unlawful. The Miranda right to counsel is drawn from the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, not the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at trial. If the adjudicatory process were understood to begin at the time of arrest, there would be no period of time during which the suspect’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel at trial was unprotected. In Miranda, the Supreme Court accepted the idea that counsel may be waived without an appearance in court or consultation with counsel for interrogation purposes, but has never indicated that such a waiver would be acceptable at trial.

After the arrest and judicial determination of probable cause, the prosecutor choose a charge as the next stage in the procedure. Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion in choosing charges. Consider a suspect who shot a gun at another man as an example. As the suspect was acting in self-defense, this might be deemed a non-criminal act (or because the prosecutor concludes that although the defendant was not acting in self-defense a jury might conclude otherwise). On the opposite end of the spectrum, the case could be charged with attempted murder or serious assault. It could be charged as illegal possession or discharge of a firearm or as a simple assault. The prosecutor may, but is not required to, add a charge under a recidivism statute such as the three strikes laws if the subject has prior convictions. Consequently, prosecutors have the power to expose the defendant to a spectrum of culpability ranging from zero to a large number of years.

In a considerable majority of cases, prosecutors decline to continue. In some instances, the police never anticipated a prosecution and made the arrest merely for immediate purposes of social control. For instance, the police may arrest one or both of the intoxicated individuals involved in a quarrel in order to avoid additional violence or to prevent one of the intoxicated individuals from passing out outside on a chilly night. In other instances, the police may hope for a conviction, but the prosecutor may determine that the evidence is insufficient to convince a jury.

Frequently, the prosecutor will agree to withdraw criminal charges if the defendant agrees to participate in an alternative program designed to avoid a repeat offense. The prosecution may agree to dismiss the criminal charge against a defendant charged with a drug-related or drug-induced offense if the suspect enters a drug treatment program. These so-called diversion agreements are fairly prevalent, and there is a wide array of programs to which individuals may be diverted from the criminal justice system.

Juveniles constitute a significant proportion of the arrested population. Statutorily, all U.S. jurisdictions have dedicated juvenile courts that handle both delinquency cases and activity that is legal for adults but prohibited for minors, such as drinking alcohol (status offenses). Frequently, the juvenile court has authority over child welfare proceedings as well. Generally, the applicable statutes allow adolescents suspected of committing significant offences to be transferred to the adult criminal justice system and tried as adults.

The juvenile court system contains the majority of the same steps (investigation, accusation, presentment, bail, accusation, discovery, plea bargaining, motions, trial, etc.) as the adult court system. The Supreme Court has not yet mandated that juvenile cases be tried by a jury, but the subject may be considered open for discussion in the future.

In jurisdictions that do not require indictment by a grand jury, the prosecutor may unilaterally file an information accusing the defendant of the crime or crimes pursued. Approximately half of states and the federal government require criminal cases to be indicted by a grand jury. Whether the accusation is presented in the form of an indictment or an information, its fundamental function is to enable the defendant to prepare a defense for the upcoming trial.

Typically, the grand jury is comprised of twenty-three persons who assess the prosecutor’s cases. In practice, grand juries rarely reject a prosecutor’s request for an indictment, despite having the ability to do so.

If an indictment is filed prior to the arrest, the procedure will alter slightly. The defendant will either be arrested or will turn himself in to face the charges. The procedure will then continue in the same manner as in instances that begin with an arrest, with the essential exception that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches even before an arrest. In the absence of a legitimate waiver of the right to counsel, the attendance of defense counsel is required at so-called key phases of the procedure. Interrogation, lineups, and court appearances are crucial phases. Not included are picture identification sessions, interviews with witnesses other than the defendant, or the collection or testing of physical evidence.

After the prosecutor choose a charge and files it in court, whether by indictment, information, or complaint, the next step is an arraignment at which the defendant appears to hear the charges and enter a plea. Before entering a plea, if the defendant has not yet retained or been appointed counsel, counsel must be appointed, retained, or waived in open court. Similarly, if bail has not been previously established or denied, a decision about pretrial release will be made at this time.

