<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com">
<title>Criminal Justice Policy Review current issue</title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com</link>
<description>Criminal Justice Policy Review RSS feed -- current issue</description>
<prism:coverDisplayDate>June 2008</prism:coverDisplayDate>
<prism:publicationName>Criminal Justice Policy Review</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>0887-4034</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/135?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/153?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/164?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/181?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/196?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/215?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/239?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/19/2/249?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif" />
</channel>

<image rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif">
<title>Criminal Justice Policy Review</title>
<url>http://cjp.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif</url>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com</link>
</image>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/135?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Abortion as Crime Control: A Cautionary Tale]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/135?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Donohue and Levitt have applied the selective incapacitation hypothesis to account for what they contend is a latent function of the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in <I>Roe v. Wade</I> to legalize abortion&mdash;the decline in the crime rate during the 1990s. They contend that abortion, insofar as it removes recidivists from the population before they are born, has the compositional effect of lowering the overall rate of crime within the country. In this article, their thesis is indirectly evaluated by estimating interrupted time series models of the impact of the <I> Roe</I> decision on several nativity time series for two categories of women Donohue and Levitt identify as being disproportionately at risk for giving birth to high-rate offenders. None of the ARIMA transfer function models lends any credence to Donohue and Levitt's perspective.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chamlin, M. B., Myer, A. J., Sanders, B. A., Cochran, J. K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407310798</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Abortion as Crime Control: A Cautionary Tale]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>152</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>135</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/153?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Rural Hotspots: The Case of Adult Businesses]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/153?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A recent U.S. Tenth Circuit decision questions whether the routine activity theory of hotspots applies to adult businesses located in sparsely populated rural areas. Although few criminologists are interested in urban&mdash;rural differences, the Tenth Circuit decision makes this topic acutely relevant to policy makers and courts. To address the threshold question, the hotspot theory is analyzed to demonstrate its generality to urban, suburban, and rural locations. The results of a corroborating case study are then presented. When an adult entertainment business opens on an interstate highway off-ramp to a small rural village, total crime rises by 60%. Alternative explanations related to uncontrolled threats to internal validity are considered and ruled out. After reporting the results of the case study, the consequences of the theory and results for policy makers and courts are discussed.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[McCleary, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403408315111</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Rural Hotspots: The Case of Adult Businesses]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>163</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>153</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/164?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Crime Prevention and the Science of Where People Are]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/164?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Crime prevention initiatives are often conceptualized working at primary-secondary-tertiary (PST) levels. Primary prevention efforts address the underlying social, economic, and physical environmental conditions that generate crime; secondary prevention efforts focus on people, places, and social conditions that are at high risk of crime; whereas tertiary prevention efforts are directed toward already existing and specific crime problems. This article discusses the uses of the ambient population (a 24-hr average estimate of the population present in a spatial area) to better inform crime prevention initiatives within the PST framework. Though the results indicate the ambient population has utility for all three levels of crime prevention, the most immediate use is in tertiary prevention to better understand the nature of areas with a current crime problem. This information is not available from the resident (or census) population because the resident population indicates where people sleep, not where they are.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andresen, M. A., Jenion, G. W.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407311591</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Crime Prevention and the Science of Where People Are]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>180</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>164</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/181?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Guns, Offense Type, and Virginia Exile: Should Gun Reduction Policies Focus on Specific Offenses?]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/181?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Efforts to curb gun crimes are the cornerstone of many criminal justice policies. Recent policies have called for different strategies including stiffer penalties, targeting hot spots, and targeting specific types of offenses. In this article, attention is given to whether gun reduction policies should focus on specific offense types as was outlined in Virginia Exile, a statewide policy aiming to deter gun violence. Case files (<I>n</I> = 559) from one prosecutor's office in southeastern Virginia were reviewed to determine the degree to which gun offenses were tied to three offenses&mdash;robbery, homicide, and drug offenses. Attention was also given to the dynamics surrounding crimes in which guns were used. The results suggest that guns were rarely used in drug offenses (which included possession offenses). Also, offenders from nearby communities were more likely to carry guns than those who lived in the community where they were arrested. Implications are provided.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Payne, B. K., Gainey, R. R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403408315389</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Guns, Offense Type, and Virginia Exile: Should Gun Reduction Policies Focus on Specific Offenses?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>195</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>181</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/196?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Gun Felons and Gun Regulation: Offenders' Views About and Reactions to "Shall-Issue" Policies for Carrying Concealed Weapons]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/196?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Many states have recently adopted "shall-issue" gun laws making it is easier for applicants to receive permits for carrying concealed weapons. The policy shift is based on assumptions regarding criminal behavior and positive consequences of the change (e.g., reducing crime). Because Colorado had enacted a shall-issue law recently, the authors interviewed a sample of violent offenders there regarding their views on this policy change. Although some supported the new law, the majority were opposed. Reasons inmates viewed the law positively include arguments that it would deter crime and help protect people. Reasons inmates viewed the law negatively focused mostly on increased crime while also mentioning other objections such as more gang members (especially those without previous felony convictions) possessing guns, and the possible negative interaction of more guns and alcohol/drug use and mental states. The behavioral and policy implications of the findings are discussed.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Unnithan, N. P., Pogrebin, M., Stretesky, P. B., Venor, G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407311589</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Gun Felons and Gun Regulation: Offenders' Views About and Reactions to "Shall-Issue" Policies for Carrying Concealed Weapons]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>214</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>196</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/215?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Incarcerated Mothers and Child Visitation: A Law, Social Science, and Policy Perspective]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/215?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This article examines the issue of child visitation for criminally confined mothers. This topic is assessed, mindful of what the social science literature reports, especially in regards to recidivism trends, community reintegration concerns, and prospects for successful family reunification. A 2002 National Institute of Corrections study found that only six states had legislation in place regarding incarcerated mothers and their children. Of these six states, California and Florida have statutes that deal substantively with the issue of visitation. Accordingly, this article considers the extent to which the relevant research informs (or not) those state statutes that comment on the issue of visitation for criminally confined mothers. Where deficiencies are noted between "law on the books" and "law in practice" (including the considerable lack of state statutes on the subject), a series of criminal justice policy reforms are proposed, consistent with the empirical findings.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Laughlin, J. S., Arrigo, B. A., Blevins, K. R., Coston, C. T. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407309039</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Incarcerated Mothers and Child Visitation: A Law, Social Science, and Policy Perspective]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>238</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>215</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/239?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Systems Modeling for Drug Courts: A Policy Research Note]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/239?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This policy research note argues for a systems modeling approach to explain drug court processes. The conceptual model links participants' beliefs, behavioral intentions, and behavioral outcomes. Conceptualization of core constructs combines elements of planned behavior theory with those of routine activities theory and acknowledges the transtheoretical model and therapeutic jurisprudence. Systems modeling is offered in an effort to identify specific drug court interventions that work, more accurately select suitable offenders, and ultimately to promote public safety.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gilbertson, T. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407311129</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Systems Modeling for Drug Courts: A Policy Research Note]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>248</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>239</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/19/2/249?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Book Review: Schwabe, W., Davis, L., & Jackson, B. (2001). Challenges and Choices for Crime-Fighting Technology: Federal Support of State and Local Law Enforcement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/19/2/249?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Battin, J. R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-02</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407310163</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Book Review: Schwabe, W., Davis, L., & Jackson, B. (2001). Challenges and Choices for Crime-Fighting Technology: Federal Support of State and Local Law Enforcement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>252</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>249</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>