Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:p> Ethnographic studies of immigration and crime were prominent in the early decades of the twentieth century, yet contemporary scholarship has been dominated by quantitative approaches. In this review, we heed the call of those who have lamented the “collective amnesia” and “newness fetish” that characterize much of contemporary criminology and revisit classic ethnographies of immigration and crime, with an emphasis on the unique methodological contributions of this early work. Next, we synthesize the small but growing body of contemporary ethnographic research on immigration and crime, which includes the policing of immigrant communities in the age of “crimmigration;” the lived experiences inside contemporary deportation/detention regimes; the integration experiences of Muslims, a highly marginalized but understudied population; and immigrants’ unique vulnerabilities to and experiences of victimization, to illustrate the value of qualitative approaches for capturing the nuances of immigrants’ experiences in the new age of immigration. </jats:p><jats:p> Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 6 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates. </jats:p>

<jats:p> Recent years have seen increasing interest in, and scholarly discussion of, historical criminology. Yet there remains at present no clear, settled view as to what historical criminology entails, how it is best pursued, and what its future might hold. This article explores the several conceptions of historical criminology found in the present literature, which associate it variously with archival research, practical inquiry, a concern with temporality, and a certain approach to interdisciplinary scholarship. Adopting the view that historical criminology entails a special regard for historical time, the review goes on to assess its significance to the wider field, examining its connection with some of the core impulses of criminology at large. Finally, it suggests some major opportunities for historical criminology to contribute to the future development of criminology, including through an inclusive global criminology, a criminology of events, and research on crime and justice futures. </jats:p><jats:p> Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 6 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates. </jats:p>

<jats:p> The allegation that criminal justice systems (and that of the United States in particular) have become guilty of overcriminalization is widely accepted by academics and practitioners on nearly all points along the political spectrum (Dillon 2012). Many commentators respond by recommending that states decriminalize given kinds of conduct that supposedly exemplify the problem. I urge those who are theoretically minded to proceed cautiously and address several preliminary matters that must be resolved before genuine progress is possible. In the absence of a position on several controversial normative and conceptual issues, discussions of overcriminalization and decriminalization are bound to be oversimplified and superficial. My review is organized around six of these issues. I invite commentators to examine ( a) what the criminal law is; ( b) what overcriminalization means; ( c) why overcriminalization is thought to be pernicious; ( d) whether overcriminalization is a de jure or de facto phenomenon, i.e., whether it is a function of the law on the books or the law in action; ( e) what normative criteria might be invoked to alleviate the predicament; and (  f ) whether and to what extent overcriminalization is a serious concern in our penal system. Even though these six issues are analytically distinct, positions about one invariably blur into commitments about the others. Although theorists rarely dissent from the claim that states are guilty of something called overcriminalization, uncertainties about the foregoing topics mar their treatments. I conclude that a deep understanding of the problem of overcriminalization depends on how these six issues are resolved. </jats:p><jats:p> Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 6 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates. </jats:p>

<jats:p> This review situates the recent, radical challenges to American criminal justice—calls to end mass incarceration, defund the police, and dismantle systemic racism—within the broader social and economic arrangements that make the US system so distinctive and so problematic. It describes the social structures, institutions, and processes that give rise to America's extraordinary penal state—as well as to its extraordinarily high rates of homicide and social disorder—and considers what these portend for the prospect of radical change. It does so by locating American crime and punishment in the structural context of America's (always-already racialized) political economy—a distinctive set of social structures and institutional legacies that render the United States more violent, more disorderly, and more reliant on penal control than any other developed nation. Drawing on a broad range of social science research findings, it argues that this peculiar political economy—a form of capitalism and democratic governance forged on the anvils of slavery and racial segregation and rendered increasingly insecure and exclusionary in the decades following deindustrialization—generates high levels of social disorganization and criminal violence and predisposes state authorities to adopt penal control as the preferred policy response. </jats:p>

<jats:p> An important body of work documents how race matters for the patterning of crime and criminal legal system involvement largely by focusing on comparisons between Blacks and Whites. We build on this vital scholarship by spotlighting Latino/a/xs, a fast-growing group that is the United States’ largest racial minority, to broaden the field's understanding of race and crime. In this review, we follow race scholars who see Latino/a/xs as a racial category because dominant actors racialize them as an innate, distinct, inferior, and criminogenic category, leading to their marginalized experiences across many domains. Moreover, Latino/a/xs increasingly view themselves as not White. Studying Latino/a/xs offers an opportunity to integrate key tenets of Latina and Latino Critical Legal Theory (LatCrit), which provide a scaffolding to center race and racism. LatCrit highlights the ways racism metes out discrimination, cultural and linguistic devaluation, criminalization, and racial profiling that in turn shape and are shaped by levels of Latino/a/x crime and legal system involvement. This article provides a description of what it means to center race with an emphasis on LatCrit,an empirical assessment of Latino/a/x crime and legal system involvement, and an integration of core criminological theory with LatCrit. By doing so, we advance the field to more directly and robustly engage with the idea that racial disparities in crime and legal system involvement are products of racialization as well as attendant policies, institutions, and practices that historically and contemporaneously subjugate and marginalize the Latino/a/x population. We seek to push the boundaries of criminology theory and thereby invigorate and equip them for the twenty-first century and its racial landscape, which is increasingly Latino/a/x. </jats:p>

<jats:p> The number of cross-national homicide studies is increasing rapidly. Many scholars, however, do not consider the details of how individual nations and the four main centralized homicide data sources—raw estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO) Mortality Database, adjusted estimates from the WHO Global Health Observatory, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and World Bank World Development Indicators—generate national homicide rates and the impact this may have on results and the scientific record. We tested whether homicide trends, levels, and structural covariates are dependent on data source. We used 1990–2018 data in 5-year groupings and pooled them over time and nation. We utilized exploratory data analysis techniques to look for differences in homicide rates and trends. Then we employed seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) to determine whether associations with homicide of typical structural covariates were dependent on homicide data source. Finally, we examined Wald Tests to determine whether differences in the sizes of the SUR coefficients from each data source were significantly different from zero. We found differences in homicide trends and rates by data source and that associations with homicide rates of structural covariates varied in significance, magnitude, and even direction depending on homicide data source. Cross-national homicideresearch has a promising future for understanding short- and long-term global and regional trends and population-level covariates and constructing theoretical explanations for geographical and temporal variation. However, researchers must better understand how national homicide data are generated by nations and these four data sources. All four systems possess limitations, but homicide data from the WHO Mortality Database present the most attractive option. </jats:p>

<jats:p> When youth commit crimes, their parents may be held legally responsible for their actions. Parental legal culpability laws were developed to ensure justice for victims of crime but also deter juvenile delinquency. However, it is unclear if parental culpability has these desired effects or if it instead contributes to disparities that already exist in the justice system. This review provides a psychological perspective on parental legal culpability, highlighting the different types of offenses that parents may be held responsible for, including vicarious tort liability, status offenses, and criminal responsibility. Given the significant public discourse around certain types of crime, we also include focused discussions about parental culpability for youth violence and cybercrimes. We then consider the unintended consequences that may arise as a result of parental sanctions, from exacerbating racial and ethnic inequalities to imposing financial burdens that may put families at risk for further justice involvement. Finally, we discuss challenges to the efficacy of parental culpability laws, with recommendations for areas of continued research. </jats:p><jats:p> Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7 is January 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates. </jats:p>