Showing papers in "Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology in 1984"
285Â citations
TL;DR: This article examined the degree to which race influences police arrest decisions and found little evidence of suspect-directed racial bias, however, they did indicate that police are more responsive to white victims of crime.
Abstract: This paper examines the degree to which race influences police arrest decisions. Two types of possible racial bias are examined. The first, most often addressed in previous research, is suspect-directed and examines whether blacks are more likely to be arrested than whites. The second type of police bias is victim-directed and examines whether police are equally responsive to black and white victims of crime. We found little evidence of suspect-directed racial bias. Our analysis does indicate, however, that police are more responsive to white victims of crime. The implications of these findings for the equitable administration of justice are then considered.
274Â citations
180Â citations
TL;DR: The purpose of this Article is to address one such contradiction in contemporary criminological theory and research.
Abstract: Theoretical conflicts and contradictions tend to be more apparent than real. They commonly are based on little more than the choice of quite different levels of analysis, dissimilar operationalizations of key concepts, or a host of other factors that can foster significant misconceptions. From time to time, however, one encounters theoretically and substantively significant situations within which very matter-of-fact contradictions do exist. The purpose of this Article is to address one such contradiction in contemporary criminological theory and research. More specifically, the past two decades have witnessed a mas-
96Â citations
TL;DR: In April 1982, a Guatemalan busboy named Luis Marin went to trial, accused of intentionally starting a fire that killed twenty-six people at a Harrison, New York conference center, and was found not guilty.
Abstract: In April 1982, a Guatemalan busboy named Luis Marin went to trial, accused of intentionally starting a fire that killed twenty-six people at a Harrison, New York conference center. The evidence against defendant Marin was purely circumstantial. The prosecution argued to the jury that Marin was about to be fired for working under an assumed name, and that he intended to set a small fire in order to emerge as a hero and win back his job. Although the police did not find Marin with any incriminating evidence, the prosecution introduced testimony from co-workers to the effect that moments before the fire began Marin had disappeared, and suggested in argument that he used gasoline from his car to start the fire.'
70Â citations
TL;DR: This study attempts to provide further insight into the link between experience with, and assessment of, the police and suggests a framework that may illuminate findings of disparity between actual experiences with and evaluation of law enforcement agencies.
Abstract: The relationships between the police and citizens, particularly blacks or other minorities, have received much attention in the last two decades from politicians, community activists, and social scientists. In the United States, police treatment of blacks was claimed to trigger or to be the main reason behind past racial riots in Los Angeles, Detroit and New York, and recently in Miami. Police-community relationship continues to be an issue of concern to minorities in general, and to blacks in particular.' Social science researchers have investigated various aspects of police-community relationship, particularly minorities' feelings toward or assessment of the police, and minorities' experiences with the police. This study attempts to provide further insight into the link between experience with, and assessment of, the police. It also suggests a framework that may illuminate findings of disparity between actual experiences with and evaluation of law enforcement agencies.
64Â citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors identify four distinct types of consensus on public ratings of crime in past research and explore the differences between them, using a previously drawn sample of Baltimore residents to measure the extent of each type of consensus.
Abstract: One of the most consistent findings of criminological research is that members of different social groups seem to agree on their ratings of the seriousness of crimes. This finding of consensus also appears to be extremely robust, with alternative scaling techniques, cross-cultural comparisons, and measures of related concepts (e.g., disapproval) yielding similar results. ' Unfortunately, clear guidelines for establishing how much and what type of agreement qualifies as consensus have not been established. Moreover, even if various types of consensus exist in public evaluations of crime, an adequate explanation for these shared conceptions remains conspicuously absent. This paper focuses on strategies for measuring "consensus" in public evaluations of crime. It identifies four distinct types of consensus on public ratings of crime in past research. To illustrate these types of consensus and explore the differences between them, various statistical techniques are used on a previously drawn sample of Baltimore residents2 to measure the extent of each type of consensus. The types of consensus required for various applications of these studies to theoretical and policy issues are also discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion of
59Â citations
56Â citations
47Â citations
TL;DR: In colonial America, the criminal justice system functioned without either effective police forces or public prosecutors Instead, victims paid for warrants, did their own investigative work, and retained a private attorney to write an indictment and prosecute the offender.
