<?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 recent issues</title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com</link>
<description>Criminal Justice Policy Review RSS feed -- recent issues</description>
<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:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/3?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/25?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/40?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/63?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/84?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/103?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/117?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/335?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/353-a?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/378?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/395?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/418?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/434?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/451?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/466?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/18/3/223?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/226?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/246?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/260?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/274?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/294?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/313?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>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/3?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Assessing Our Knowledge of Identity Theft: The Challenges to Effective Prevention and Control Efforts]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/3?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Identity theft, defined as the unlawful use of another's identifying information for gain, has quickly become the most prevalent financial crime in the United States. Despite its substantial growth, basic questions about identity theft&mdash;such as its prevalence, nature, and consequences; characteristics of offenders and victims; and extent of victims' losses&mdash;remain unanswered. This article highlights the primary challenges that hinder our knowledge about identity theft and simultaneously limit the effectiveness of prevention and intervention efforts. These challenges include limitations of current definitions, the fragmented law enforcement response, problems with existing data sources, and the nature of the crime itself&mdash;specifically, how it is committed, discovered, and reported. With these fundamental problems as a backdrop, the authors adopt a situational crime prevention framework and offer recommendations for prevention and intervention that center on reducing opportunity through more secure places and enhanced guardianship but also emphasize systematic data collection and research to improve our knowledge base of the crime.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[White, M. D., Fisher, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407306297</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Assessing Our Knowledge of Identity Theft: The Challenges to Effective Prevention and Control Efforts]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>24</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/25?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Citizens' Views on Using Alternate Reporting Methods in Policing]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/25?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Most people agree that local police should continue to place a high priority on responding to violent and other felony crime. At the same time, departments are increasingly asked to assume more service-related responsibilities within the community, creating a situation of thinly spread resources. Some nonemergency problems might be handled in an alternate way to increase efficiency in the delivery of police services. To measure community perceptions of alternate reporting methods, we mailed a survey to 6,000 urban residents in Kansas City. Most citizens embraced phone reporting, but were less willing to use mail-in reporting and the Internet. Policy implications are discussed.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alarid, L. F., Novak, K. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407308289</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Citizens' Views on Using Alternate Reporting Methods in Policing]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>39</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>25</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/40?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Sex Offender Laws: Legislators' Accounts of the Need for Policy]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/40?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>To date, scholars have simply inferred the beliefs underlying sex offender laws from the passage and content of the legislation. Few researchers have directly spoken to legislators to determine their opinions of the sex offender problem. This study seeks to determine the perceptions of sex offenders and sex offending in the 1990s that drove the need for sex offender reform in Illinois and the degree to which these perceptions influenced the content of the laws. The findings suggest that policy makers had very distinct ideas about the nature of the sex offender problem in terms of who was responsible, who was in need of protection, and the degree to which legislative responses would address the issue. There was congruence between these personal perceptions and the content of sex offender laws. The results shed light on the degree to which public officials' personal perceptions influence the passage and content of legislation.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sample, L. L., Kadleck, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407308292</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Sex Offender Laws: Legislators' Accounts of the Need for Policy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>62</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>40</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/63?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Race, Ethnicity, and Habitual-Offender Sentencing: A Multilevel Analysis of Individual and Contextual Threat]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/63?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Although sentencing research has expanded over the past decade, very little has been published in the area of habitual-offender statutes. The current research revisits and updates two of the few studies that focused on these sentencing enhancements. Crawford, Chiricos, and Kleck (1998), and later Crawford (2000), examined the application of the habitual-offender sentence enhancement for offenders in Florida in 1992 and 1993. Consistent with the prior research, this study includes individual-level as well as county-level variables and also updates the analysis by examining more recent data, including a measure of ethnicity, and using hierarchical general linear modeling to simultaneously model individual-level data nested within counties. The racial threat perspective serves as the backdrop to explain racial and ethnic disparity in punishment decisions based on contextual as well as individual threat. The findings indicate that racial and ethnic sentence disparity exists when habitual-offender status is invoked in Florida.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Crow, M. S., Johnson, K. