Journal Of Quantitative Criminology Research Articles

A Social Network Analysis of Publishing Networks in the “Big 5” Journals in Criminology and Criminal Justice

Prior research has frequently employed various methods for investigating issues surrounding publication productivity and authorship, including examinations of the number of co-authors in peer-reviewed journal articles and the order of authorship. Relying on 5 years of data from publications from the “Big 5” journals in criminology and criminal justice (i.e., Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Crime & Delinquency, and Justice Quarterly), the current study extends this extant research by providing a social network analysis of publishing networks. Results are consistent with previous findings, suggesting that publishing networks are largely decentralized, although key networks and definitive leaders in these networks exist as well. In addition, several authors were identified that have significant leverage over the publishing networks. Study limitations and directions for future research are also discussed.

Interpreting t-Statistics Under Publication Bias: Rough Rules of Thumb

A key issue is how to interpret t-statistics when publication bias is present. In this paper we propose a set of rough rules of thumb to assist readers to interpret t-values in published results under publication bias. Unlike most previous methods that utilize collections of studies, our approach evaluates the strength of evidence under publication bias when there is only a single study. We first re-interpret t-statistics in a one-tailed hypothesis test in terms of their associated p-values when there is extreme publication bias, that is, when no null findings are published. We then consider the consequences of different degrees of publication bias. We show that under even moderate levels of publication bias adjusting one’s p-values to insure Type I error rates of either 0.05 or 0.01 result in far higher t-values than those in a conventional t-statistics table. Under a conservative assumption that publication bias occurs 20 percent of the time, with a one-tailed test at a significance level of 0.05, a t-value equal or greater than 2.311 is needed. For a two-tailed test the appropriate standard would be equal or above 2.766. Both cutoffs are far higher than the traditional ones of 1.645 and 1.96. To achieve a p-value less than 0.01, the adjusted t-values would be 2.865 (one-tail) and 3.254 (two-tail), as opposed to the traditional values 2.326 (one-tail) and 2.576 (two-tail). We illustrate our approach by applying it to evaluate the hypothesis tests in recent issues of Criminology and Journal of Quantitative Criminology (JQC). Under publication bias much higher t-values are needed to restore the intended p-value. By comparing the observed test scores with the adjusted critical values, this paper provides a rough rule of thumb for readers to evaluate the degree to which a reported positive result in a single publication reflects a true positive effect. Further measures to increase the reporting of robust null findings are needed to ameliorate the issue of publication bias.

Early childhood educators attitudes towards playful aggression among boys: Exploring the importance of situational context

ABSTRACTThe current study investigates the influence of situational context on perceptions of playful aggression. Using an online data collection instrument embedded with video vignettes showing young boys engaged in aggressive play behaviour, 36 situational profiles that are defined by the unique combinations of variables believed to influence attitudes about playful aggression were created and analysed using the conjunctive analysis of case configurations methods [Miethe, T. D., Hart, T. C., & Regoeczi, W. C. (2008). The conjunctive analysis of case configurations: An exploratory method for discrete multivariate analyses of crime data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(2), 227–241]. Educators’ perceptions of playful aggression varied considerably, depending on the particular contextual profile that was observed. Significant contextual variability also exists within the groups of profiles perceived by educators’ as ‘most’ playful and ‘least’ playful. Policy implications are discussed and recommendations for future research are offered.

A Note on the Role of Basic Theory in Thinking About Crime Prevention

Junger-Tas (Journal of Quantitative Criminology 8(1):9–28, 1992) studied the empirical validity of control theory and argued for a connection between basic theory and delinquency prevention policies (European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research 5(2):101–114, 1997). High quality experiments, including those with random assignment to different treatments and designs that include multiple indicators of outcome have produced a strong body of knowledge that may, and should, be used to assess the validity of basic theories of causation. One essential test of basic theories can thus be how well they can make sense of widely acknowledged facts produced by high quality policy research. To be sure, theories vary in scope, domain of application and level of abstraction, and policy implications can be difficult to infer, so care should be exercised in such an analysis. These notions are applied to control theories of delinquency which arguably provide clear expectations about the likely effectiveness of some public policies about crime. Recent research appears consistent with control theory expectations and with Junger-Tas’ long-standing view for a role for basic science for juvenile policy.

