Open Access Publisher and Free Library
02-criminology.jpg

CRIMINOLOGY

NATURE OR CRIME-HISTORY-CAUSES-STATISTICS

Posts tagged policy
The End of Intuition-Based High-Crime Areas

By Ben Grunwald and Jeffrey Fagan

In 2000, the Supreme Court held in Illinois v. Wardlow that a suspect’s presence in a “high-crime area” is relevant in determining whether an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. Despite the importance of the decision, the Court provided no guidance about what that standard means, and over fifteen years later, we still have no idea how police officers understand and apply it in practice. This Article conducts the first empirical analysis of Wardlow by examining data on over two million investigative stops conducted by the New York Police Department from 2007 to 2012. Our results suggest that Wardlow may have been wrongly decided. Specifically, we find evidence that officers often assess whether areas are high crime using a very broad geographic lens; that they call almost every block in the city high crime; that their assessments of whether an area is high crime are nearly uncorrelated with actual crime rates; that the suspect’s race predicts whether an officer calls an area high crime as well as the actual crime rate; that the racial composition of the area and the identity of the officer are stronger predictors of whether an officer calls an area high crime than the crime rate itself; and that stops are less or as likely to result in the detection of contraband when an officer invokes high-crime area as a basis of a stop. We conclude with several policy proposals for courts, police departments, and scholars to help address these problems in the doctrine.

California Law Review 345-404 (2019

  A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice: A Report 

By the Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform

U.S. criminal justice figures continue to make us numb, elected officials and citizens alike. Yes, we know the U.S. incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the world. Yes, we know that when we rank the per capita rate of incarcerations, the U.S. is followed closely by countries like El Salvador and Turkmenistan. We know that our recidivism rates are too high, and that we police our racial/ethnic minority communities too much and too often with tragic results. We know our fellow citizens, mainly people of color, living in those communities continue to suffer from higher rates of crime and police violence. And, lastly, we know these conditions prevail even though U.S. crime rates have fallen to 50-year lows (even considering the recent COVID-era surge) making America about as safe as it was in the 1950s. It is almost as if over policing, prosecution, and imprisonment are habits that the United States just cannot break. 

For two decades now, there has been a bipartisan effort to tackle these systemic problems. Action by President George W. Bush in the mid-2000s to foster improved reentry pathways for men and women returning from prison opened the door to the passage of the bipartisan Second Chance Act and hundreds of millions of dollars in investment in programs designed to reform numerous aspects of the criminal justice system including mandatory minimum sentences and felony hiring initiatives. President Barack Obama expanded and accelerated these initiatives adding his own programs including  Banning the Box, presidential commissions on 21st century policing and mass incarceration, as well as pilot programs to reinstitute access to Pell Grants for prisoners. Just last year, President Trump signed the First Step Act beginning the process of reforming sentencing practices and providing funding for training and vocational education for incarcerated people to be more prepared for the labor market after prison. And now President Joe Biden has promised to accelerate criminal justice policy with an eye toward reforming the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, of which he was a principle author, to reduce crime and incarceration. By slow and steady steps, we are moving away from “tough on crime” policies that created the world’s largest prison population and one of its costliest and, from the perspective of rehabilitation and recidivism, most ineffective criminal justice systems. George Floyd’s death at the hands of police last spring and the frequent, though less-noticed, events like it in other American cities, towns, and rural areas, has added new urgency and momentum to the drive to reform our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, the debate has too often collapsed into an unhelpful binary: “support the blue” or “abolish the police.” Either of these poles would tend to have a negative impact on the very communities who have suffered disproportionately under our current criminal justice and law enforcement policies. Excessive policing and use of force, on one hand, and less public safety and social service resources on the other, can both be detrimental to communities that are exposed to high levels of criminal activity and violence. We must find a path of genuine reform, even transformation, that fosters safer, more peaceful, and more resilient communities.   

This volume is a “down payment” on the policy debate America needs right now to continue moving toward a criminal justice system—police, courts, prison, reentry, community supervision—that is focused on the safety, health, and well-being of communities rather than on maintaining a harsh, semi-militarized revolving door system from which, for too many, there is often no escape. The essays in this volume are intended to provide policymakers in Congress and the Biden Administration with research-grounded guidance and insight on core issues and strategies that can sustain bipartisan support for critically needed criminal justice reforms. Our authors come from a broad spectrum of domains and policy perspectives. In fact, most chapters paired scholars, practitioners, and thought leaders from different disciplines and political ideologies. In this regard, each of their chapters concisely summarize the state of research on a given topic and offer bipartisan recommendations for short-, medium- and long-term reforms that will move each of the key sectors of the criminal justice system toward a more humane and effective footing.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2021. 95p.

Developing the Capacity to Understand and Prevent Homicide: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission

By Deborah Azrael, Anthony A. Braga and Mallory O’Brien

This report presents the methodology and findings of an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission (MHRC), which was established in May 2004 with the mandate to address the city's persistent lethal violence.

A distinguishing feature of the MHRC is its inclusion of community agencies and leaders outside of the traditional criminal justice system. The evaluation examined MHRC's work from January 2005 through December 2007. Overall, the homicide review process found that homicide in the city's intervention districts were largely clustered in specific locations, such as in and around taverns, as well as in districts with concentrations of active offenders who had been involved in the criminal justice system. Homicides were often the outcome of persistent disputes between individuals and/or groups (usually gangs). Homicides were often committed to gain respect and status among peers who valued fearless displays of power and control over others, as well as to inflict retribution on those showing disrespect and confrontational interactions. Generally, the MHRC decision-making and actions produced a comprehensive set of actionable policy and practice recommendations whose implementation and effects were continuously monitored by the MHRC. MHRC actions were intended to better position criminal justice, social service, and community based organizations in addressing the violence-related factors in high-risk locations and high-risk individuals with a propensity for violence. The impact evaluation found that the implementation of the MHRC interventions was linked with a statistically significant 52-percent decrease in the monthly count of homicides in the treatment districts. In comparison, the control districts had a statistically insignificant 9.2- percent decrease in homicides, after controlling for the other covariates. Apparently, the MHRC's crafting of interventions designed to address underlying risks associated with homicides has had a significant impact in reducing incidents of lethal violence.

Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health, 2012. 95p.

Religion and Crime: Theory, Research, and Practice

Edited by Kent R. Kerley.

The scientific study of religion is a rather recent development in colleges and universities in the United States and in other nations. Beginning in the 1960s, researchers from many social science backgrounds began conducting data-driven studies of the extent to which religiosity is related to crime, deviance, and delinquency. Since the 1980s, social scientists have also studied the nature, extent, practice, and impact of faith and faith-based programs in prisons and other correctional contexts. This volume contains the most contemporary and cutting-edge research on religion and crime, which includes data-driven (quantitative and qualitative), conceptual, review, and policy oriented papers.

Basel: MDPI Books, 2018. 274p.