Criminal justice field: overview and current perspectives

Criminal Justice Field

Define what an experiment is and how it is useful in the field of criminal justice research.

Since the beginning of the discipline, quantitative methods have supplied the primary research methods for studying the division and causes of crime. Quantitative methods provide many ways to attain data that is useful to many facets of society. The use of quantitative methods such as survey research, field research, and evaluation research can help criminologists to assemble dependable and valid data. The data can be used by criminologists and other social scientists in order to make causal statements about variables that are being researched (Weisburd, 2000).

Some scholars think that experimental research is the best kind of research to use to evaluate cause and effect. It is thought that true experiments must have at least three features: two comparison groups, variation in the independent variable before assessment of change in the dependent variable and random assignment to the two or more comparison groups. Many experiments contain both a pre-test and a post-test. The pre-test measures the dependent variable before the experimental involvement while the post-test measures the outcome variable after the experimental group has received the treatment. Randomization is what creates the comparison group in a true experiment this is a powerful approach for identifying the effects of the treatment. Assigning groups arbitrarily to the experimental and comparison groups guarantees that systematic bias does not affect the assignment of subjects to groups. This is important if researchers wish to generalize their findings regarding cause and effect among key variables within and across groups (Criminology and Criminal Justice Research: Methods - Quantitative Research Methods, 2010).

Quantitative research methods are normally concerned with measuring criminological or criminal justice actuality. In theory, experimental designs supply the most dependable method in order to establish a relationship between interventions and outcomes. Yet, in practice, randomized experiments have continued a much less frequent choice for criminal justice evaluators than have non-experimental methods (Weisburd, 2000).

Define some alternative forms of data gathering strategies and discuss how they can be beneficial in social science research. In what ways might some of these reflect the assumptions associated with good experimental design?

The data needed for a social science research may be broadly classified into (a) Data pertaining to human beings, (b) Data relating to organizations, and (c) Data pertaining to territorial areas. Personal data or data that is related to human beings consist of demographic and socio-economic distinctiveness of individuals like age, sex, race, social class, religion, marital status, education, occupation, income, family size, location of the household, life style and behavioral variables like attitudes, opinions, awareness, knowledge, practice and intentions. Organizational data consist of data relating to an organization's origin, ownership, objectives, resources, functions, performance and growth. Territorial data are related to geophysical characteristics, resources endowment, population, occupational pattern, infrastructure, economic structure, degree of development, like spatial divisions like villages, cities, and the nation (Methods of data collection, 2010).

The data provide as the bases or raw materials for examination. Without an analysis of factual data, no exact inferences can be drawn on the questions that are under study. Deduction based on imagination or guesswork cannot supply correct answers to research questions. The significance, adequacy and reliability of data establish the quality of the findings of a study. Data form the foundation for testing the hypotheses devises in a study. Data also afford the facts and figures required for building measurement scales and tables, which are examined with statistical techniques. Inferences on the outcomes of statistical, analysis and tests of significance provide the responses to research questions. Therefore the scientific process of extent, analysis, testing and inferences depends on the accessibility of relevant data and their accuracy. This is why data is important for any research study (Methods of data collection, 2010).

Primary sources are original sources from which the researcher directly collects data that have not been previously collected, e.g., collection of data directly by the researcher on brand awareness, brand preference, brand loyalty and other aspects of consumer behavior from a sample of consumers by interviewing them. Primary data are personal information collected through various methods such as observation, interviewing and mailing. Secondary sources are basis that contain data that have been collected and compiled for another reason. The secondary sources consist of readily available compendia and already compiled statistical statements and reports whose data may be used by researches for their studies, like census reports, annual reports and financial statements of companies, Statistical statements, Reports of Government Departments, Annual Reports on currency and finance published by the National Bank for Ethiopia, Statistical Statements relating to Cooperatives, Federal Cooperative Commission, Commercial Banks and Micro Finance Credit Institutions published by the National Bank for Ethiopia, Reports of the National Sample Survey Organization, Reports of trade associations, publications of international organizations (Methods of data collection, 2010).

Secondary sources consist of not only published proceedings and reports, but also unpublished things as well. The unpublished category includes various records and registers that are maintained by firms and organizations like accounting and financial records, personnel records, register of members, minutes of meetings and inventory records. Even though secondary sources are dissimilar and consist of all sorts of materials, they have certain common features. First, they are convenient and readily available, and do not necessitate the trouble of constructing tools and administering them. Second, they consist of data over which a researcher has no unique control over collection and classification. Others outline both the form and the content of secondary sources. Evidently, this is a feature, which can limit the research value of secondary sources. Finally, secondary sources are not restricted in time and space. That is, the researcher using them need not have been present when and where they were gathered (Methods of data collection, 2010).

Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of using the experimental method and the strengths and resources and pick the most rigorous design possible, given those restraints.

Each type of design has its advantages and disadvantages, so be realistic about what kind of design you can implement. A post-test-only design might not produce the information you require, but quasi-experimental and experimental design studies could be too complex to perform without outside help. To manage evaluation effectively in your department, do not waste time and resources committing to a design that is beyond your capabilities or will not provide the information that you need in the end (Ward, Chibnall and Harris, n.d.).

The following are examples of strengths and weaknesses of several methods that are often used in the criminal justice field:

Post-test only - Measures one group at one time only after the treatment. It can document the reduction of a problem. It requires access to only one group at only one time. There is often no valid baseline measure for comparison and it does not allow one to assess changes from the baseline.

Pre- and Post-test- Measures one group at two different times, both before and after program completion. It provides a baseline measure and it requires access to only one group. One cannot know for certain that your program produced the change.

Pre- Post- Post-test - Measures a group at three different times, once before the program and twice after program completion. It allows one to figure out if there are any sustained effects, which result from the program. It does not show conclusively that your program produced the change; may be difficult to follow up with everyone.

Quasi-experimental - Measures two groups at two different times, before and after the program. One group does not receive the treatment program. It offers a decent level of confidence that your program caused the observed change. It may be difficult though to find two groups that are similar enough to be compared as it is more costly to have comparison groups.

Experimental -- this consists of groups whose members are randomly assigned at two different times, before and after the program. One group does not receive the treatment program. It provides the highest level of confidence that the program brought about the observed change. It is difficult to implement in a real-life setting. There are ethical issues involved with the random withholding of a beneficial program from one group (Ward, Chibnall and Harris, n.d.).

Discuss some examples of research studies employing alternative data gathering strategies.

Quasi-experimental research lacks the random assignment to experimental and control groups, but can be approximated by close and careful matching of subjects across the two groups on several key variables. The two major types of quasi-experimental designs are: (1) nonequivalent control group designs, which have experimental and comparison groups that are designated before the treatment occurs and are not created by random assignment; and (2) before-and-after designs, which have both a pre- and post-test but no comparison group. An example of a nonequivalent control group design is a study of the effect of police actions on seat-belt law violations. In one study there were two communities selected of comparable size where police enforcement of the law was low. In the experimental community, the researchers instituted a media campaign to increase seat-belt usage, followed by increased police enforcement of the seat-belt law. It was found that the percentage of drivers using seat belts increased in the experimental community but remained stable or declined slightly in the comparison community (Piquero and Piquero, 2002).

An example of the before-and-after design would be the analysis of the impact of the Massachusetts Bartley-Fox gun law. This law carried a one-year minimum prison sentence for the unlicensed carrying of firearms. Their early evaluation showed a decrease in gun-related assaults, robberies, and homicides, but was offset by increases in non-gun assaults and robberies using other weapons (Piquero and Piquero, 2002).

Cross-sectional designs involve studies of one group at one point in time. Consequently, they offer a quick look at or snapshot of the phenomena that is being studied. Classically, they refer to a representative sample of the group and therefore allow researchers to simplify their findings. Cross-sectional research designs saturate criminology and criminal justice research. Hirschi's famous study of causes of delinquency utilized a cross-sectional design in which he asked male respondents a series of questions related to involvement in delinquent activities and emotional ties to social bonds (Piquero and Piquero, 2002).

There are two frequently used longitudinal research designs, panel and cohort studies. Both look at the same group over a period of time and are usually concerned with assessing within- and between-group change. Panel studies pursue the same group or sample over time, while cohort studies look at more specific populations as they change over time. Panel studies classically interview the same set of people at two or more periods of time. For example, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) arbitrarily selects a certain number of households from across the United States and interviews a member from each a sequence of seven times at six-month intervals. Cohort studies follow individuals or specific cohorts as they change over time. One model example of a cohort study was conducted by Marvin Wolfgang and his colleagues in Philadelphia. The authors followed the criminal records of all boys born in Philadelphia in 1945 through the age of eighteen. Similarly, Tracy, Wolfgang and Figlio tracked the criminal history of males and females born in Philadelphia in 1958 (Piquero and Piquero, 2002).