Making Space for Theory: The Challenges of Theorizing Space and Place for Spatial Analysis in Criminology

During the 1998 ASC Annual Meeting in Washington, DC Jacqueline Cohen and I (George Tita) approached then-editor of JQC Michael Maltz about our idea for a special issue pertaining to the spatial analysis of homicide. Having worked with a number of scholars as part of the National Consortium on Violence Research (NCOVR) Space and Time working group, we were convinced that the Journal of Quantitative Criminology was the right space for a collection of articles that employed spatial analysis in an attempt to describe and explain the recent youth homicide epidemic. It was also the right time--at the same moment a growing number of scholars began wrestling with explaining the spatial patterns of homicide, especially events involving minority males in urban centers, advances in both desk top mapping solutions (e.g., ESRI's ArcView, MapInfo) and statistical software such as Anselin's SpaceStat were making it much easier to conduct ecological studies of crime and violence. We were thril... Language: en

QUALITY MATTERS: FOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATIVE RESEARCH

Criminology & Public PolicyVolume 5, Issue 3 p. 571-574 QUALITY MATTERS: FOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATIVE RESEARCH PETER R. JONES, PETER R. JONES Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies and Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University. For more than ten years he co-directed Pro DES, an outcome-based information system that monitors and evaluates over one hundred treatment programs for delinquent youth in Philadelphia. Pro DES received a ‘Best Practices Award’ from the American Correctional Association and was finalist in the ‘Innovations in American Government Awards Program’ administered by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. His current research interests include community-based corrections, pretrial decision-making, policing and research methods — including evaluability assessments, information systems, risk prediction and offender classification. He is co-author of the book Personal Liberty and Community Safety: Pretrial Release in the Criminal Courts (Plenum), and his most recent work has appeared in Criminology, The Prison Journal, Criminal Justice and Behavior, the Journal of Quantitative Criminology and the Journal of Criminal Justice Education.Search for more papers by this author PETER R. JONES, PETER R. JONES Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies and Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University. For more than ten years he co-directed Pro DES, an outcome-based information system that monitors and evaluates over one hundred treatment programs for delinquent youth in Philadelphia. Pro DES received a ‘Best Practices Award’ from the American Correctional Association and was finalist in the ‘Innovations in American Government Awards Program’ administered by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. His current research interests include community-based corrections, pretrial decision-making, policing and research methods — including evaluability assessments, information systems, risk prediction and offender classification. He is co-author of the book Personal Liberty and Community Safety: Pretrial Release in the Criminal Courts (Plenum), and his most recent work has appeared in Criminology, The Prison Journal, Criminal Justice and Behavior, the Journal of Quantitative Criminology and the Journal of Criminal Justice Education.Search for more papers by this author First published: 13 September 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00396.xCitations: 1AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume5, Issue3August 2006Pages 571-574 RelatedInformation

Modeling the payoffs of interventions to reduce adolescent vulnerability.

Public policy often has been blind to adolescents, except when it has focused on aspects of their behavior that trouble their elders. Too often, policy makers limit their attention to artificially narrow and isolated aspects of youth behavior. They consider only health, or only criminal, or only educational issues. In addition, the payoff of youth vulnerability and our failure to ameliorate it are rarely addressed. The few existing treatments of the cost of adolescent risk behaviors have likewise focused on single behaviors (e.g., teen childbearing— Burt 1985 Burt M.R. Teenage pregnancy. Center for Policy Options, Washington, DC1985 Google Scholar , Burt 1986 Burt M.R. Estimating the public costs of teenage childbearing. Family Planning Perspectives. 1986; 18: 221-226 Crossref PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar ; Burt and Levy 1987 Burt M.R. Levy F. Estimates of public costs for teenage childbearing A review of recent studies and estimates of 1985 public costs. in: Hofferth S.L. Hayes C. Risking the future: Adolescent sexuality, pregnancy and childbearing. Vol. II. National Academy Press, Washington, DC1987: 264-294 Google Scholar ) or narrowly defined patterns (e.g., being a career criminal— Cohen 1998 Cohen M.A. The monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 1998; 14: 5-33 Crossref Scopus (337) Google Scholar ). A just-released report identifying important future research issues related to youth ( Millstein et al 2000 Millstein S.G. Ozer E.J. Ozer E.M. Brindis C.D. Knopf D.K. Irwin Jr, C.E. Research priorities in adolescent health. University of California, National Adolescent Health Information Center, San Francisco2000 Google Scholar ) does not even mention cost, either as the cost of outcomes to society or the cost of interventions or approaches to produce better outcomes. The absence of cost concerns is even more striking as Millstein and her colleagues review and summarize a decade of published documents that in their turn summarize and integrate research on adolescence and make recommendations for future research.