Abstract: In colonial America, the criminal justice system functioned without either effective police forces or public prosecutors Instead, victims paid for warrants, did their own investigative work, and retained a private attorney to write an indictment and prosecute the offender Restitution was emphasized over incarceration In short, the victim was both a key decisionmaker in, and a direct beneficiary of, the criminal justice system1 During the nineteenth century, the goals of the criminal justice system changed from restitution to deterrence and punishment, as a distinction was drawn between offenses against the social order (crimes) and offenses between individuals (civil wrongs) The powers and responsibilities that victims previously held were assumed by public prosecutors as society's advocates Today, public prosecutors decide whether * This research was conducted by the Victim Services Agency under a grant from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Special acknowledgment is due to Lucy N Friedman, Executive Director of the Victim Services Agency, for her guidance and support throughout the study, and to the Kings County District Attorney's Office for their cooperation in carrying out this research The views contained herein are solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Division of Criminal Justice Services or the Kings County District Attorney's Office
40Â citations
TL;DR: For most of its existence, the juvenile court has sanctioned juveniles who have run away from home, disobeyed their parents, or engaged in other status offenses in much the same manner as juveniles charged with committing serious crimes.
Abstract: Founded on the concept of parens patriae,' the juvenile court system has traditionally been allowed wide latitude to intervene in the lives of youths, ostensibly in their "best interests." For most of its existence, the juvenile court has sanctioned juveniles who have run away from home, disobeyed their parents, or engaged in other status offenses2 in much the same manner as juveniles charged with committing serious crimes.3 In recent years, disillusionment with the policies and practices of the juvenile court has become widespread, precipitating a major controversy over the power and jurisdiction of the court.4 In turn, this controversy has become enmeshed in the broader and more complex issue of the legal status
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe the North American and eight major Western European systems of juvenile justice, and delineate the basic structural components of the system and address some major questions concerning its underlying legal assumptions.
Abstract: This book will become the basic sourcebook for those concerned with comparative juvenile justice. Both authoritative and truly comparative, it describes the North American and eight major Western European systems of juvenile justice. Each chapter delineates the basic structural components of the system and addresses some major questions concerning its underlying legal assumptions. This work is essential to the development of empirical and theoretical advances in this field -- it will be of great value to juvenile justice professionals, criminologists, lawyers, other human service professionals and all students of comparative justice.
TL;DR: For some on death row, however, the darkest fear is not execution, but the prospect of living out their natural years incarcerated in a six-by-nine cell, under constant surveillance, with little or no hope of ever regaining their freedom as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: There currently are nearly thirteen hundred persons in American prisons under sentence of death. For the vast majority of them, the elaborate state and federal appeals process can and will delay execution months, years, perhaps indefinitely. They wish to live, and their lawyers will explore every legal avenue in order to keep their clients alive. For some on death row, however, the darkest fear is not execution, but the prospect of living out their natural years incarcerated in a six-by-nine cell, under constant surveillance, with little or no hope of ever regaining their freedom. For these men and women, termination of their appeals and execution of sentence may well appear as a preferable option to an inexorable mental and physical deterioration. They want to hear the executioner's song. Of those executions carried out in the United States since the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment does not violate the eighth amendment,' several have been termed voluntary, in that the condemned prisoners cut off their appeals in order to hasten their punishment.2 So long as the current system continues, with its opportunities for numerous appeals and delays but with the death sentence an ever more frequently imposed penalty, we may expect some of the present and future occupants of death row to terminate their appeals. Such a decision raises not only legal but moral questions as well; indeed, some opponents of capital punishment argue that there is no right to terminate appeals because this leads to
TL;DR: Professor Stephen Morse correctly distinguishes between two variants of so-called "diminished capacity," but is wrong in his assertion that the defense of diminished capacity ought to be abolished.
Abstract: The Journal recently published a lucid and important article by Professor Stephen Morse, regarding the controversial doctrine of diminished capacity.' Any article by Professor Morse regarding the intersection of criminal law and psychiatry is valuable and likely to be influential.2 Moreover, I am in agreement with much that he says in the essay. I believe he is wrong, however, in his assertion that the defense of diminished capacity ought to be abolished. Morse correctly distinguishes between two variants of so-called "diminished capacity."3 The first form, which he calls the "mens rea variant,"4 is not really a "defense" at all.5 Rather, evidence of defendants' mental condition (i.e., their "diminished capacity") is proferred in order to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors regarding the presence of the statutorily required mens rea element of the crime.6 So understood, expert testimony by mental
TL;DR: The search for "solutions" to the disparity problem has probably existed for as long as sentence lengths have been dependent upon judicial discretion, and the problem has been with us for quite some time.
Abstract: Criminologists, policymakers, and the public have been very concerned about variation in criminal sentences during the last ten years. Whether arguing on grounds of fairness, leniency, severity, or justice, few people seem to be without opinions on the causes of, or solutions to, unwarranted disparity in criminal sentencing.' While states are scrambling to implement their own favorite remedies, it is interesting to know that the problem has been with us for quite some time. In fact, the search for "solutions" to the disparity problem has probably existed for as long as sentence lengths have been dependent upon judicial discretion.2