Time-series designs classically involve variations of multiple observations of the same group over time or at consecutive points in time. Normally, they analyze a single variable such as the crime rate at consecutive time periods, and are particularly useful for studies of the impact of new laws or social programs. An example of a time-series design would be to look at the murder rate in the United States over the last twenty years or to evaluate the murder rate of the United States and Canada over the same period of time (Piquero and Piquero, 2002).

An interrupted time-series design looks at a single variable at consecutive time periods with measures taken before some form of interruption and other observations taken after the intervention. An example of an interrupted time-series design can be found in Spelman and Eck (1987). These authors looked at the number of larcenies from automobiles in Newport News, Virginia. The intervention in this study was a problem-oriented policing program that was made up of special tracking and investigation of crime events. The results showed that the amount of larcenies dropped considerably right away after the intervention took place and remained drastically small for over one year after the intervention. In another interrupted time series study, D'Alessio and Stolzenberg investigated the impact of Minnesota sentencing guidelines on jail incarceration. They found that the onset of the sentencing guidelines increased judicial use of the jail sanction beyond the effect of preexisting trends (Piquero and Piquero, 2002).

Although time-series designs are particularly useful in studying trends over time and how such trends are inclined by some sort of intervention, researchers should be aware of one key feature of time-series designs - the inability to control for all potential unauthentic effects. A researchers may be studying the effect on robberies of a mandatory convenience store law that necessitates stores to have at least two clerks working during hours of operation and after looking at the number of robberies before and after the law took effect, the researcher observed that the number of robberies considerably decreased after the law was put into place. Consequently, the researcher maintained that the law led to the reduction in the number of robberies committed and concluded that the law should be comprehensive to other locales. Nevertheless, what the researcher may have failed to think about was the recent capture of two offenders who were committing almost all convenience store robberies, and who just happened to be caught about the same time the law took effect. In sum, researchers need to be careful in making sure that their interpretations of interrupted time-series analyses take into consideration as much information, empirical and non-empirical, as possible (Piquero and Piquero, 2002).

A recent introduction in research methodology is the use of meta-analysis. This research approach is the quantitative analysis of findings from multiple studies. At its center, meta-analysis involves researchers drawing together the results of several studies and making a summary about some cause and effect relationships. A classic example of meta-analysis in criminology was performed by Wells and Rankin and concerned the relationship between broken homes and delinquency (Piquero and Piquero, 2002).

What are the roles of law enforcement, the court system, and the penal system in bringing a proper balance to our criminal justice system?

There is no one system of criminal justice. Each state and each local government, along with the federal government has its own system. The U.S. Constitution initially left most criminal law to the states, with each state anticipated to reflect community standards through enforcement of its own criminal laws. State allocation of police protection to local governments and independent selection of local judges, prosecutors, and sheriffs further reflected a fear of central law enforcement. This diversity highlights that:

No jurisdiction's criminal justice system can be understood without asking questions about it frankly.

National criminal justice proposals are limited by the constitutions of the United States.

Criminal justice in America is based on a system of checks and balances that bring about exclusive challenges to general government officials.

Lawmakers and chief executives have to work with court officials and agency heads

The independently selected criminal justice officials interact with police departments, public defenders, forensic services, parole boards, probation departments, and prison systems separately authorized and/or funded by municipal, county, state, or federal governments or the judiciary.

Criminal sanctions and preventative efforts may need to involve other general government agencies and private sector initiatives that provide education, substance abuse, and employment services essential to offenders' successful reentry into society (Guide to the Criminal Justice System for General Government Elected Officials, n.d.).

How do citizens influence our system vs. wealth and private interests, or the media?

The relationship between the criminal justice system and the media system has been the subject of research, speculation, and commentary throughout the twentieth century. This relationship may be understood in terms of dependency relations operative between these massive systems. Put most simply, neither the media nor the criminal justice system could operate effectively without the other. The criminal justice system is a resource for the media system in that it affords one of the common sources of news and entertainment stories. The classical surrogate scout role of the media, whereby they monitor the environment for actual and potential threats to individual and collective welfare, affords a powerful way for the media to attract their audiences. People must constantly update their understanding and ability to orient themselves to the environments in which they act. Commercial media organizations translate this relationship with their audience into the profit that flows from advertisers. The media system's capacities to reach vast audiences of citizens and policymakers also position it as an essential resource for the criminal justice system and all of its attendant judicial and law enforcement organizations. For the criminal justice system to operate effectively, it must have the authority that derives from people's willingness to grant it legitimacy, and media storytelling can profoundly affect this process. Allocation of scarce resources to the criminal justice system also depends upon success in the struggle to get "its" story positively framed and widely disseminated to media audiences. These macro dependency relations serve as context for examinations of specific aspects of media, criminal justice, public, and decision-maker relations (Mass Media and Crime, 2010).