Changes in the most-cited scholars in major american criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986–1990 and 1991–1995

The most-cited scholars in three major American criminology journals (Criminology, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency) and three major American criminal justice journals (Justice Quarterly, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Criminal Justice and Behavior) were determined for 1991–1995, and results were compared with those obtained for 1986 –1990. The most-cited scholars in the three criminology journals in 1991–1995 were Travis Hirschi, David P. Farrington, Michael R. Gottfredson, Delbert S. Elliott, and Robert J. Sampson. The most-cited scholars in the three criminal justice journals in 1991–1995 were Francis T. Cullen, John L. Hagan, Travis Hirschi, Lawrence W. Sherman, and James Q. Wilson. The most-cited works of the most-cited scholars in 1991–1995 were primarily theoretical or on longitudinal/criminal career research.

Who are the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals?

The analysis of citations makes it possible to identify influential scholars and topics during particular time periods. The advantages and problems of using citations are reviewed, and it is concluded that they provide a reasonably valid measure of the influence and prestige of scholars. The number of different articles (or books) in which a scholar is cited, however, may be a better measure than the total number of citations. The most-cited authors in six major American criminology and criminal justice journals in 1986–1990 (excluding self-citations) were determined. Travis Hirschi was most-cited in Criminology and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Marvin E. Wolfgang in Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Francis T. Cullen in Justice Quarterly, Robert M. Regoli in Journal of Criminal Justice, and Edwin I. Megargee in Criminal Justice and Behavior. Over all six journals, the most-cited authors were Marvin E. Wolfgang, Michael J. Hindelang, and Alfred Blumstein. Their influence was connected with the perceived importance of criminal career research and the longitudinal method, measuring crime and delinquency, and the prestigious National Academy of Sciences panel reports.

The Effect of Minimum Drinking Age Legislation on Youthful Auto Fatalities, 1970-1977

Annual state data on auto fatality rates for an 8-year period (1970-77) are examined to study the influence the magnitude of change in a state's minimum legal drinking age (mlda) has on teenage auto fatality rates. Factors taken into account include: the average auto fatality rate prior to the change; the year-to-year variability in this rate; the precise nature of the legal change; and minimum drinking age laws in contiguous states. During the 8-year period there were 20 instances in which a state reduced its mlda and one instance in which the mlda was increased. The principal finding is that a reduction in the mlda from 21 to 18 years of age for all alcoholic beverage types will result in an increase in the auto fatality rate for 18-to 20-year-olds of about 7 percent, and a somewhat smaller increase for 16-to 17-year-olds. It is estimated that the national 18-to 20-year-old auto fatality rate was about 3 percent higher in the mid-1970s than it would have been if minimum age laws had not been amended between 1970 and 1975. This information can serve as one useful input into the policy decision concerning the appropriate minimum drinking age. (Author/TRRL)

Saying it Wrong with Figures: A Comment on Zeisel

Previous articleNext article No AccessResearch NotesSaying it Wrong with Figures: A Comment on ZeiselPeter H. Rossi, Richard A. Berk, and Kenneth J. LenihanPeter H. Rossi Search for more articles by this author , Richard A. Berk Search for more articles by this author , and Kenneth J. Lenihan Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Sociology Volume 88, Number 2Sep., 1982 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/227677 Views: 2Total views on this site Citations: 10Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1982 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Delia Baldassarri, Maria Abascal Field Experiments Across the Social Sciences, Annual Review of Sociology 43, no.11 (Jul 2017): 41–73.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112445Xiaolu Wang Mediation, Statistical, (Jan 2015): 75–80.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.42098-2Herbert L. Smith Research Design: Toward a Realistic Role for Causal Analysis, (Mar 2013): 45–73.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6094-3_4Herbert L. Smith Causation and Its Discontents, (Jan 2009): 233–242.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9967-0_10William Sims Bainbridge Online Multiplayer Games, Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services 1, no.11 (Jan 2009): 1–113.https://doi.org/10.2200/S00232ED1V01Y200912ICR013Herbert L. Smith Some Thoughts on Causation as It Relates to Demography and Population Studies, Population and Development Review 29, no.33 (Sep 2003): 459–469.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2003.00459.xMICHAEL D. MALTZ Deviating from the Mean: The Declining Significance of Significance, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31, no.44 (Aug 2016): 434–463.https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427894031004005Michael Dalecki, Fern K. Willits Examining change using regression analysis: Three approaches compared, Sociological Spectrum 11, no.22 (Apr 1991): 127–145.https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.1991.9981960David Rauma, Richard A. Berk Remuneration and recidivism: The long-term impact of unemployment compensation on ex-offenders, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 3, no.11 (Mar 1987): 3–27.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065198Laurence Chalip POLICY RESEARCH AS SOCIAL SCIENCE: OUTFLANKING THE VALUE DILEMMA, Review of Policy Research 5, no.22 (Nov 1985): 287–308.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1985.tb00357.x