If the defendant and the prosecution are unable to reach a plea agreement and the matter proceeds to trial, there will normally be a discovery phase, a chance to file pretrial motions, a preliminary hearing, and a trial. The discovery procedure has expanded, but it still falls well short of what is authorized in civil cases. Fears that criminal defendants are more prone than civil litigants to harass or intimidate witnesses and the notion that the defendant’s choice not to testify unfairly transforms criminal discovery into a one-way street are the primary reasons for the disparity.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), is the case that established the Supreme Court’s Brady doctrine, which mandates the prosecution to provide the defense with any significant exculpatory evidence upon timely request. Typically, court rules compel both parties to reveal the names and addresses of the witnesses they want to call, allowing the opposing party to examine them prior to trial. In many countries, the defense is required to provide early notice of its plan to assert specific defenses, such as insanity, alibi, entrapment, or consent.

According to the adversarial system’s theory, justice is most likely to result from a contest in which each party prepares its own case. In practice, restricted resources weaken the validity of the idea. Most criminal defendants are represented by lawyers provided by the government. There is broad consensus that the monies available for indigent defense do not empower defense lawyers to conduct independent investigations in every instance. Caseload pressures, typically in the hundreds of felony files per attorney per year, necessitate that defense counsel select only a few cases for trial while negotiating the most favorable feasible plea arrangement for the others.

Pretrial motions may be filed for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) suppression of otherwise admissible evidence obtained improperly; (2) change of venue; (3) admission or exclusion of evidence; (4) compelling discovery withheld by the other side; (5) determining competence to stand trial; and (6) court appointment of expert witnesses for an indigent defendant. The court decides motions without a jury. If a finding on a motion hinges on contested facts, the court will conduct a hearing to determine the facts. Generally, pre-trial judgements are not appealable by the defense until after a conviction, but they are frequently appealable by the prosecution, as otherwise the double-jeopardy principle would bar a retrial even if the government lost the trial due to an erroneous ruling on a motion.

Similar to verdicts on motions, the court conducts the preliminary hearing without a jury. In theory, the preliminary hearing is intended to serve as both the ultimate test of probable cause for a trial and as a tool for discovery. Actual practice varies a great deal. In other instances, prosecutors present their whole case in order to induce the defense to enter a plea and to preserve the testimony of swaying witnesses. In other instances, the prosecutor may only present the minimum amount of evidence required to proceed to trial for fear of allowing the defense an opportunity for discovery.

If the defendant requests a jury trial, jury selection is the first step in the trial. In a venire, potential jurors will be summoned to court. They will be interrogated by the court, their attorneys, or both. Potential jurors will be excused if they have ties to one side or the other, or if they demonstrate an unwillingness to act impartially. Each side will have a limited number of peremptory challenges, which can be used without explanation. Typically, the defense is permitted more peremptory challenges than the prosecution. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); Georgia v. McCollum, 502 U.S. 1056 (1992); if either party utilizes peremptory challenges to excuse potential jurors in a manner that could be regarded as racially motivated, the trial court must demand a race-neutral explanation of the peremptory challenges.

After the jury has been selected, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney may make an opening statement. The prosecution then opens its case by summoning witnesses to the stand. The defense is permitted to cross-examine their testimony. At the conclusion of the government’s argument, the defense may petition for a directed judgment of acquittal if the government’s evidence was insufficient to enable jurors to determine the elements of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the government has established probable cause, the defense has the opportunity to present its case. The prosecution may not bring the defendant to the stand, and the defendant may decline to testify in his own defense. The jury is likely to believe that a defendant who refuses to testify is concealing something, but if the defendant does speak, his prior convictions can be used to undermine the credibility of his evidence. The prosecution will have the opportunity to call witnesses in a rebuttal case if the defense presents its case.

The court will next teach the jurors on the legal issues in the case, and both parties will have the opportunity to present their closing arguments. There is no consistent pattern regarding whether the instructions follow or precede the arguments of counsel. During the argument phase, the prosecution typically presents the opening argument, the defense the second, and the prosecution the closing argument.

The Supreme Court has affirmed six-member juries rather than twelve-member juries. However, the majority of jurisdictions continue to employ 12-person juries. The Supreme Court has affirmed nonunanimous jury convictions of eleven to one, ten to two, and nine to three, but many jurisdictions continue to need unanimity to convict. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has never recognized an appeal as a constitutional right, all jurisdictions allow at least one appeal for a criminal conviction. Due to the double jeopardy provision, the government cannot appeal acquittals.

