Home Detention with Electronic Monitoring: Comparing Pretrial and Postconviction Programs

1990 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 521-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael G. Maxfield ◽  
Terry L. Baumer

Since its introduction, electronically monitored home detention has become a common disposition throughout the United States. At the present time individuals at virtually every point in the criminal justice process are being monitored. This article describes studies of two populations. Preliminary results are presented from an evaluation of a pretrial home detention program. Salient differences are noted between the pretrial program and a similar program for convicted offenders delivered by the same agency, in the same jurisdiction. It is concluded that the nature of the client population significantly affects the design, delivery, and impact of electronically monitored home detention programs.

1992 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 22-24
Author(s):  
Livingston Sutro

Crime in the 1990s continues to be a massive problem in the United States. Federal, state, and local authorities expend tremendous resources to combat crime and punish criminals, but nothing seems to stem the tide. Psychologists and sociologists have identified what they consider to be the sources of crime, and some measures have been taken to implement their suggestions, yet crime is no less prevalent.


1987 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-188
Author(s):  
C. Robert Showalter ◽  
W. Lawrence Fitch

In its landmark opinion in Ake v. Oklahoma, the United States Supreme Court enunciated a broad right to psychiatric assistance for criminal defendants who raise the defense of insanity or whose mental condition is relevant to sentencing in a capital case. Recognizing such assistance as essential to the proper functioning of the adversary process in cases in which an issue concerning the defendant's mental condition has been raised, the opinion may be read to pose an ethical dilemma for the psychiatrist who regards his or her assessment as objective and, hence, not a proper subject for adversarial presentation or inquiry. The authors contend, however, that rather than inviting psychiatrists to compromise their objectivity in these cases, in fact the Supreme Court's ruling challenges psychiatrists to demonstrate and assure their objectivity by revealing and explaining the bases for their opinions, thereby enhancing their utility in the criminal justice process and, ultimately, their credibility in the minds of the public.


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 1102-1123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Wellman ◽  
Marian Borg

While police make an arrest in the majority of homicide cases occurring annually in the United States, a portion remain unsolved and are eventually classified as “cold cases.” Family members of the victims are not only left grieving the loss of their loved ones, but also plagued by the knowledge that the murderer has yet to be officially identified or held accountable. How do these family members—cold case homicide survivors—navigate their open-ended journey through grief? Using a social constructivist approach, we analyze in-depth interviews with 24 cold case homicide survivors to describe the unique dimensions of their experience, including how their hopes are tied to understandings of achieving justice for their loved ones. Three themes emerge from their narratives: a certainty that the killers will be identified; a demand for the harshest punishment possible; and an underlying anxiety about what the identification of the offender will ultimately mean for them. We consider the implications of survivors’ expectations for the future, especially for their relationships with the police, other family members, and the criminal justice process in general.


Author(s):  
Alec C. Ewald

Collateral sanctions are legal restrictions on the rights and privileges of people who have experienced contact with the criminal justice system, particularly contact resulting in conviction. Usually placed in civil and regulatory codes, collateral sanctions may limit a person’s ability to vote, live in public housing, own a firearm, qualify for an occupational license, serve in the military, receive public benefits, sit on a jury, or borrow money for college, among other activities. Yet, because they are usually defined as “indirect” consequences of a conviction, they may never surface in the criminal justice process, and they frequently extend far beyond the sentence. Such restrictions can deeply compromise the civic status and life chances of Americans with conviction records. But they are far from uniform: some serious restrictions are triggered by criminal justice involvement well short of a conviction, while others mark only some classes of offenders or operate only in some states. Layered into the federal system, multiplying the complications of criminal law and regulatory law, and imposed by civil servants with wide leeway in their interpretation of rules, American collateral sanctions are varied and complex. Their reach and severity in the United States appear to be unique in the democratic world and mark an important respect in which the American carceral state extends beyond mass incarceration.


Author(s):  
Heather Wolffram

Forensic psychology in the 21st century entails the application of psychology to all aspects of the criminal justice process. Forensic psychologists, therefore, are engaged in the theorization of offending, offender profiling, the psychology of testimony, investigative interviewing, the psychology of juries and judges, and psychological approaches to the punishment and treatment of offenders. Historically, however, forensic psychology, has been narrower in scope. Founded principally in Europe during the late 19th century as a response to the reform of criminal procedure and research on suggestion, which undermined confidence in witness credibility, forensic psychology was initially pursued by jurists and psychiatrists eager to understand the behavior of all those involved in the criminal justice process. While this ambition was pursued piecemeal by jurists throughout the early 20th century in their studies of guilty knowledge, judges, jurors, and investigators, the exigencies of the courtroom, soon saw the field become focused on the psychology of the witness, particularly the juvenile witness. Important, in this regard were the efforts of both European and American experimental psychologists, whose precarious position within universities at the fin de siècle saw them look for real-world applications for psychology and led them to campaign voraciously for the inclusion of psychological knowledge and psychological expertise in legal proceedings. Competition between several disciplines, including law, psychology, psychiatry, and pedagogy, over the role of psychological expert made the professionalization of this field difficult up until the Second World War. During the late 1940s and 1950s, however, not only did forensic psychology increasingly become the exclusive purview of psychologists, but the discipline’s scope began to expand. Notable in this regard was offender profiling, which emerged from the psychological analysis of war criminals and the application of the insights gained here to several high-profile criminal cases in the United States.


Criminology ◽  
2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Forst

Prosecution and courts are at the heart and center of our criminal justice system. They serve as stages of case processing that follow the police arrest and precede the delivery of convicted defendants to correctional authorities. The prosecutor, usually a politically elected official, is the chief law enforcement officer in a jurisdiction (county, state, federal) yet carries out an administrative function within the executive branch of government. To put the prosecutor and court in perspective, it is useful to think about the two million or so felony arrests made in the United States annually. About a million end in conviction and sentencing each year. What happens between arrest and sentencing is driven by the prosecutor and court adjudication system. Yet remarkably little scholarly attention is paid to prosecution and adjudication, relative to the stages before (offending and policing) and after (corrections and subsequent offender behaviors). The information that follows aims to help interested people to learn about prosecution and adjudication and the forces that shape practices in these two critical and largely hidden-from-view stages of the criminal justice process.


1980 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Bowers ◽  
Glenn L. Pierce

Drawing on a wide variety of data sources, this study examines arbi trariness and discrimination under capital statutes in Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Ohio, which are responsible for roughly 70 percent of the. death sentences imposed nationwide in the five years following the United States Supreme Court's Furman decision. It finds that there are gross dif ferences in the treatment of potentially capital offenders by race of of fender and victim and by judicial circuits within states. These are (1) inde pendent of aggravating felony-related circumstances, (2) present at both presentencing and sentencing stages of the criminal justice process, (3) uncorrected by the postsentencing appellate review process, (4) unaltered by the form and restrictiveness of capital statutes among states, and (5) remarkably similar to the best documented patterns of differential treat ment by race of offender and victim under pre-Furman capital statutes, now ruled unconstitutional. These findings show that the present system of capital punishment is inconsistent with the constitutional standards of the Furman and Gregg decisions of the United States Supreme Court, but is instead consistent with historically prevailing extralegal influences which compromise and displace the legally prescribed functions of such punishment and are an enduring source of arbitrariness and discrimina tion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document