Bail Risk: A Multivariate Analysis

Previous articleNext article No AccessBail Risk: A Multivariate AnalysisStevens H. Clarke, Jean L. Freeman, and Gary G. KochStevens H. Clarke Search for more articles by this author , Jean L. Freeman Search for more articles by this author , and Gary G. Koch Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Legal Studies Volume 5, Number 2Jun., 1976 Sponsored by The University of Chicago Law School Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/467556 Views: 17Total views on this site Citations: 26Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1977 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Will Dobbie, Jacob Goldin, Crystal S. Yang The Effects of Pre-Trial Detention on Conviction, Future Crime, and Employment: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges, American Economic Review 108, no.22 (Feb 2018): 201–240.https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161503DEAN A. DABNEY, JOSHUA PAGE, VOLKAN TOPALLI American Bail and the Tinting of Criminal Justice, The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 56, no.44 (Jul 2017): 397–418.https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12212Gary G. Koch, Dennis B. Gillings Inference, Design‐Based vs . Model‐Based, (Sep 2014).https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat01616Brian Johnson, Christopher Kierkus, Christine Yalda Who Skips? An Analysis of Bail Bond Failure to Appear, Journal of Applied Security Research 9, no.11 (Jan 2014): 1–16.https://doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2014.852005DAVID S. ABRAMS, CHRIS ROHLFS OPTIMAL BAIL AND THE VALUE OF FREEDOM: EVIDENCE FROM THE PHILADELPHIA BAIL EXPERIMENT, Economic Inquiry 49, no.33 (Apr 2010): 750–770.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00288.xMariana Martinez, Fabio Sánchez, Holly Kosiewicz Is Justice Blind? An Examination of Disparities in Homicide Sentencing in Colombia, 1980-2000, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2009).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1478170Gary G. Koch, Dennis B. Gillings Inference, Design-Based vs. Model-Based, (Sep 2008).https://doi.org/10.1002/9780471462422.eoct995Thomas J. Miles An Empirical Analysis of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5, no.22 (Jun 2008): 275–308.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00125.xSteven D. Levitt, Thomas J. Miles Chapter 7 Empirical Study of Criminal Punishment, (Jan 2007): 455–495.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0730(07)01007-9Gary G. Koch, Dennis B. Gillings Inference, Design-Based vs. Model-Based, (Aug 2006).https://doi.org/10.1002/0471667196.ess1235.pub2Boon-Tiong Lim, Euston Quah, Khye-Chong Tan The Economics of Bail Setting and Social Welfare, International Review of Law and Economics 25, no.44 (Dec 2005): 592–603.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2005.12.005Mandeep K. Dhami From discretion to disagreement: explaining disparities in judges' pretrial decisions, Behavioral Sciences & the Law 23, no.33 (Jan 2005): 367–386.https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.619 By Thomas J. Miles Estimating the Effect of America's Most Wanted: A Duration Analysis of Wanted Fugitives Miles, The Journal of Law and Economics 48, no.11 (Jul 2015): 281–306.https://doi.org/10.1086/428718 Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok The Fugitive: Evidence on Public versus Private Law Enforcement from Bail Jumping Helland/Tabarrok, The Journal of Law and Economics 47, no.11 (Jul 2015): 93–122.https://doi.org/10.1086/378694Hindy Lauer Schachter Supervised Pretrial Release: Policy Issues That Must Be Explored to Create Appropriate Programs, Criminal Justice Policy Review 7, no.3-43-4 (Sep 1995): 255–274.https://doi.org/10.1177/088740349500700303JOHN S. GOLDKAMP, PETER R. JONES Pretrial Drug-Testing Experiments in Milwaukee and Prince George's County: The Context of Implementation, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29, no.44 (Aug 2016): 430–465.https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427892029004003Mary A. Toborg, Anthony M.J. Yezer, John A. Carver Pretrial Urine-Testing in the District of Columbia: Its Usefulness for Risk Classification and as a “Signaling Device” for Release Risk, Journal of Drug Issues 21, no.22 (Apr 1991): 369–381.https://doi.org/10.1177/002204269102100208Celesta A. Albonetti, Robert M. Hauser, John Hagan, Ilene H. Nagel Criminal justice decision making as a stratification process: The role of race and stratification resources in pretrial release, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 5, no.11 (Mar 1989): 57–82.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01066261 John R. Lott, Jr. Should the Wealthy Be Able to "Buy Justice"?, Journal of Political Economy 95, no.66 (Oct 2015): 1307–1316.https://doi.org/10.1086/261517William Rhodes A survival model with dependent competing events and right-hand censoring: Probation and parole as an illustration, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2, no.22 (Jun 1986): 113–137.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01074576Elizabeth M. Suval, Matthew T. Zingraff Should Pre-Trial Release Programs Be Expanded?, Criminal Justice Policy Review 1, no.22 (May 1986): 140–154.https://doi.org/10.1177/088740348600100202Ebbe B. Ebbesen, Vladimir J. Konečni Criticisms of the criminal justice system: A decision making analysis, Behavioral Sciences & the Law 3, no.22 (Dec 2013): 177–194.https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370030206Frances P. Bernat Gender Disparity in the Setting of Bail, Journal of Offender Counseling Services Rehabilitation 9, no.1-21-2 (Oct 2008): 21–47.https://doi.org/10.1300/J264v09n01_02Ebbe B. Ebbesen, Vladimir J. Konečni Criticisms of the criminal justice system: A decision making analysis, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 3, no.22 (Jan 1985): 177–194.https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(1985)3:2<177::AID-JHBS2300030206>3.0.CO;2-C References, (Jan 1984): 399–409.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-627180-5.50028-5 Samuel L. Myers, Jr. The Economics of Bail Jumping, The Journal of Legal Studies 10, no.22 (Oct 2015): 381–396.https://doi.org/10.1086/467687