Following acquittal for an offense under the laws of a separate sovereign, the double jeopardy clause does not bar a second prosecution. Thus, an acquittal on federal charges does not preclude a subsequent prosecution under state law, and vice versa.

The trial court imposes the punishment upon the criminal upon conviction, whether by plea or after a trial. In many states, the trial judge still has the power to impose any sentence allowable by the statute, ranging from the minimum to the maximum. Typically, a presentence report made by agents of the penitentiary system informs the court’s decision. The prosecution and the defense may both recommend a punishment. Although the court is not compelled by law to accept a prosecutor’s request for a lower sentence, judges are aware that ignoring such recommendations could lessen defendants’ incentives to plead guilty. Purely discretionary sentencing regimes have been criticized for punishing convicts guilty of comparable offenses more or less severely based on arbitrary variables such as the judge’s philosophy.

In 1984, Congress passed legislation establishing the Federal Sentencing Commission and empowering it to issue sentencing guidelines for federal courts. The commission’s recommendations stipulate a suggested sentence based on the gravity of the offense and the defendant’s prior record. Cooperation with the prosecution after the commission of the crime may lessen the suggested sentence, while the use of a weapon during the commission of the felony may enhance it. The sentencing judge is permitted to deviate from the prescribed sentence, but must provide grounds for doing so, and both the prosecution and the defense may appeal any departures. The federal rules have been criticized for being excessively rigorous, particularly by federal district judges.

Many states have adopted nonbinding sentencing guidelines as a compromise between the conventional discretionary system and the more rigid federal standards. The objective of these diverse systems is to eliminate sentence inequalities without pressuring sentencing judges to reach a judgment that may not be appropriate for the particular case.

Many but not all American jurisdictions permit the execution of murderers. The Supreme Court has ruled that systems of capital punishment that provide jurors unfettered power to inflict the death penalty violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. The Supreme Court has also invalidated obligatory death penalty provisions for acts such as murdering a police officer or committing murder while serving a life sentence. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death sentence for adult rape is fundamentally unconstitutional.

Regarding murder, the Supreme Court has maintained statutory frameworks requiring the sentencing jury to discover the presence of statutorily defined aggravating elements and to weigh those factors against any mitigating considerations that may be present in each instance prior to imposing the death penalty. Typical death penalty statutes stipulate a split trial. The topic of punishment will not be considered until the issue of guilt or innocence has been determined. If the jury finds the defendant guilty during the guilt phase, the trial will go to the penalty phase, where both parties may submit evidence that was not shown during the guilt phase.

It is debatable whether the Supreme Court has truly succeeded in minimizing arbitrary decisions on the death penalty. The death sentence cannot be imposed by juries unless requested by prosecutors, and the Supreme Court has not put any restrictions on prosecution discretion to seek the death penalty. In addition, by permitting defendants to bring evidence of any relevant mitigating factor, whether authorized by legislation or not, the Court has essentially tolerated a very broad jury discretion in instances involving the death penalty. Although certain Supreme Court justices have held that the death penalty is inherently cruel and unusual, none of the current justices hold this position as of early 2001.

A convicted criminal who has exhausted all available appeals may still contest the conviction by filing a habeas corpus petition. Habeas corpus is a novel civil proceeding that challenges the legitimacy of incarceration. The defendant in a criminal case becomes the civil plaintiff, while the warden or jailer becomes the civil defendant. In 1996, Congress passed laws codifying and in some ways tightening the constraints acknowledged by the Supreme Court.

Relatively few criminal cases proceed to trial, even fewer are appealed, and even fewer are reviewed collaterally. In a significant majority of cases, prosecutors refuse to file or dismiss charges. The majority of the cases that prosecutors choose to pursue conclude not with a jury trial but with a guilty plea or a successful request to dismiss. Statistics vary by jurisdiction, but it is not uncommon for 50 percent of arrests to result in no charges or charges that are later dismissed, 80 percent of non-dismissed cases to result in guilty pleas, and the remaining cases to be tried. Typically, the government wins a substantial but not overwhelming majority of criminal prosecutions; a 70% conviction rate at trial would not be out of the ordinary.

