Controversies in Criminal Justice Research

Richard Tewksbury, Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317523833
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Droit
• Subtopic: Droit pénal

This book of original essays presents students with challenging looks at some of the most basic, and sometimes most difficult, decisions faced by criminal justice researchers. Each chapter presents an overview of a foundational question/issue in the conduct of research, and discussions of the options to resolve these controversies.

Chapter 1
Should (Does) Criminal Justice Research Influence Social Policy?

Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine
University of Central Florida

Introduction

The relationship between criminal justice research and criminal justice policy is a controversial one. It could be one of give and take. Scholars such as Clear and Frost (2001) suggest that, theoretically, each informs the other. Questions about the type of policy to put into action, the timing of intervention or implementation, the target clientele/audience/recipients, and the effectiveness of any action taken or changes made necessitates the utilization of scientific research. Those interested in conducting social science and criminal justice research can develop this expertise and employ it to benefit the community and any social problems there, like crime. Ideally, then, the relationship between criminal justice researchers, practitioners, and policymakers should be an interrelated one.

Conversely, other scholars advocate that the policy arena is, at best, one of bias and ignorance and, at worst, one of agenda setting and corruption. These scholars argue that researchers would be better served, "taking up low paying posts in ivory towers, monasteries, and similar think tanks ... (as this would be preferable to becoming) policy advisors in this repressive war on crime." (Cressey, 1978:189). Further, even when academic research addresses issues directly relating to social policy, often it is not used by policymakers and practitioners. To further complicate this controversial debate, several issues arise that have the impact of discouraging a harmonious relationship between science and public policy. This trend need not continue, however. With effort, consistency, high levels of communication between parties, willingness to work together, quality research, and thoughtful design and implementation of policy, criminal justice policy can become more effective.

What Is Public Policy?

Public policies are the actions that governments, other regulating bodies, and organizations take. Policy can also include the procedures, or guidelines, these groups use. Usually policy is used to outline acceptable procedures, guide present and future decisions, and/or regulate management strategy. Criminal justice policy, then, refers to the acceptable procedures, actions, decisions, strategies, and guidelines that regulate the criminal justice system and the various organizations and programs with which it is associated. Policy can be as grand as the federal government requiring that all police officers read suspects their Miranda rights before questioning them. It can also be as minute as a local drug treatment center requiring an assessment be performed on each client to see which type of treatment would best serve his/her needs.

Much of the time, policy is based on a philosophical orientation. When policymakers implement strategies, frequently they utilize a guiding principle, or way of thinking, to organize their strategies and plans of action. For example, researchers and practitioners interested in preventing juvenile delinquency typically formulate policy from one of three guiding main beliefs: individual, education, and community. Each of these theoretical views advocates certain types of intervention strategies to prevent illegal youthful behavior (Lundman, 2001). To elaborate, those who believe that juvenile delinquency is an individual-level issue, think that youth crime is the product of personal problems, thus requires an individually oriented solution. Arguments include that youth violate the law because of individual-level abnormalities (e.g., personality problems, improper parenting and supervision). As such, prevention strategies would need to include the identification of youth who are headed for trouble and the implementation of treatment to repair their flawed personalities. Such treatment might include regular visits to a counselor or adult mentor. Other scholars of juvenile delinquency suggest that youthful misbehavior is the result of inadequate education regarding the negative consequences of participation in delinquency. Hence, these scholars believe that educational programming is the appropriate and best-suited strategy for the prevention of delinquency. Programs such as DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), in which uniformed police officers teach junior high schoolers about the dangers associated with the use of drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol, and how to resist such use, are examples of this type of educational programming. Finally, supporters of community strategies believe that juvenile delinquency is a community problem that requires a community-level intervention. Theoretically, communities may have other social problems present (e.g., low income, low rates of high school completion) that contribute to a prevalence of youth crime in the community. These advocates feel that delinquency is merely a symptom of the other social problems present, therefore it makes little sense to treat misbehavior on an individual level, nor does the identification of associated dangers. Effective prevention strategy should target the community. Examples of such interventions are midnight basketball, or the formation of community assistance organizations.

What Distinguishes Scientific Research?

Science is a way of producing knowledge. However, it is not the only way. Other forms of knowledge construction include mysticism, astrology, religion, and tradition. Today, science is the dominant method for the production of knowledge. Generally, science is said to have several components:

• Assumptions about the nature of the world and knowledge.
• An attitude or orientation toward knowledge.
• Special procedures, techniques, and instruments.
• An accumulation of knowledge.
• A social institution called the scientific community (Neuman, 1997)

Scientific research, then, is research that utilizes the above components and data as the evidence or information that allows researchers to make assessments about their guiding theories or ideas.