Criminal Justice and the Negotiated Plea

Previous articleNext article No AccessCriminal Justice and the Negotiated PleaKenneth KipnisKenneth Kipnis Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 86, Number 2Jan., 1976 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/291984 Views: 30Total views on this site Citations: 17Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1976 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Kevin Petersen, Allison D. Redlich, David B. Wilson Where is the Evidence? Comparing the Effects of Evidence Strength and Demographic Characteristics on Plea Discounts, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 6 (Aug 2022).https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-022-09555-8Amy Dezember, Samantha Luna, Skye A. Woestehoff, Megan Stoltz, Melissa Manley, Jodi A. Quas, Allison D. Redlich Plea validity in circuit court: judicial colloquies in misdemeanor vs. felony charges, Psychology, Crime & Law 28, no.33 (Mar 2021): 268–288.https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1905813Richard Lippke Plea Bargaining, (May 2019): 1–5.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee036.pub2Richard L. Lippke Plea Bargaining, (Feb 2013).https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee036Jeffrey Reiman Capital Punishment, (Feb 2013).https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee447Douglas Savitsky Is plea bargaining a rational choice? Plea bargaining as an engine of racial stratification and overcrowding in the United States prison system, Rationality and Society 24, no.22 (May 2012): 131–167.https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463112441351James J. Willis Bridging the Normative Gap in Graduate Criminal Justice Curricula: Teaching Theories of Justice, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 23, no.11 (Mar 2012): 81–102.https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2011.630675Mark D. White Retributivism in a World of Scarcity, (Dec 2008): 253–272.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575488.016Ram Orzach, Stephen J. Spurr Lesser-included offenses, International Review of Law and Economics 28, no.44 (Dec 2008): 239–245.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2008.07.010Richard L. Lippke Retributivism and Plea Bargaining, Criminal Justice Ethics 25, no.22 (Jun 2006): 3–16.https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2006.9992198Mark D. White A Kantian critique of neoclassical law and economics, Review of Political Economy 18, no.22 (Aug 2006): 235–252.https://doi.org/10.1080/09538250600571494RUTH W. GRANT Ethics and Incentives: A Political Approach, American Political Science Review 100, no.11 (Feb 2006): 29–39.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406061983Clifton Perry Contraception, (Jan 1993): 145–172.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-446-7_7John D. Wooldredge An aggregate-level examination of the caseload pressure hypothesis, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 5, no.33 (Sep 1989): 259–283.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01062740Dean J. Champion Guilty plea hearings and judicial supervision: Some differences between federal and state judges regarding Rule 11 and a defendant’s right to due process, American Journal of Criminal Justice 12, no.11 (Sep 1987): 62–81.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887539 Samuel R. Gross Loss of Innocence: Eyewitness Identification and Proof of Guilt, The Journal of Legal Studies 16, no.22 (Oct 2015): 395–453.https://doi.org/10.1086/467836GARY D. LaFREE ADVERSARIAL AND NONADVERSARIAL JUSTICE: A COMPARISON OF GUILTY PLEAS AND TRIALS*, Criminology 23, no.22 (May 1985): 289–312.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1985.tb00338.x