These numbers demonstrate the prevalence of plea bargaining. The prosecution trades a decrease in the severity of the charges or the length of the suggested punishment in exchange for a waiver of the right to trial and a guilty plea to the reduced charges. Typically, both parties have valid reasons for settlement. In cases with overwhelming evidence of guilt, the prosecution can avoid the expense and duration of a trial by offering the defendant minor concessions. When the evidence is less conclusive, the government can eliminate the possibility of an acquittal by accepting a plea to a lesser charge. Because the substantive criminal law authorizes a wide range of charges and sentences for typical criminal conduct and because the procedural law gives prosecutors broad discretion in selecting charges, the prosecution can almost always provide a substantial incentive for the defense to enter a guilty plea.

A defendant who is certain to be found guilty at trial is likely to accept whatever concessions he can. The greater the government’s willingness to accept concessions, the weaker its case. The trial process typically comes into play when the parties dispute over the probable outcome of a trial. Thus, it is not surprising that a very high percentage of non-dismissed cases result in guilty pleas, although the outcomes of trials are significantly less one-sided. If 90 percent of trials resulted in convictions, more defendants would accept minimal concessions in exchange for a plea. If 90% of trials resulted in acquittals, prosecutors would make better deals or drop a greater number of cases unilaterally.

For at least three reasons, plea bargaining is problematic. First, because substantive criminal law often authorizes harsh punishments (such as the three strikes statutes), the prosecution has the ability to subject defendants to intolerable constraints. Imagine a defendant accused with petty theft who has two prior offenses. The prosecution offers to remove a three-strikes case in exchange for a guilty plea. The defendant must now choose between the possibility of a life sentence if convicted at trial, a very short term or a suspended sentence if he or she enters a guilty plea, or no sentence at all. While the Supreme Court has accepted such pleas as voluntary, they appear to be effectively compelled.

Second, the prosecution is motivated to maximize the advantage of a guilty plea in the weakest cases. The prosecution finds a guilty plea more appealing the more probable an acquittal at trial. Due to workload constraints, prosecutors may dismiss the weakest cases. In a borderline case, however, the prosecution may very easily threaten the most severe penalties against defendants who are very likely innocent.

Thirdly, the majority of criminal offenders are represented by impoverished defense attorneys who lack the means to independently research each case. Prosecutors suffer severe budget constraints as well, but in general, the government can afford to go to trial in a greater number of instances than the defense. In addition, the defense must typically choose which cases to contest based on evidence gathered by the police rather than an independent investigation. Despite these disturbing aspects, plea bargaining remains the fundamental aspect of the adjudication procedure.

The justice system arrests, prosecutes, and punishes African Americans in disproportionate proportions compared to their population representation. Some of the data are quite startling. Typically, there are fewer young black men in a state’s institutions of higher education than in prison, on probation or parole, or awaiting trial for a criminal charge. The ratio of African Americans in jail is almost four times the rate of African Americans in the general population.

The gap is reasonable to the extent that it reflects higher rates of criminal activity among blacks. Males are imprisoned, convicted, and punished disproportionately to their population share, but no one considers this disparity unfair. Since the majority of crime is intraracial, failing to prosecute black criminals will often result in inadequate protection for black victims.

For certain crimes, such as homicide, the rate of African American offenders is significantly higher than that of Caucasians. Blacks are significantly more likely to be arrested and prosecuted than whites, despite evidence from social science indicating that black and white crime rates are comparable, as with marijuana and cocaine use. Such racial discrepancies have questionable causes. Evidently, a situation in which whites were preferentially selected for arrest and prosecution despite comparable crime rates would not be acceptable on a political level.

Additionally, plea bargaining provides a unique viewpoint on the criminal justice system as a whole. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution places considerable restrictions on police investigations and guarantees every defendant a fair trial. However, defendants may forgo police restrictions and the right to a trial, and police and prosecutors have nearly unlimited latitude in picking targets for inquiry and prosecution. The system’s defining characteristics are not due process and equal protection, but rather waiver and discretion.

If defendants were unable to waive their rights, the Constitution would oblige the system to dedicate significantly more resources to the judicial process. If prosecutors lacked the power to drop and add charges, the state would be unable to provide an incentive for defendants to forgo their rights. Because the courts have put broad constitutional constraints on criminal process while leaving the substance of criminal law practically unregulated, discretion and waiver have encouraged politicians to authorize very punitive sentences. Because prosecutors have discretion not to file every charge supported by the evidence, legislators who pass draconian punishments are aware that very few offenders will get the maximums allowed by law. In turn, lengthy possible maximum penalties provide the prosecutor with considerable leverage in plea talks.