Criminologists and researchers in criminal justice generally use one of several methods when carrying out scientific research: surveys, interviews, observation, secondary data analysis, and the collection and organization of pre-existing data. As cases in point, Mustaine and Tewksbury (1998) conducted a survey of college students to find out about the prevalence, patterns, and sources of larceny theft victimizations they had experienced. Analyzing a data set that had already been collected by others, Jasinski (2001) examined risk factors for domestic violence that related to pregnancy. Such factors included whether or not the father wanted the child. As an example of interviewing, Feeney (1986) interviewed 113 male robbery offenders and examined the decision-making process they used when deciding whether or not to rob a particular target. Adler (1993), utilized participant observation (along with other methods) to examine a community of high-level drug dealers in Southern California. Finally, collecting and compiling data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Reports, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.'s Death Row, USA, the Vanderbilt Television News Archive, the Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin, The Statistical Abstract of the United States, and Current Population Reports, Bailey and Peterson (1999) examined the impact of frequency of executions, number of women admitted to death row in penal institutions, and execution publicity, on female homicide rates (as measured monthly).

There are many reasons scientists engage in social research. As examples, academicians may use social research to test theories, and/or to produce knowledge about the patterns and sources of social phenomena. Marketing researchers may use social research to highlight spending patterns of various consumer groups. Political parties may use social research to identify the issues that voters feel are important and that reflect their views on these issues. Insurance companies use social research to identify claims patterns, patterns of injuries, and driving patterns among social groups. Newspapers use social research to inform the public about new knowledge that is produced. Regarding policy, practitioners, politicians, and researchers can use social research to assess the effectiveness of a particular philosophical orientation that guides specific policies, or the effectiveness of the specific policies themselves. Research can be used to advise policy implementers about which strategies will likely be the most effective. Science can be used to determine which clientele may be the most successfully treated in a particular program. Research can highlight any changes that occurred after a particular policy was implemented. Given the systematic nature of scientific inquiry, the findings from social research usually result in more informed, unbiased decisions than do the guessing, hunches, intuition, and personal experiences that people using the other forms of knowledge production employ.

Theoretical Implications for Criminological Policy

Many criminological theories have implications for social and correctional policy. While an in-depth exploration of all the theories that have policy relevance is beyond the scope of this chapter, a discussion of several theories as examples can be informative and highlight the need for the scientific evaluation of criminological theory.

Strain theory is an example of a criminological theory with policy implications. General Strain theory purports that when individuals are unable (usually due to negative/discriminatory treatment) to achieve positively valued goals they may commit crime in response (Merton, 1938). Several general policy implications that arise from this view on the causes of criminal behavior include minimizing the negative or discriminatory treatment of people and reducing the negative reaction of people who are treated in an unfair manner (Agnew, 1995). For juveniles, one example of a place where negative or discriminatory treatment can take place is the school. As such, programs that help to improve school performance might reduce the likelihood of future delinquency. Research has suggested that good preschool programs can both improve school achievement and decrease delinquency (Agnew, 1995). Other policy initiatives might include helping juveniles more effectively cope (using legal means) with negative or discriminatory treatment. An example of such an initiative includes programs that increase family functioning so that youth can turn to their parents for support when they are disappointed or frustrated with their circumstances. Functional family therapy tries to improve the expression and giving of emotional support among family members (Agnew, 1995).

Another example of policy initiatives that stem from criminological theory can be seen with Routine Activity Theory. Routine Activity Theory notes that criminal events take place when potential offenders, suitable targets, and absent/unwilling/incapable guardians come together at the same time in the same place (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Policy initiatives can be directed at individuals and communities as crime prevention strategies. Suggestions include guidance to residents of high-crime communities on measures of guardianship. Oftentimes, residents pay wrought iron companies to install iron bars on all windows and doors of a residence. Scientific research, however, has noted that most residential burglars gain access to homes via rear windows and doors (Felson & Clarke, 1995). Citizens can utilize this information and save money by installing bars only on possible rear entry points. Installing bars on front windows is probably a waste of money (Felson & Clarke, 1995). Further, research has suggested that persons who own dogs (among other indicators) are less likely to be victims of a significant theft (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998).

Using these two theories as examples, one can see that it is important not only for scientists to examine criminological theory for policy implications, to evaluate these policies for effectiveness, but also to share findings with citizens and policymakers so that useful crime prevention and treatment measures can be implemented. Indeed, perhaps it is part of the duty of academicians to share their findings (i.e., knowledge) and offer recommendations (Felson & Clarke, 1995).

Use of Scientific Research by Practitioners and Policymakers

Criminal justice policymakers and practitioners are two groups of individuals who could and should benefit from the knowledge gained by conducting scientific research. Policy based on the more informed, less biased findings of social research has the chance to be more useful, efficient, and cost effective than policy based on personal preference, gut feelings, and intuition.