How does the existing social climate of the times influence how the criminal justice system might work or what might be emphasized in the enforcement and adjudication of the laws of the land?

A system's organizational environment is described as any external phenomenon, event, group or individual which is composed of technological, legal, political, economic, demographic, ecological and cultural forces. It has been determined that as environmental conditions change, demands for service, legal resources and positions on policy and programs of both public and private organizations may change. It has further explained that adapting to these new demands, constraints and pressures may alter the mission or policy of the organization. For example, increasing the number of arrests as a result of an increase in crime and public pressure will impact on the criminal justice system. The populations of jails will increase and court dockets and caseloads of prosecuting attorneys will expand. Another good example of how the organization's environment can affect the organization is through direct pressures from constituents and clients and indirectly through governmental action. The government's response to political conditions can be passed on to the organization and other agencies within the system. Governments can be influenced to change budgets and mandates, and to alter the composition of top administrative personnel. These situations normally result after elections or after legislation is written that change the purpose or power base of a bureaucracy. It was also found that that changes in organizational environments have led to a variety of justice models being used over the years (Smith, 2003)

How might we change the criminal justice system so as to make it work better for the greater good?

While heavily focused on non-violent offenders, law enforcement has been distracted from pursuing the approximately one million gang members and drug cartels besieging our cities, often engaging in unprecedented levels of violence. Gangs in some areas commit 80% of the crimes and are heavily involved in drug distribution and other violent activities. This disturbing trend affects every community in the United States. Ex-offenders are also confronted with a lack of meaningful re-entry programs. With the high volume of people who are coming out of prisons, it is in the self-interest of every American that national leadership design programs that provide former offenders a true pathway towards a productive future.

An examination is required as to what happens inside our prisons. Our correctional officers deserve better support in dealing with violent criminals under their supervision. It is also imperative that we facilitate a safe environment for all inmates, and examine ways to better prepare them for their release back into civil society. The de-humanizing environment of jails and prisons compounds these challenges. Without question, it is in the national interest that we bring violent offenders and career criminals to justice. The purpose of this legislation is not to let dangerous or incorrigible people go free. Rather, it is to determine how best to structure our criminal justice system so that it is fair, appropriate and above all effective. No American neighborhood is completely safe from the intersection of all of these problems. Fixing our system will require us to reexamine who goes to prison, for how long and how we address the long-term consequences of their incarceration. Our failure to address these problems cuts against the notion that we are a society founded on fundamental fairness (Webb, 2009).

In order to evaluate the performance of police departments, correctional agencies, and other key components of the justice system exclusively in terms of crime rates and recidivism rates may cause observers to overlook other important contributions of the system's day-to-day performance and can obscure the role that average citizens play in promoting secure communities. A wide gap often exists between the general public's expectations for the justice system and what most justice practitioners recognize as the system's actual capacity to protect public well-being. This paper sketches an outline of a new paradigm encompassing the criminal justice system's history, vision, purposes, and measures. Four points of qualification, however, are in order.

First, this call for a new paradigm is not motivated by a desire to design performance measures that guarantee justice agency success. Rather, it represents an attempt to develop realistic intermediate and long-range measures. Realistic measures account for the daily activities of justice agencies and for the constraints under which they normally operate. Realistic, however, does not mean easy to achieve. Indeed, the alternate measures presented in subsequent papers in this volume are measures according to which many justice institutions, programs, and practices now fail. Second, better performance measures do not act like magnets for better ways of meeting goals. All performance measures have their limitations and may invite perverse and unintended administrative consequences. Still, justice practitioners probably can learn something about how to fashion and implement effective performance measures from the experiences of other organizations, public and private. Third, a paradigm is broader than a theory. A theory is a statement about the relationship between two or more variables that is supposed to hold under specified conditions. 7 A new paradigm orients general understanding to historical, empirical, or normative realities that a prevailing paradigm has arguably de-emphasized, devalued, or simply ignored. In essence, to call for a new paradigm is to appeal for new concepts and categories of thinking about a given subject. Fourth, crime rates and recidivism rates are indeed important measures of the system's performance, which ought to be continually used and refined. Even so, all citizens in a democracy are responsible to some degree for the way in which society addresses the problem of crime. In addition, justice agencies serve the public in myriad ways that are indirectly related to crime control goals, and society should devise and implement performance measures that respect this reality (DiIulio, Alpert, Moore, Cole, Petersilia, Logan and Wilson, 1993).