Suchergebnisse

Acknowledgments -- About the author -- Introduction -- Identifying and evaluating crime control -- Crime control perspectives -- Law enforcement approaches -- Traditional policing -- Proactive policing, directed patrol, and other advancements -- Community involvement in policing -- Prosecutors and crime control -- Legislation, courts, and corrections -- Crime control through legislation -- Crime control in the courts and beyond -- Sentencing -- Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions -- Rehabilitation, treatment, and job training -- Approaches beyond the criminal justice system -- Individual, family, and household crime control -- Crime control in the community and in schools -- Reducing criminal opportunities through environmental manipulation -- Conclusion -- Putting it all together and explaining crime trends -- Name index -- Subject index

Panel data were analyzed to determine whether funding for collaborative juvenile crime prevention programs reduced arrests in California counties. Because the data were a population (i.e., all 58 counties in the state), regression results were summarized descriptively, and special attention was given to the direction and magnitude of key coefficients. Funding was associated with little to no overall reductions in arrests for felonies, misdemeanors, and status offenses. However, estimates of arrests prevented varied across each of the 14 counties that received funding.

Alan Musgrave has consistently defended two positions that he regards as commonsensical: critical realism and critical rationalism. In this volume a group of internationally-renowned authors discuss themes that are relevant in one way or another to Musgrave's work. Rather than a standard celebratory festschrift, this book offers a new examination of topics of current interest in philosophy. The contributory essays are followed by responses from Alan Musgrave himself.

Researchers have recently combined individual-level data with institutional measures to detect prison-level correlates of inmate misconduct. Although this body of literature has yielded insights into how the prison environment contributes to misconduct, we argue that it has ignored an important level of analysis, namely the custody level. As some inmates are placed in more restrictive confinement than others, custody levels may absorb some of the variation in individual-level and/or prison-level correlates of misconduct. Accordingly, we analyzed data from over 70,000 inmates who were housed in Texas prisons during 2008 and found that custody levels were strongly and positively associated with misconduct, even (a) after accounting for the endogeneity of custody levels and (b) once inmate- and prison-level measures were included. We draw on labeling theory in our efforts to explain the relationship between custody levels and misconduct.