{"title":"Incarceration, Families, and Communities: Recent Developments and Enduring Challenges","authors":"Sara Wakefield","doi":"10.1086/721741","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721741","url":null,"abstract":"Mass incarceration has fundamental adverse effects that include weakening families and intimate relationships, altering children’s life chances, and undermining communities. Serious work on those effects began in the late 1990s and laid foundations on which subsequent research has built. More recent work, especially in the past dozen years, is more complex and has produced findings that are more nuanced and mixed. It is also theoretically and conceptually richer. The newer work involves substantially greater cross-disciplinary engagement, draws on new and more diverse data sources, and pays greater attention to pathways into prison. Fundamental challenges persist. They include measurement problems, overlap between the criminal justice and other governmental systems (e.g., education, public health, social welfare), and generalizability issues. Mixed results, definitional disagreements, and measurement challenges should encourage researchers to embrace complexity in the study of the effects of incarceration on family and community life.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"399 - 434"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46874605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Women in Prisons","authors":"Sandra M. Bucerius, Sveinung Sandberg","doi":"10.1086/722105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722105","url":null,"abstract":"Before being locked up, incarcerated women are more marginalized, have higher rates of mental illness and substance misuse, and have more often experienced physical or sexual victimization than incarcerated men. Women experience prison differently. However, much of what we know about women’s experiences comes from research in the United States and the United Kingdom, providing little insight into women prisoners’ experiences elsewhere. This is unfortunate for many reasons; policy makers wishing to develop evidence-based initiatives, for example, cannot know whether what seems to work in one place is appropriate in another. Case studies from Canada, Norway, and Mexico reveal similarities and substantial differences in women’s experiences. Incarcerated women in all three places have histories of victimization and identify their children as their primary motivator to desist from crime and drug use. However, how they relate to programming, prison work, accommodation, and prison food varies greatly. How women in these three different countries experience imprisonment is related to conditions of their lives outside of prison and to the nature, extent, and quality of available social welfare services. Researchers need to pay much closer attention to geographical and contextual differences when assessing the conditions, challenges, and prospects of women in prisons.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"137 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48578294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Prison and the Gang","authors":"D. Pyrooz","doi":"10.1086/720944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720944","url":null,"abstract":"A prison gang is a durable group that shares a collective identity, maintains a locus of custodial influence, exhibits collective behavior, and engages in a pattern of illegal activity. Prison gangs proliferated in recent decades for reasons that remain unclear. The classic view of prison gangs—conspiratorial, hierarchical, monolithic, predatory, and rule bound—is outdated; contemporary research reveals far greater heterogeneity in forms and functions. There is a nascent micro-macro paradox about gangs and (dis)order. Misconduct, especially violence, is concentrated disproportionately among gang populations, attributable to group processes rather than to individual propensities. Countervailing claims that gangs bring order and disorder remain at best speculative and await more rigorous research. About 15 percent of US prisoners are affiliated with gangs; a much larger proportion maintain associations by virtue of homophily and institutional constraints. Emerging evidence suggests that prisoners enter and exit gangs while incarcerated. Prison officials have constructed intelligence apparatuses to document and manage gang populations. There is no consensus whether concentration or dispersion strategies produce safer prisons, although gang affiliates are overrepresented in solitary confinement. Evidence is too sparse to reach any conclusions about the effectiveness of promising liabilities- and obligations-based rehabilitative programs.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"237 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41407134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Racial Attitudes and Criminal Justice Policy","authors":"F. Cullen, Leah C. Butler, Amanda Graham","doi":"10.1086/715911","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/715911","url":null,"abstract":"Empirical research on public policy preferences must attend to Whites’ animus toward Blacks. For a quarter-century, studies have consistently found that Kinder and Sanders’s four-item measure of “racial resentment” is a robust predictor of almost every social and criminal justice policy opinion. Racial animus increases Whites’ opposition to social welfare policies that benefit Blacks and their support for punitive policies that disadvantage this “out-group.” Any public opinion study that fails to include racial resentment risks omitted variable bias. Despite the continuing salience of out-group animus, recent scholarship, especially in political science, has highlighted other racial attitudes that can influence public policy preferences. Two developments are of particular importance. First, Chudy showed the progressive impact of racial sympathy, a positive out-group attitude in which Whites are distressed by incidents of Blacks’ suffering (such as the killing of George Floyd). Second, Jardina and others documented that Whites’ in-group racial attitudes, such as White identity/consciousness or white nationalism, have political consequences, reinforcing the effects of racial resentment. As the United States becomes a majority-minority nation, diverse in-group and out-group racial attitudes are likely to play a central role in policies—including within criminal justice—that the public endorses.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"50 1","pages":"163 - 245"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42531709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Human Dignity and Prisoners’ Rights in Europe","authors":"Sonja Snacken","doi":"10.1086/715910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/715910","url":null,"abstract":"Protecting the dignity and human rights of prisoners poses difficult challenges. Degradation is a hallmark of all punishment and especially of imprisonment. Prisons as total institutions entail distinctive power relations between staff and inmates that increase risks of violations of prisoners’ dignity. Protection of human dignity is complicated by difficulties in defining the term: the sense of personal dignity experienced subjectively by the individual may be at odds with social dignity recognized by others. Respect or denial of human dignity is strongly felt by prisoners; the struggle for recognition is arduous and never-ending. This is illustrated by the relative successes of the prisoners’ rights movement in American courts between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s, followed for two decades by a decline in dignity-based judicial decisions on prisoners’ rights and, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011), by a timid hope for a “second coming of dignity.” Expansions in protection of prisoners’ dignity in Europe came later, in the 1980s, increased significantly through the 2010s, and more recently face new challenges from recalcitrant governments and more cautious judges.