Bio: Günther Kaiser is an academic researcher from Max Planck Society. The author has contributed to research in topics: Criminal justice & Restitution. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 59 publications receiving 303 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
01 Jan 1991
10 Jul 2006
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present strategies for reducing recidivism and reducing crime, and assess the evidence for these strategies. But, they do not discuss the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs.
Abstract: Part I. Strategies for Reducing Crime: 1. Strategies for reducing recidivism 2. Assessing the evidence 3. Incapacitation 4. Perspectives on rehabilitation Part II. The Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Programs: 5. Academic education and life skills training 6. Vocational education, correctional industries and employment programs 7. Cognitive behavioral therapy programs Part III. Targeting Specific Types of Offenders: 8. Sex offender treatment 9. Juveniles 10. Domestic violence Part IV. Management and Treatment of Substance Abusers: 11. Drug courts 12. Outpatient and incarceration-based drug treatment Part V. Control, Discipline and Punishment: 13. Correctional boot camps 14. Intensive supervision and electronic monitoring Part VI. Conclusions: 15. What works?
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: The early origins of the carceral state, 1920s-60s, 1970s-1990s, and the power to punish: the political development of capital punishment, 1972 to today as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: 1. The prison and the gallows: the construction of the carceral state in America 2. Law, order, and alternative explanations 3. Unlocking the past: the nationalization and politicization of law and order 4. The carceral state and the welfare state: the comparative politics of victims 5. Not the usual suspects: feminists, women's groups, and the anti-rape movement 6. The battered women's movement and the development of penal policy 7. From rights to revolution: prison activism and penal policy 8. Capital punishment, the courts, and the early origins of the carceral state, 1920s-60s 9. The power to punish: the political development of capital punishment, 1972 to today 10. Conclusion: whither the carceral state.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors make a distinction between gangs, groups, and networks, and identify high-rate offenders and active recruiters to delinquent groups and to specific crimes as a potential target for intervention efforts.
Abstract: Understanding co-offending is central to understanding the etiology of crime and the effects of intervention strategies. The ratio of individual to co-offenders varies among crimes. Solo offending criminal careers are less common than those of exclusively co-offending but the typical criminal career is a mix of offenses committed alone and with others. Co-offending is more characteristic of juvenile than of adult criminality. Distinctions must be made between gangs, groups, and networks. Most delinquent groups are unstable. Desistance from co-offending results from transience, from the maturing of group members, and from the effects of interventions. Accomplice relationships are short lived, and active co-offenders thus tend to have many accomplices. Individuals who are both high-rate offenders and active recruiters to delinquent groups and to specific crimes may play an especially important role in co-offending and offer a potentially important target for intervention efforts. An increased understanding ...
01 Jan 2003
TL;DR: Kathleen Daly as discussed by the authors presented a paper at the Cambridge Seminar on Restorative Justice, Cambridge and Toronto, 2000-01, focusing on the use of restorative justice in criminal justice.
Abstract: Kathleen Daly School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Mt Gravatt Campus Griffith University Queensland 4111 Australia +61 7 3875-5625 (campus office); 3875-5608 (campus fax) 3216-1630 (home office) email@example.com Revised from paper presented to Cambridge Seminar on Restorative Justice, Cambridge and Toronto, 2000-01. To appear in Andrew von Hirsch, Julian Roberts, Anthony E. Bottoms, Kent Roach, and Mara Schiff (eds.)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors review the state of research into the effects of crime on individuals, in respect of personal and household victimisation, and the effects on businesses, and propose a marriage of survey methodology with time measures, possibly using a panel design.
Abstract: In order to create an economic measure of the direct and indirect effects of crime, it is necessary to consider the effects of crime on victims. The article reviews the state of research into the effects of crime on individuals, in respect of personal and household victimisation, and the effects of crime on businesses. General population surveys have concentrated upon the common property offences and minor violence and have tended to ignore the dimension of the course of victimisation over time. Longitudinal studies are rare and have concentrated upon serious violent crime. Because of the element of clinical judgment, much work on PTSD is unsuitable for creating an economic measure of effects over all types of crime. There needs to be a marriage of survey methodology with time measures, possibly using a panel design.