In theory, both waiver and discretion are entirely defendable. In practice, they have provided us with not one but two criminal justice procedures. In one system, the accused enjoys the constitutionally guaranteed rights. This system is restricted to individuals who are aware of their legal rights and have the financial means to assert them. As discretion is often not applied to target these individuals, this approach is rarely utilized. The alternative system tolerates pressures that actually compel the majority of suspects to renounce their rights. Typically, defense counsel does not enter the process until after the police have concluded their investigation. Once counsel is present, defense attorneys collaborate with prosecutors to negotiate a suitable plea in a setting where the prosecution mainly dictates the terms of trade. The right to trial is generally utilized by the defense as a bargaining chip against the prosecution’s capacity to unilaterally establish the seriousness of the accusations.

A sincere perspective on the procedure does not necessitate cynicism. If defendants were unable to waive their rights, these rights would soon be drastically reduced. If prosecutors were required to file every case supported by the evidence, lawmakers would be driven to alter the substance of criminal law or pay billions of dollars for prisons. The current system enables society to maintain a robust set of procedural safeguards that could shield sophisticated defendants from politically motivated charges. Waiver reduces to a reasonable minimum the expense of these measures in terms of crime control.

The role of wealth in deciding the type of justice provided to various defendants is definitely worrisome, but it is difficult to see how this role might be abolished so long as individuals have the freedom to use their own money to defend themselves against criminal charges. By increasing the floor below which justice for the poor cannot fall, society could do much more to improve the process and minimize the inequality between the rich and the poor. This would necessitate allocating greater resources, mostly but not exclusively for indigent defense. The political will for such measures has not yet materialized.

Bibliography:

• BEDAU, HUGO ADAM. The Death Penalty in America, 3d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
• COLE, DAVID. No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System. New York: The New Press, 1999.
• CONNORS, EDWARD, et al. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence after Trial. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 1996.
• DAMASˇKA, MIRJAN Evidence Law Adrift. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997.
• EASTERBROOK, FRANK ‘‘Criminal Procedure as a Market System.’’ Journal of Legal Studies 12 (1983): 289.
• FORST, BRIAN, et al. Arrest Convictability as a Measure of Police Performance. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1982.
• FELD, BARRY Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
• FEELEY, MALCOLM. The Process is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1979.
• FRANKEL, MARVIN Criminal Sentence: Law Without Order. New York: Hill and Wang, 1973.
• FRIEDMAN, LAWRENCE Crime and Punishment in American History. New York: Basic Books, 1993.
• GOLDSTEIN, ABRAHAM The Passive Judiciary: Prosecutorial Discretion and the Guilty Plea. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981.
• KALVEN, HARRY. The American Jury, 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
• KAMISAR, YALE. Police Interrogation and Confessions: Essays in Law and Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1980.
• KENNEDY, RANDALL. Race, Crime, and the Law. New York: Pantheon Books, 1997.
• LAFAVE, WAYNE; ISRAEL, JEROLD H.; and KING, NANCY J. Criminal Procedure, 3d ed. St. Paul: West Group, 2000.
• LEWIS, ANTHONY. Gideon’s Trumpet. New York: Random House, 1964.
• LOFTUS, ELIZABETH Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal, 3d ed. Charlottesville, Va.: Lexis Law, 1997.
• NARDULLI, PETER; FLEMMING, ROY B.; and EISENSTEIN, JAMES. The Tenor of Justice: Criminal Courts and the Guilty Plea Process. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988.
• PACKER, HERBERT The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968.
• SIMON, DAVID. Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.
• SKOLNICK, JEROME Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society, 3d ed. New York: Macmillan, 1994.
• STUNTZ, WILLIAM ‘‘Race, Class, and Drugs.’’ Columbia Law Review 98 (1998): 1795.
• TONRY, MICHAEL Malign Neglect: Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
• United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Published annually since 1973.
• WILSON, JAMES The Investigators: Managing FBI and Narcotics Agents. New York: Basic Books, 1978.
• WEINREB, LLOYD Denial of Justice: Criminal Process in the United States. New York: Free Press, 1977.
• WHITEBREAD, CHARLES, and SLOBOGIN, CHRISTOPHER. Criminal Procedure: An Analysis of Cases and Concepts, 4th ed. New York: Foundation Press, 2000.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