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407308476</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Race, Ethnicity, and Habitual-Offender Sentencing: A Multilevel Analysis of Individual and Contextual Threat]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>83</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>63</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/84?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Blinded by Science: The Social Construction of Reality in Forensic Television Shows and its Effect on Criminal Jury Trials]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/84?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Using a social construction of reality perspective, this article examines the social distance between popular media depictions of criminal investigations and reality, and the extent to which these depictions influence criminal jury trials. Data were collected from a nationally representative, random sample of trial counsel and judges and was analyzed using qualitative methods. Results indicate there is a great deal of social distance between popular media depictions of criminal investigation and reality. Moreover, jurors appear to have no tools to assess the credibility of forensic testing on television shows or in trials. Furthermore, the social construction of reality on forensic television shows has not only influenced jury decisions but has also affected the ways in which trial counsel and judges do their jobs. Suggestions for further research and discussion of public policy implications are included in the study.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robbers, M. L. P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407305982</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Blinded by Science: The Social Construction of Reality in Forensic Television Shows and its Effect on Criminal Jury Trials]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>102</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>84</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/103?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Collecting Data From the Criminal Courts: Perspectives of Court Staff Members--A Research Note]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/103?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Because court policies and programs must be evaluated, the relationship between researchers and the staff members overseeing court data is an essential part of the process. Past research indicates that researchers commonly believe that their efforts are hampered by court staff members, who, accordingly, often have suspicions about the agendas of researchers. The present study examines an alternative viewpoint&mdash;the perspectives of court staff members who oversee the data requests of researchers. Specifically, 30 county-level and 30 state-level court staff members were interviewed about their relations with researchers in the data collection process, and the strategies they believe researchers can use to make the process more efficient. The authors find that staff members do not view their relations with researchers to be as problematic as the researchers perceive. The authors also discovered that there are several approaches that both sides can use to establish a better data collection process.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sever, B., Reisner, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407308293</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Collecting Data From the Criminal Courts: Perspectives of Court Staff Members--A Research Note]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>116</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>103</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/117?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Domestic Violence Statutes and Rates of Intimate Partner and Family Homicide: A Research Note]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/117?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This study explores whether states adopting specific domestic violence laws have significantly lower rates of intimate partner and family homicide, as well as a lower average of the two homicide rates. Point biserial correlation and multiple regression were used to analyze homicide rates, as measures of domestic violence, across seven statutory categories of state domestic violence laws for 47 continental states in the United States. With two exceptions, data show that state laws on domestic violence were not related to intimate partner and family homicide rates by state, or the average of the two homicide rates. The exceptions were moderate, but significant inverse correlations were found between family homicide and the average of family homicide and intimate partner homicide rates and states prohibiting firearm possession during a restraining order. However, in three separate regression models, no more than 23% of the variance in homicide rates was explained.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bridges, F. S., Tatum, K. M., Kunselman, J. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407309038</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Domestic Violence Statutes and Rates of Intimate Partner and Family Homicide: A Research Note]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>130</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>117</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/335?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Influence of Crack Cocaine on the Likelihood of Incarceration for a Violent Offense: An Examination of a Prison Sample]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/335?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>One of the most heated debates surrounding the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act has been about the "100 to 1" quantity ratio used for sentencing traffickers of the crack version of cocaine as compared to powder. This disparity primarily was based on the notion that crack cocaine users were more likely to engage in violence compared to their powder using counterparts (Everett, 1998; Sandy, 2003). However, there is still a paucity of empirical research that has examined the relationship between powder versus crack cocaine and violence. The purpose of this research was to investigate the following question: Do inmates who were under the influence of crack cocaine at the time of their offenses have a greater probability of being incarcerated for violent offenses compared to those offenders who were under the influence of powder cocaine? Clearly, the answer to this question is extremely relevant to policy regarding the 100 to 1 disparity in sentencing for crack offenders as mandated by the Act. Using race-specific models of logistic regression, results from this research found that respondents who were under the influence of either crack or powder cocaine were <I>less</I> likely to be incarcerated for a violent offense than respondents who were under the influence of alcohol. Additionally, the probabilities of serving time for a violent offense were approximately equal for individuals who were under the influence of crack cocaine compared to those who were under the influence of powder cocaine. However, the probability of serving time for a violent offense was approximately two times higher if the respondent was under the influence of alcohol compared to either crack or powder cocaine. This was true for both white and African-Americans offenders.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Leigey, M. E., Bachman, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-27</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407300177</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Influence of Crack Cocaine on the Likelihood of Incarceration for a Violent Offense: An Examination of a Prison Sample]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>352</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>335</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/353-a?