Thank you for reading experimental and quasi experimental designs for research. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have search numerous times for their favorite readings like this experimental and quasi experimental designs for research, but end up in malicious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they cope with some infectious virus inside their laptop.

Experimental And Quasi Experimental Designs For Research

Quasi-experimentation - design and analysis issues for field settings - cook,td, campbell,dt

/pdf/preventing-crime-what-works-what-doesn-t-what-s-promising-1jp2dkc4ik.pdf

Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. Research in Brief. National Institute of Justice.

Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach

Legal authorities gain when they receive deference and cooperation from the public. Considerable evidence suggests that the key factor shaping public behavior is the fairness of the processes legal authorities use when dealing with members of the public. This reaction occurs both during personal experiences with legal authorities and when community residents are making general evaluations of the law and of legal authorities. The strength and breadth of this influence suggests the value of an approach to regulation based upon sensitivity to public concerns about fairness in the exercise of legal authority. Such an approach leads to a number of suggestions about valuable police practices, as well as helping explain why improvements in the objective performance of the police and courts have not led to higher levels of public trust and confidence in those institutions.

Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law

1. The Victim in Criminal Justice 2. Victims of Crime and the Victim Movement 3. The Theory and Practice of Restorative Justice 4. The Reintegrative Shaming Experiments: Research Design and Methodology 5. The Lived Experience of Victims: How Restorative Justice Worked in Canberra 6. Victim Satisfaction with the Restorative Alternative 7. Victims and Offenders: A Relational Analysis 8. Conclusion

Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice

/pdf/restorative-justice-the-evidence-1vp8j4os6g.pdf

Restorative justice: the evidence

Advocates of restorative justice (RJ) hypothesize that the diversion of criminal cases to RJ conferences should be more effective in lowering the rate of reoffending than traditional prosecution in court processing because the conferences more effectively engage the psychological mechanisms of reintegrative shaming and procedural justice. This study uses longitudinal data from the drinking-and-driving study in the Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) to evaluate the long-term impact of reintegrative shaming and procedural justice on support for the law and on later recidivism as assessed through the use of police records and by self-report. Analysis first suggests that there is no direct effect of experimental condition on later recidivism. However, it further suggests that both traditional court-based prosecution and RJ conferences increase support for the law and lower the rate of future reoffending when they engage the social psychological mechanisms of reintegrative shaming and procedural justice and thereby increase the legitimacy of the law. Hence, the results argue for the potential value of procedures such as the RJ conference but indicate that those procedures will only achieve their objectives if they are effectively designed and implemented. A core issue for legal authorities is better understanding how to bring people's behavior into compliance with the law (Tyler 2003, 2006a, 2006b). In an ideal society the issue of responding to rule-breaking would never arise, but societies never achieve this ideal and must often confront the question of how to deal with offenders and with the consequences of offending behavior. Lawbreaking confronts society with a number of issues, including how to constructively manage offenders who, after they are punished, might reoffend in the future. This article is concerned with the issue of how to deal with offenders so as to increase support for the law and lower the rate of subsequent reoffending. One approach to lowering reoffending rates is to punish wrongdoers. Punishment incapacitates those who have broken the law during the time that they are in custody, inflicts the costs of punishment on them, and may instill fear of future punishment in them and in others. Deterrence-based strategies are the most common means used within the United States to decrease recidivism. Those strategies have been widely used and are often found to shape behavior (Nagin 1998), although their use has disadvantages, including that deterrence effects are often small (MacCoun 1993), that deterrence systems are costly to maintain, that they undermine the relationship between legal authorities and the public, and that they do not rehabilitate criminals, leading to high levels of recidivism (Luna 2003). The problems associated with deterrence strategies are well known. However, it is not clear that more effective alternatives exist. In particular, rehabilitation, once thought to be the most important response to criminal behavior, has been argued to be ineffective (Allen 1981) and is unpopular among many public policy makers. If criminals cannot be rehabilitated, then the threat of punishment is often said, by default, to be the primary manner in which societies must maintain social order. This study tests the effectiveness of two social psychological mechanisms for reducing recidivism: procedural justice and reintegrative shaming. Theory underpinning each of these mechanisms suggests that there are ways to respond to wrongdoing that increase offenders' support for and likelihood of future compliance with the law. While many types of experience could potentially activate these psychological mechanisms, both have been linked to the use of restorative justice (RJ) conferences in lieu of prosecution through the courts. In such conferences offenders meet with the victim in the company of their friends and family and other interested parties, in the presence of a trained facilitator. …

/pdf/reintegrative-shaming-procedural-justice-and-recidivism-the-3drgkcqej8.pdf

Reintegrative Shaming, Procedural Justice, and Recidivism: The Engagement of Offenders' Psychological Mechanisms in the Canberra RISE Drinking-and-Driving Experiment

The growing use of restorative justice provides a major opportunity for experimental criminology and evidence-based policy. Face-to-face meetings led by police officers between crime victims and their offenders are predicted to reduce the harm to victims caused by the crime. This prediction is derived not only from the social movement for restorative justice, but also from the microsociology of interaction rituals (Collins, 2004). Four randomized, controlled trials of this hypothesis in London and Canberra, with point estimates disaggregated by gender, tested the prediction with measures of both successful interaction ritual (apologies received and their perceived sincerity) and the hypothesized benefits of the ritual (on forgiveness of, and reduced desire for violent revenge against, offenders, and victim self-blame for the crime). The meta-analyses of the eight point estimates suggest success (as victims define it) of restorative justice as an interaction ritual, and as a policy for reducing harm to victims.

/pdf/effects-of-face-to-face-restorative-justice-on-victims-of-2tmk6l7ymv.pdf

Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials

One major goal of face-to-face restorative justice (RJ) is to help heal the psychological harm suffered by crime victims (Braithwaite, 2002). Substantial evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has shown that this can be accomplished (Strang, 2002) and more trials are underway (Sherman & Strang, 2004). These outcomes are even more clearly, if less rigorously, demonstrated through retrospective interviews of victims about their feelings before and after RJ took place. We review the responses of victims (N= 210) who participated in trials in Canberra (Australia) and in London, Thames Valley, and Northumbria (UK). Despite substantial variations in offense types, social contexts, nation and race, before-after changes revealed by qualitative and quantitative data are all in the same beneficial direction.

/pdf/victim-evaluations-of-face-to-face-restorative-justice-2tiiw9wt50.pdf

Heather Strang

Papers

Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice

Restorative justice: the evidence

Reintegrative Shaming, Procedural Justice, and Recidivism: The Engagement of Offenders' Psychological Mechanisms in the Canberra RISE Drinking-and-Driving Experiment

Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials

Victim Evaluations of Face-to-Face Restorative Justice Conferences: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis