Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice Policy Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Williams, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Criminal Justice Policy Innovation in the States

Jackson Williams

Public Citizen's Congress Watch

The early 1990s saw a flurry of activity in criminal justice legislation on both the state and federal levels. By January of 1993, pollsters found that crime had overtaken economic issues as the country's most important problem. During this time, four criminal justice policy innovations became popular with both state and federal officials: "Truth-in-Sentencing" laws, "Three-Strikes-You're-Out" laws, "boot camps" for convicted offenders, and juvenile court transfer provisions. This study attempts to determine what factors influenced states' adoptions of these innovations. It finds that states' crime rates were positively correlated with adoption of the measures, but other objective state factors, such as sentence length, were not. Strained state resources did not deter legislatures from enacting these policies. Voter ideology and political culture had less than expected impact. The study concludes that political entrepreneurs, rather than state characteristics, were responsible for adoption.

Key Words: legislation • state • corrections

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, 401-422 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0887403403252456
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeHome page
H.-E. Sung and S. Belenko
From Diversion Experiment to Policy Movement: A Case Study of Prosecutorial Innovation
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, August 1, 2006; 22(3): 220 - 240.
[Abstract] [PDF]