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Is It an Inside Job?: An Examination of Internal Affairs Complaint Investigation Files and the Production of Nonsustained Findings]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/353-a?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Data concerning the internal investigation of complaints against police have rarely been available to researchers. The present study uses information derived through an examination of Internal Affairs complaint investigation files obtained from a large Midwestern police agency in order to examine issues related to the processing of complaints against the police. The article includes an overview of existing literature concerning citizen complaints and internal complaint review structures. Data are presented concerning complainants and accused officers, investigative findings, and the factors cited by investigators in order to justify their findings. Issues regarding the interpretation of sustain rates for citizen complaints are discussed, as well as suggested improvements for the internal review of complaints against the police.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Liederbach, J., Boyd, L. M., Taylor, R. W., Kawucha, S. K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-27</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407303799</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Is It an Inside Job?: An Examination of Internal Affairs Complaint Investigation Files and the Production of Nonsustained Findings]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>377</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>353</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/378?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A Preliminary Examination of AMBER Alert's Effects]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/378?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>AMBER Alerts are public announcements designed to elicit citizen tips that could help rapidly recover abducted children before they can be harmed by their kidnappers. Using various media accounts as a data source to garner a convenience sample of 275 alerts, the authors gathered basic information, including victim&ndash;offender relationship, recovery time, and the direct effects of the alert. AMBER Alert does appear to provide some positive benefits in recovering abducted children, although the evidence suggests that the alerts are not often used in "stereotypical" stranger abduction cases, and rarely do they appear to have the effect of possibly saving lives. The alerts appear most likely to be "successful" in familial abduction situations instead of the more menacing stranger abduction cases for which they were intended. Policy implications are discussed.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Griffin, T., Miller, M. K., Hoppe, J., Rebideaux, A., Hammack, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-27</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407302332</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A Preliminary Examination of AMBER Alert's Effects]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>394</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>378</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/395?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Density, Inmate Assaults, and Direct Supervision Jails]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/395?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Researchers have completed several studies on the effects of density on violence in prisons and jails, but little work has been done on density's impact on direct supervision jails. Direct supervision facilities, also known as new generation jails, were created by the Federal Bureau of Prisons with the goal of reducing violence, suicide and disorder. Given the crowded conditions in most jails across the country, it is important to determine the impact, if any, that density has on the operations of these jails. The current study involves an analysis of density on assaults in nearly 150 direct supervision jails. The results indicate that neither spatial nor social density are predictors of violence in these jails. Several direct supervision jail characteristics are also included in the analysis, but they are not associated with reported assaults. The racial composition of inmates, location of the jail, and number of inmates each officer is permitted to supervise predicted assaults.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tartaro, C., Levy, M. P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-27</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407299863</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Density, Inmate Assaults, and Direct Supervision Jails]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>417</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>395</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/418?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[State Administration of Drug Courts: Exploring Issues of Authority, Funding, and Legitimacy]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/418?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Although drug courts are local programs, many were established using federal grant dollars from the U.S. Department of Justice. As these federal grants run their course and overall federal funding for drug courts declines, drug court programs are increasingly relying on state funding for long-term sustainability. Based on prior research and interviews with state drug court directors, this article delineates the three basic models that have emerged for funding and management of these programs at the state level. There is no one best model&mdash;each has its strengths and weaknesses. States contemplating a centralization of their drug court activity are urged to carefully consider the executive, judicial, and collaborative models in light of their respective state bureaucratic structures. Whatever decision is made, it must reflect input from the important state-level stakeholders.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Heck, C., Roussell, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-27</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407305693</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[State Administration of Drug Courts: Exploring Issues of Authority, Funding, and Legitimacy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>433</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>418</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/434?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[An Alcohol Policy Evaluation of Drinking and Driving in Hillsborough County, Florida]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/434?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Driving under the influence (DUI) is a serious crime that contributes to approximately 9% of traffic-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities in the state of Florida. Specifically, Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa, has the highest rate of DUI-related occurrences in the state of Florida. There are several gaps in policy, enforcement, and treatment that need to be addressed before Hillsborough County can shed this dubious distinction. To this end, 15 key stakeholders involved in alcohol policy were interviewed about law enforcement, judicial, and treatment issues. Several obstacles to reducing DUI crime emerged: inadequate case preparation time, case overload, prosecution challenges such as leniency and inconsistency in sentencing, and the need for more collaboration between law enforcement, the judicial system, and treatment providers. Suggested recommendations included the addition of a DUI court, stricter legal and treatment requirements, and mandatory blood testing.