A Statistical Analysis of Sentencing in Federal Courts: Defendants Convicted after Trial, 1967-1968

THE research reported on here is designed to illuminate the effects on sentence of presumably legitimate sentencing factors such as the crime committed, the defendant's age, and his prior record. Some illegitimate factors are suspected of having an effect on the sentencing decision, factors such as the type of counsel and the defendant's race; these too are explored. It is also widely believed that sentencing is intimately intertwined with and may be affected by the needs arising out of the conviction process. This creates the strong possibility that correctionally irrelevant factors may nevertheless determine some part of the sentence. A sentence arrived at as an "administrative accommodation" is unlikely to be a sentence derived from exclusive focus on deterrence or the "rehabilitative ideal." The specific question addressed here is whether the type of trial conviction--bench trial versus jury trial-is a sentencing factor, and if so, how important it is. Whether waiver of a jury in favor of a bench trial should result in a lower sentence for otherwise similarly situated defendants is precisely the type of question that might receive different responses from a prosecutor than from a correctional official.

An Economic Analysis of Crimes Punishable by Imprisonment

ONE Of the primary arguments for punishing individuals who commit crimes is that the threat of such punishment backed by the actual punishment of convicted offenders will deter criminal acts.1 It is our intention in this paper to analyze in some detail the deterrent effect of punishment by imprisonment. Specifically we employ a variant of the utility formulation suggested in our earlier article2 to develop a deterrence framework appropriate for studying choices involving possible imprisonment. Using this framework we are able to explain the relative deterrent effects of certainty and severity in punishment without imputing any special behavioral characteristics to the class of individuals who commit offences. In addition, we are able to examine the effect on the individual's willingness to engage in crime of changes in the individual's initial wealth and payoff to crime, as well as provide a straightforward explanation of plea bargaining.

Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach

Since the turn of the twentieth century, legislation in Western countries has expanded rapidly to reverse the brief dominance of laissez faire during the nineteenth century. The state no longer merely protects against violations of person and property through murder, rape, or burglary but also restricts ‘discrimination’ against certain minorities, collusive business arrangements, ‘jaywalking’, travel, the materials used in construction, and thousands of other activities. The activities restricted not only are numerous but also range widely, affecting persons in very different pursuits and of diverse social backgrounds, education levels, ages, races, etc. Moreover, the likelihood that an offender will be discovered and convicted and the nature and extent of punishments differ greatly from person to person and activity to activity. Yet, in spite of such diversity, some common properties are shared by practically all legislation, and these properties form the subject matter of this essay.

The Province of Sociology

Previous articleNext article FreeThe Province of SociologyGeorge E. VincentGeorge E. Vincent Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Sociology Volume 1, Number 4Jan., 1896 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/210541 Views: 116Total views on this site Citations: 7Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Sinem Yılmaz, Bart Van de Putte, Peter A. J. Stevens Work–family conflict: comparing the experiences of Turkish and native Belgian women, Community, Work & Family 22, no.33 (Aug 2017): 284–301.https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2017.1360247Joseph da Silva From Origin to Modernity: A Brief History of American School Design, (Aug 2018): 17–74.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78586-8_2Binoy Kampmark Shutting Down Protest, Contention 5, no.22 (Jan 2017).https://doi.org/10.3167/cont.2017.050203Alan Sica A Selective History of Sociology, (Feb 2012): 25–54.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444347388.ch2Gary Dean Jaworski Simmel in early American sociology: Translation as social action, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 8, no.33 (Mar 1995): 389–417.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02142892Michael Wiatrowski, Kristine L. Anderson The dimensionality of the social bond, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 3, no.11 (Mar 1987): 65–81.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065201 Morris Janowitz Sociological Theory and Social Control, American Journal of Sociology 81, no.11 (Oct 2015): 82–108.https://doi.org/10.1086/226035