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"50 1","pages":"301 - 351"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41345047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"When Crime Policies Travel: Cross-National Policy Transfer in Crime Control","authors":"T. Jones, T. Newburn","doi":"10.1086/716539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716539","url":null,"abstract":"Cross-national policy movement in crime control has only recently become the focus of scholarly attention. Research findings suggest, despite appearances to the contrary, that fully fledged policy transfers are rare. In practice, soft transfer (in terms of symbolic dimensions of policy) appears more prevalent than harder manifestations (e.g., the travel of institutions, instruments, and practices). Soft transfers are usually associated with penal policies that have emotive political appeal. Hard transfers are more likely to occur when policies have a strong technical flavor. A number of mechanisms influence policy transfer, ranging from purposive and self-conscious lesson drawing to more imposed forms of policy adoption. A number of factors facilitate or constrain the degree to which policies travel and how they take shape during and after the process, from matters of cultural and political attraction to the activities of policy and moral entrepreneurs. This field of research was once dominated by a focus on the Global North as the site of policy transfer or the source of policy influence, but increasing attention is now paid to circulation and spread of policy models within the Global South and from South to North.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"50 1","pages":"115 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48072719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rethinking Criminal Propensity and Character: Cohort Inequalities and the Power of Social Change","authors":"R. Sampson, L. A. Smith","doi":"10.1086/716005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716005","url":null,"abstract":"The social transformations of crime and punishment in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries challenge traditional conceptions of criminal propensity and character. A life-course framework on cohort differences in growing up during these times of social change highlights large-scale inequalities in life experiences. Entire cohorts of children have come of age in such different historical contexts that typical markers of a crime-prone character, such as being a chronic offender or having an arrest record, are as much a function of societal change as of an individual’s early life propensities or background characteristics, including classic risk factors emphasized in criminology. When we are thus matters as much as, and perhaps more than, who we are—despite law, practice, and theory privileging the latter. Because crime over the life course is shaped by changing sociohistorical conditions, it must be studied as such. Multicohort studies provide a key strategy for doing so, inspiring a reconsideration of criminal propensity and policies premised on unchanging predictors of future criminality. Developmental and life-course criminology should elevate the study of cohort differences in social change and, ultimately, societal character.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"50 1","pages":"13 - 76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41375868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Fatalism and Indifference: The Influence of the Frontier on American Criminal Justice","authors":"M. Tonry","doi":"10.1086/717015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/717015","url":null,"abstract":"American criminal laws and criminal justice systems are harsher, more punitive, more afflicted by racial disparities and injustices, more indifferent to suffering, and less respectful of human dignity than those of other Western countries. The explanations usually offered—rising crime rates in the 1970s and 1980s, public anger and anxiety, crime control politics, neoliberal economic and social policies—are fundamentally incomplete. The deeper explanations are four features of American history that shaped values, attitudes, and beliefs and produced a political culture in which suffering is fatalistically accepted and policy makers are largely indifferent to individual injustices. They are the history of American race relations, the evolution of Protestant fundamentalism, local election of judges and prosecutors, and the continuing influence of political and social values that emerged during three centuries of western expansion. The last, encapsulated in Frederick Jackson Turner’s “frontier thesis,” is interwoven with the other three. Together, they explain long-term characteristics of American criminal justice and the extraordinary severity of penal policies and practices since the 1970s.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"50 1","pages":"425 - 464"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46848979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review","authors":"Damon M. Petrich, T. Pratt, C. Jonson, F. Cullen","doi":"10.1086/715100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/715100","url":null,"abstract":"Beginning in the 1970s, the United States began an experiment in mass imprisonment. Supporters argued that harsh punishments such as imprisonment reduce crime by deterring inmates from reoffending. Skeptics argued that imprisonment may have a criminogenic effect. The skeptics were right. Previous narrative reviews and meta-analyses concluded that the overall effect of imprisonment is null. Based on a much larger meta-analysis of 116 studies, the current analysis shows that custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation. This finding is robust regardless of variations in methodological rigor, types of sanctions examined, and sociodemographic characteristics of samples. All sophisticated assessments of the research have independently reached the same conclusion. The null effect of custodial compared with noncustodial sanctions is considered a “criminological fact.” Incarceration cannot be justified on the grounds it affords public safety by decreasing recidivism. Prisons are unlikely to reduce reoffending unless they can be transformed into people-changing institutions on the basis of available evidence on what works organizationally to reform offenders.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"50 1","pages":"353 - 424"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48320398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Doing Justice in Sentencing","authors":"M. Tonry","doi":"10.1086/715029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/715029","url":null,"abstract":"Punishment theories and policies have marched in different directions in the United States for nearly 50 years. Philosophers and others who try to understand what justice requires, policy makers who create the rules for dispensing it, and practitioners who try to achieve it don’t communicate with each other very well, or at all. They lack a common vocabulary. More importantly, they lack a shared understanding of what punishment is and does, and what it should aspire to be and to do. This is unusual. Shared understandings exist in most countries and did in the United States through the 1960s. The costs have been high. They include mass imprisonment, extraordinary injustice, assembly-line case processing, and moral impoverishment. Here are two concrete examples. California’s three-strikes law required minimum 25-year prison sentences for many trifling property crimes. Notorious cases involved thefts of three pizza slices, three golf clubs, and a handful of DVDs. The golf clubs and DVDs made it to the US Supreme Court. Many states’ laws authorized, sometimes mandated, life sentences without parole for young teenagers, some convicted of homicide but many convicted of lesser crimes. Those laws would have been unimaginable in the United States before the 1980s, and they are unimaginable today in otherWestern countries. That is because of widely shared agreements in most times and places that fierce punishments for minor crimes are unjust and that troubled young people should be dealt with sympathetically.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"50 1","pages":"1 - 12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48338821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}