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Grohosky, A. R., Moore, K. A., Ochshorn, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-27</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407303736</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[An Alcohol Policy Evaluation of Drinking and Driving in Hillsborough County, Florida]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>450</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>434</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/451?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Rebuilding at Gunpoint: A City-Level Re-Estimation of the Brady Law and RTC Laws in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/451?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina saw a sharp spike in gun-violence, which necessarily re-focused criminological research on the persistent question of how best to prevent gun-related violence. However, a Critical Review published by a National Academy of Science Research Council strongly suggests that previous research evaluating gun-policy outcomes may be unacceptably flawed methodologically, casting serious doubt upon the validity of the results. The research here presented adjusts for those flaws to revise our current knowledge of the effects two of the most common gun-interventions&mdash; the Brady Law and "right to carry" Laws&mdash;may exert on gun homicide rates and total homicide rates. The Brady Law is found exert a slight but statistically significant effect on both outcomes whereas "right to carry" laws fail to exert statistically significant deterrent effects on either outcome, and both results provisionally contradict earlier gun-policy outcome research, much as the academy report critically suggests.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[La Valle, J. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-27</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407299931</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Rebuilding at Gunpoint: A City-Level Re-Estimation of the Brady Law and RTC Laws in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>465</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>451</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/466?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Juvenile Justice: A System Divided]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/466?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>An increasing public focus on the effects of juvenile crime on society has dramatically impacted juvenile justice policy decisions in recent years. Historically, juvenile justice policy makers have attempted to address juvenile crime by promoting policies that address the rehabilitative needs of the offender. However, throughout the last 20 years of the 20th century, policy makers have advocated more punitive offense-based policies to address juvenile crime. This article examines the differences between these two approaches and the implications associated with the continued emergence of a more offense-based approach compared to the offender-based approach, which historically has been the foundation of the American juvenile justice system. The authors hope to stimulate discussion among stakeholders in the juvenile justice system to promote sound policy decisions based on scientific evidence.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hinton, W. J., Sims, P. L., Adams, M. A., West, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-27</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407304578</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Juvenile Justice: A System Divided]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>483</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>466</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/18/3/223?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Evaluating the Implementation and Impact of Drug Courts]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/18/3/223?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gilbertson, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-08-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407303222</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Evaluating the Implementation and Impact of Drug Courts]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>225</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>223</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/226?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Nexus Between Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program Integrity and Drug Court Effectiveness: Policy Recommendations for Pursuing Success]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/226?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The literature supporting the efficacy of drug courts continues to grow. Much attention and research has focused on recidivism rates for participants, and generally address the question of, do drug courts work? The current state of drug court practice is a process that relies heavily on the drug and alcohol treatment services that are offered to clients. Many treatment programs, and the treatment philosophy that underlies their approach to solving substance abuse, offer vague and eclectic approaches that oftentimes do not meet the diverse needs of their clients related to gender, culture, and specific cognitive impacts on the brain caused by drug use. We argue that a move toward the use of evidence-based practice, coupled with quality assurance measures for treatment providers, will promote best practice and will ensure program integrity that leads to effective and long-lasting drug court programs.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lutze, F. E., van Wormer, J. G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-08-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403406302327</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Nexus Between Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program Integrity and Drug Court Effectiveness: Policy Recommendations for Pursuing Success]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>245</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>226</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/246?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Effect of Demeanor on Drug Court Admission]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/246?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Research on suspect and defendant demeanor in the juvenile and criminal justice systems has concentrated on arrest and the severity of sanctioning outcomes. This article examines demeanor at an earlier juncture in the system: juvenile drug court admission. Regression analysis of 76 juvenile drug court case files suggests that program admittance (i.e., potential system leniency through diversion) is largely a function of projected attitude and behavior. Those exhibiting favorable demeanor during intake and assessment are significantly more likely to be accepted into drug court as are those with a dual diagnosis. Implications of the findings are considered for continued system involvement.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Miller, J. M., Miller, H. V., Barnes, J. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-08-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407301451</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Effect of Demeanor on Drug Court Admission]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>259</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>246</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/260?