UNCOVERING THE TRUTH ABOUT MARIJUANA A LITTLE WEED NEVER HURT ANYONE

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

The debate surrounding marijuana legalization has intensified as individual states challenge federal laws, making research on marijuana’s economic, social, and health impacts even more necessary. This paper reviews literature and survey data to assess the impact of legalization on these fronts. Economic analyses indicate increased tax revenue, job creation, and savings in criminal justice expenditures. However, research on social and public health impacts remains inconclusive due to the unavailability of data. Nevertheless, a survey was distributed to Indiana residents to gain insight into marijuana’s social and public health impacts, revealing that public opinion diverges from scholarly concerns. Survey data indicates that marijuana may be much less harmful than suggested by academics, and more certainly, marijuana use, and pro-legalization attitudes are on the rise. Overall, the evidence suggests that marijuana legalization is inevitable and could bring economic benefits, but future research should focus on addressing the social implications of marijuana legalization.

Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

• Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution License  that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.  
• Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See  The Effect of Open Access ).
• Student authors waive FERPA rights for only the publication of the author submitted works. Specifically: Students of Indiana University East voluntarily agree to submit their own works to The Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East , with full understanding of FERPA rights and in recognition that for this one, specific instance they understand that  The Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East is Public and Open Access. Additionally, the Journal is viewable via the Internet and searchable via Indiana University, Google, and Google-Scholar search engines.

Kora Martin, Indiana University East Student

Kora Martin is from Bloomington, Indiana and is currently working towards completing her Bachelor’s degrees in Psychology and Criminal Justice. After graduation, she plans to pursue a career in behavioral science and research.

Anderson, D.M., & Rees, D. I. (2022). The public health effects of legalizing marijuana. Cato Research Briefs in Economic Policy, 285. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/research- briefs-economic-policy/

Chiu , V., Leung, J., Hall, W., Stjepanović , D., & Degenhardt, L. (2021, Aug. 1). Public health impacts to date of the legalization of medical and recreational cannabis use in the USA. Neuropharmacology, 193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2021.108610

Dills, A., Goffard, S., Miron, J., & Partin, E. (2021). The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations:

Update. Cato Institute. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep30177

Evans, D. G. (2013, Dec. 30). The economic impacts of marijuana legalization. The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. https://www.drugfree.org.au/images/pdf- files/library/Medical_Marijuana/MarijuanaLegalization-DavidEvans.pdf

Felix, A., & Shampine, S. (2022, Oct. 6). Marijuana industry has boosted economic activity in the Tenth Federal Reserve District. KC Fed Economic Bulletin. https://www.kansascityfed.org/Economic%20Bulletin/documents/9157/ EconomicBulletin22FelixShampine1006.pdf

Graham, R. (2014, Oct. 8). Is marijuana good for public health? JSTOR Daily. https://daily. jstor.org/marijuana-and-public-health/

Hasan, K. M. (2023). Cannabis unveiled: An exploration of marijuana’s history, active compounds, effects, benefits, and risks on human health. Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment, 17. https://doi.org/10.1177/11782218231182553

Miron, J. A., & Waldock, K. (2010). The budgetary implications of drug prohibition. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=1710812

Paul, M. S. (2018). The effects of the legalization of recreational marijuana. https://www.cji.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2019/04/the-effects-of-the-legalization-of-recreational- marijuana.pdf

Sellman, D. (2020). Alcohol is more harmful than cannabis. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 133(1520), 8-11. https://assets-global.website-files.com/5e332a62c703f653182faf47/ 5f3f3b3501331c76cd4b8ade_Sellman%20FINAL.pdf

Thorpe, J. W., & Lean, J. (2015). The legalization of marijuana: An analysis into the economic impacts on Colorado’s economy--will future states choose to follow such policies? Semantic Scholar. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Legalisation-of- Marijuana%3A-An-Analysis-into-the-Thorpe-Leanc3b508accc97ddc074c4571a36e a1f043b634c58