自由裁量权是弱点:探究管教人员对自由裁量权的态度与试图侵犯边界之间的关系

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Leanne Stevens , William J. Schultz , Andrew C. Patterson
{"title":"自由裁量权是弱点:探究管教人员对自由裁量权的态度与试图侵犯边界之间的关系","authors":"Leanne Stevens ,&nbsp;William J. Schultz ,&nbsp;Andrew C. Patterson","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Research paints discretion as a tool correctional officers (COs) use to navigate their work. Discretion helps COs gain compliance and resolve conflicts amicably, and officers sometimes use it to improve relationships with incarcerated people. However, research also suggest that COs' reliance on discretionary power may produce harmful complications, undermining institutional regulations and creating conditions for serious rule violations. Little quantitative analysis exists on how CO discretion impacts prison operations, making the broader impact of discretion unclear. To address this gap, we use open-access data collected between 2017 and 2018 (<span><span>Griffin &amp; Hepburn, 2020</span></span>). We then test whether a CO's attitude toward discretion may correspond with attempts from incarcerated people to encourage boundary violations. Results show that COs with more liberal attitudes toward discretion correspond with higher odds of being approached by incarcerated people to violate boundaries. Black COs have lower odds of being approached for minor boundary violations, while women officers have higher odds of having incarcerated people try to initiate an inappropriate relationship. Findings show that liberal attitudes among COs toward discretion may encourage incarcerated people to violate the most consequential prison rules. We conclude by discussing the implications for future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48272,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Justice","volume":"95 ","pages":"Article 102274"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discretion as weakness: Exploring the relationship between correctional officers' attitudes toward discretion and attempted boundary violations\",\"authors\":\"Leanne Stevens ,&nbsp;William J. Schultz ,&nbsp;Andrew C. Patterson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102274\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Research paints discretion as a tool correctional officers (COs) use to navigate their work. Discretion helps COs gain compliance and resolve conflicts amicably, and officers sometimes use it to improve relationships with incarcerated people. However, research also suggest that COs' reliance on discretionary power may produce harmful complications, undermining institutional regulations and creating conditions for serious rule violations. Little quantitative analysis exists on how CO discretion impacts prison operations, making the broader impact of discretion unclear. To address this gap, we use open-access data collected between 2017 and 2018 (<span><span>Griffin &amp; Hepburn, 2020</span></span>). We then test whether a CO's attitude toward discretion may correspond with attempts from incarcerated people to encourage boundary violations. Results show that COs with more liberal attitudes toward discretion correspond with higher odds of being approached by incarcerated people to violate boundaries. Black COs have lower odds of being approached for minor boundary violations, while women officers have higher odds of having incarcerated people try to initiate an inappropriate relationship. Findings show that liberal attitudes among COs toward discretion may encourage incarcerated people to violate the most consequential prison rules. We conclude by discussing the implications for future research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":\"95 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102274\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235224001235\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235224001235","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究表明,自由裁量权是管教人员(COs)用来指导工作的一种工具。自由裁量权有助于狱警获得服从并友好地解决冲突,有时狱警还利用自由裁量权改善与被监禁者的关系。然而,研究也表明,狱警对自由裁量权的依赖可能会产生有害的并发症,破坏制度规定,为严重违反规则创造条件。关于监狱长自由裁量权如何影响监狱运作的定量分析很少,因此自由裁量权的广泛影响并不明确。为了弥补这一不足,我们使用了 2017 年至 2018 年间收集的公开数据(Griffin & Hepburn, 2020)。然后,我们检验了监狱长对自由裁量权的态度是否与被监禁者鼓励违反边界的企图相对应。结果表明,对自由裁量权持更宽松态度的刑警,被被监禁者接触以违反边界的几率更高。黑人狱警因轻微违反界限而被接触的几率较低,而女性狱警因被监禁者试图建立不正当关系而被接触的几率较高。研究结果表明,监狱长对自由裁量权的宽松态度可能会鼓励被监禁者违反最严重的监狱规定。最后,我们将讨论未来研究的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discretion as weakness: Exploring the relationship between correctional officers' attitudes toward discretion and attempted boundary violations

Research paints discretion as a tool correctional officers (COs) use to navigate their work. Discretion helps COs gain compliance and resolve conflicts amicably, and officers sometimes use it to improve relationships with incarcerated people. However, research also suggest that COs' reliance on discretionary power may produce harmful complications, undermining institutional regulations and creating conditions for serious rule violations. Little quantitative analysis exists on how CO discretion impacts prison operations, making the broader impact of discretion unclear. To address this gap, we use open-access data collected between 2017 and 2018 (Griffin & Hepburn, 2020). We then test whether a CO's attitude toward discretion may correspond with attempts from incarcerated people to encourage boundary violations. Results show that COs with more liberal attitudes toward discretion correspond with higher odds of being approached by incarcerated people to violate boundaries. Black COs have lower odds of being approached for minor boundary violations, while women officers have higher odds of having incarcerated people try to initiate an inappropriate relationship. Findings show that liberal attitudes among COs toward discretion may encourage incarcerated people to violate the most consequential prison rules. We conclude by discussing the implications for future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Criminal Justice
Journal of Criminal Justice CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Criminal Justice is an international journal intended to fill the present need for the dissemination of new information, ideas and methods, to both practitioners and academicians in the criminal justice area. The Journal is concerned with all aspects of the criminal justice system in terms of their relationships to each other. Although materials are presented relating to crime and the individual elements of the criminal justice system, the emphasis of the Journal is to tie together the functioning of these elements and to illustrate the effects of their interactions. Articles that reflect the application of new disciplines or analytical methodologies to the problems of criminal justice are of special interest. Since the purpose of the Journal is to provide a forum for the dissemination of new ideas, new information, and the application of new methods to the problems and functions of the criminal justice system, the Journal emphasizes innovation and creative thought of the highest quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信