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Strange Bedfellows: The Tensions of Coerced Treatment]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/260?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The use of sanctions in drug treatment courts (DTCs) to enforce participant compliance with treatment represents the convergence of two different, sometimes opposing, correctional philosophies, punishment and rehabilitation. Though the literature on DTCs tends to treat this merging of ideologies unproblematically, it could present a possible source of conflict within DTCs and other coercive treatment programs. Exploratory interviews with staff and participants in a juvenile drug court (JDC) (n=37) uncovered two types of tension resulting from the sanctioning system. First, staff members often disagreed with each other over the appropriateness of rewards versus punishments and punishment severity to motivate compliance. Second, staff members experienced personal ambivalence over the efficacy of sanctions as a therapeutic tool, particularly when faced with some juveniles' continued noncompliance despite the sanctions. Staff neutralized this tension by attributing noncompliance to the juveniles' lack of motivation, concluding coerced treatment only works for those who are "ready" for treatment. This would appear to pose a paradox for coerced treatment, which is meant to induce compliance specifically among those who are not motivated. Future research should investigate the implications this ideological contradiction among staff has for the therapeutic outcomes of coerced treatment settings.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Whiteacre, K. W.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-08-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407300088</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Strange Bedfellows: The Tensions of Coerced Treatment]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>273</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>260</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/274?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Effectiveness of Drug Court Programming for Specific Kinds of Offenders: Methamphetamine and DWI Offenders Versus Other Drug-Involved Offenders]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/274?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Numerous evaluations have documented that drug court programs can and do work (Belenko, 1998, 1999, 2001; Gottfredson, Najaka, &amp; Kearly, 2003); however, to date, less attention has been paid to specific issues such as how well drug courts work for certain types of offenders. In particular, there has been a lack of attention paid to the personal characteristics that may be thought of as "risk factors" among participants, especially their drug of choice. Of particular interest in this study are the following questions: First, are drug courts equally effective for offenders charged with methamphetamine-related crimes versus other types of drug offenders? Second, is the drug court model equally effective for offenders charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) compared to other types of drug-involved offenders? Data from a hybrid drug court operating in a small urban area in the upper Midwest was used to examine the above questions. Information on 87 individuals who had participated in this drug court program and 124 similar offenders who were sentenced to prison followed by traditional parole were analyzed. Results indicated that the drug court reduced recidivism for methamphetamine-involved and other types of drug-using offenders; however, among DWI offenders, drug court graduation was not related to reduced recidivism, as it was among non-DWI offenders. Implications for drug court programming and future research are discussed.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bouffard, J. A., Richardson, K. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-08-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403406298621</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Effectiveness of Drug Court Programming for Specific Kinds of Offenders: Methamphetamine and DWI Offenders Versus Other Drug-Involved Offenders]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>293</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>274</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/294?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Drug Court Program Monitoring: Lessons Learned About Program Implementation and Research Methodology]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/294?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Drug courts were established in the United States as part of an effort to deal with the problems of drug-related criminal offending and the resulting overloading of the courts. Drug courts are purported to offer considerable hope for positive change in offenders, largely because of the balance between intensive supervision and rehabilitative services offered through such programs. This article reviews the implementation of one such drug court in a southern state, discusses noted implementation benchmarks for effective programs from the drug court literature, and examines the findings and lessons learned about program implementation and research methodology from a process evaluation that used multiple methods to assess program implementation.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Giacomazzi, A. L., Bell, V.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-08-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407301494</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Drug Court Program Monitoring: Lessons Learned About Program Implementation and Research Methodology]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>312</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>294</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/313?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Innovation and Discretion: The Drug Court as a People-Processing Institution]]></title>
<link>http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/313?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Drug courts emerged in the late 1980s as a solution to the mutual person-processing needs of the criminal justice and substance abuse treatment systems. In this article, the author draws on a rich body of observational data gathered during a 2-year period to illustrate the ways in which drug courts process program participants. I focus on the challenges faced by a drug court work group in shepherding new program participants into treatment. Specific processing activities include (a) locating appropriate eligible participants, (b) discovering an adequate diagnosis, (c) aligning resources necessary for placement, and (d) monitoring placements. The article identifies ways in which the interdisciplinary drug court model is optimally designed to address people-processing objects and simultaneously limited by conceptual and organizational ambiguities. The author concludes with a discussion of the unintended policy consequences of the drug court model and suggestions for future research.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Colyer, C. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-08-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0887403407303199</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Innovation and Discretion: The Drug Court as a People-Processing Institution]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Department of Criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>329</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2007-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>313</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>