As noted, many criminological theories have policy implications, however, many policymakers and practitioners often do not use the suggestions or findings that emerge from scientific research. This is unfortunate because in a time of heightened interest in criminological issues, growing correctional costs, and limited budgets, the need for an interrelated relationship between policy and criminal justice is crucial. Perhaps there has never been a time in our history when crime and crime policy were as important as they are today (Hancock & Sharp, 1997). Most national candidates have ideas for crime policy as part of their election campaigns. National political parties have crime policy as part of their political platforms. At the same time, federal granting agencies are calling for research that asks for community agencies and academicians to partner together, evaluate programming, produce knowledge that can be applied, and make suggestions about crime policy. Currently, research is available that addresses many of the issues that governmental legislative bodies are considering. This research could inform the policy initiatives governmental bodies, agencies, and community organizations are implementing. Often, however, it goes unused. For instance, plainly said, the criminal justice system is not effective at controlling or preventing crime. As an example, the United States has the highest incarceration rate among western industrialized countries in the world, and yet, we also have among the highest homicide rates (Hancock & Sharp, 1997). This implies that incarcerating a higher number of serious offenders does not reduce the amount of violent crime, like homicide, as two correctional goals imply (deterrence, incapacitation). Even so, policymakers and practitioners may wish to continue to use correctional strategies stemming from deterrence or incapacitation theory for several reasons. The nature of politics may be one reason. In this way, it may be that those types of policies are what their constituents want. Also possible is that some politicians are successfully lobbied by groups who support the greater use of incarceration. Politicians may not utilize criminal justice research for their policy suggestions because of agenda setting and the increasing politicalization of criminal justice policy.

Potentially, politicians, policymakers, and practitioners are unconvinced by or unaware of the scientific research that implies the use of these types of policies may be questionable. Clear and Frost (2001) indicate that it is because academic research is often not accessible to those who would use it. This may very well be the case. Most scholars who publish articles that are relevant to criminal justice policy publish them in academic journals that have a small and narrow target audience. Also, this body of research may not be characterized by consistent findings. For example, the research on the effectiveness of DARE is not completely consistent. Researchers evaluating DARE in Charleston County, South Carolina found that DARE participants were significantly more likely to hold strong attitudes against substance use than the non-DARE control group (Harmon, 1993). At the same time, the researchers evaluating a DARE project in Kokomo, Indiana found no significant differences between the DARE and non-DARE participants (Wysong & Wright, 1995). This body of research suggests, then, that while the success of DARE programming is questionable it is possible. This is certainly not a clear mandate to send to those interested in either utilizing DARE or devising alternatives to it. It may also be the case that the research is methodologically questionable. As an example, some research examining the effectiveness of Scared Straight policies (programs where juvenile delinquents spent the day in prison and were spoken to harshly by seasoned inmates in attempts to "scare them straight") is questionable because the researchers did not detail their methodological approach. Likewise, some of this research is suspect because of ethical issues (Lundman, 2001). Policymakers and practitioners may not wish to base initiatives on this research because they have doubts about it. For these reasons, scientists must carefully consider the methodological and ethical issues that arise with their research when undertaking projects that have policy implications, and utilize the methods of research that would be most appropriate.

Types of Research That Can Inform Policy and Relevant Issues

Differing philosophical views on research can impact the willingness of researchers to conduct scientific inquiry that has direct policy relevance as well as the willingness of policymakers and practitioners to find social research relevant. Because of their concern for "true science," generally it is scholars who recognize the importance of scientific methods. For example, most researchers acknowledge that the findings of a particular survey might have been different if questions were worded slightly differently. For example, a researcher could assess attitudes about the death penalty by using the question, "Do you support the use of the death penalty?" An alternative question is, "Do you support the use of the death penalty for persons convicted of violent crimes?" Undoubtedly, the number of respondents answering in the affirmative would vary depending on the question used. Also, findings from a particular study might vary depending on how researchers measure the concepts they utilize. For instance, in the debate about whether or not the death penalty acts as a deterrent, a researcher could measure the death penalty by looking at how frequently a given state actually executes someone. Anther measurement option would be to assess whether or not a particular state has the death penalty as a legal punishment (regardless of whether or not or how often it is used). Research findings may also vary depending on the sample used, as conclusions drawn from one sample may be different for another sample. Likewise, findings reached via survey research may be different than those findings that emerge from in-depth interviews, even if the topic of inquiry is the same. Methodological matters are often not the concerns of policymakers and practitioners, however, because they are not sensitive to issues of "true science." Because these people are focused on action and ideas leading to actions, they are concerned with the ideas that form the baseline of the research, the outcome of the research, and the cultural, political, and social implications raised rather than the methods used. For example, lawmakers are concerned with the interests of their constituents, their benefactors, and their networks of colleagues. They also may be interested in whether or not a certain policy under debate has been effective in the past. They are also likely to be concerned with the philosophy guiding any research they are reading. Given their agenda, and the necessity for action, it is unlikely that they will be able or willing to consider the type of method the research utilizes. Based on this, there appears to be mismatch between the interests of science...