Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:p> Examinations of the Native American experience in the US criminal justice system are still relatively sparse, despite earlier calls for increased attention to Native American crime and justice issues. This is unfortunate, as Native Americans are unique among all groups in US society and face distinctive criminal justice jurisdictional complexities. We argue that this uniqueness renders extant racial/ethnic theoretical framings incomplete for understanding the Native American experience with criminal justice in the United States. First, we describe the complexities of criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country, discuss how internal colonialism shapes the Native American experience, and outline a set of directions for research to illuminate such jurisdictional complexities. Second, we discuss general theoretical frameworks and their strengths and limitations in explaining the Native American experience. We argue for a focus on the interlocking institutional power that shapes tribal, state, and federal justice coupling. We present an agenda for research on the consequences of contemporary criminal justice arrangements for individual Native Americans and for Native American communities collectively. </jats:p>

<jats:p> This review provides a critical overview of Indigenous peoples’ interactions with criminal justice systems. It focuses on the experiences of Indigenous peoples residing in the four major Anglo-settler-colonial jurisdictions of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. The review is built around a number of key arguments, including that centuries of colonization have left Indigenous peoples across all four jurisdictions in a position of profound social, economic, and political marginalization; that the colonial project, especially the socioeconomic marginalization resulting from it, plays a significant role in the contemporary over-representation of Indigenous peoples in settler-colonial criminal justice systems; and that a key failure of both governments and the academy has been to disregard Indigenous peoples responses to social harm and to rely too heavily on Western theorizing, policy, and practice to solve the problem of Indigenous over-representation. Finally, we argue that little will change to reduce the negative nature of Indigenous–criminal justice interactions until the settler-colonial state and the discipline of criminology show a willingness to support Indigenous peoples’ desire for self-determination and for leadership in the response to the social harms that impact their communities. </jats:p>

<jats:p> It took the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and, more importantly, the four coordinated attacks of September 11, 2001, to produce substantial interest among criminologists in the empirical study of violent political extremism. In the past two decades, this situation has changed dramatically with research on political extremism now routinely appearing in major criminology outlets, theses and dissertations, and meetings of professional associations. In this review, we track these changes specifically as they relate to government policies on countering violent extremism. What we find is a burgeoning literature. In the past twenty years, we have moved rapidly toward developing a criminology of political extremism. But not surprisingly, given how recent the sustained interest in this area has been, we find research areas where data are weak or nonexistent, rigorous methods are lacking, and results are disconnected from theoretical frameworks. We have divided our review of government responses to violent political extremism along a continuum ranging from the most repressive to the most conciliatory. In general, the trajectory of research on governmental policies to counteract terrorism resembles the early years of criminology itself, characterized by an incredible amount of energy and imagination but at the same time struggling to produce strong empirical data, cutting-edge methods, and sophisticated theoretical explanations. </jats:p>

<jats:p> This article reviews evidence for the effects of public opinion on court decision-making, capital punishment policy and use, correctional expenditures, and incarceration rates. It also assesses evidence about the factors explaining changes over time in public support for punitive crime policies. Most of this evidence originates from outside of our discipline. I identify two reasons that criminologists have not made more progress toward understanding the opinion-policy relationship. One is an unfamiliarity with important theoretical and empirical developments in political science pertaining to public policy mood, parallel opinion change, majoritarian congruence, and dynamic representation. Another is our overreliance on cross-sectional studies and preoccupation with comparing support levels elicited with different questions (global versus specific) and under different conditions (uninformed versus informed). I show how the resultant findings have contributed to misunderstandings about the nature of public opinion and created a false summit in our analysis of the opinion-policy relationship. </jats:p>

<jats:p> Security has always been a core function of the modern state. Yet the rise of the Preventive State captures an intensification of that role as threats to security and demands for public protection increase, prompting states to prioritize new practices of preventive criminalization, policing, and punishment. The rise of the Preventive State may promise greater security, but the costs of ever more coercive preventive laws and measures are burdensome and pose a threat to civil liberties. This review considers the drivers, multiple manifestations, and direct and collateral consequences of preventive endeavors that assess and manage risk, target hazards, and restrain or detain those deemed dangerous. It also explores their ramifications for criminology and criminal justice. It concludes by considering the potential of criminology to join cross-disciplinary efforts to articulate a new jurisprudence of security and to elaborate principles of preventive justice with which to restrain the excesses of the Preventive State. </jats:p>

<jats:p> The criminal justice system acts directly on bodies, but fundamentally it cares about minds. As neuroscience progresses, it will increasingly be able to probe the objective, physical organ of the brain and reveal secrets from the subjective mind. This is already beginning to affect the criminal justice system, a trend that will only increase. This review article cannot begin even to sketch the full scope of the new field of law and neuroscience. The first workshop on the subject was held in 2003 ( Garland 2004 ), but the field already has its own casebook ( Jones et al. 2014 ) and the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience (2018) shows more than 1,700 publications in the area between 1984 and 2017. Greely (2009) divided the implications of law into five different categories: prediction, mind-reading, responsibility, treatment, and enhancement. This article examines only three points: the current use of neuroscience to understand and explain criminal behavior, the possibilities of relevant neuroscience-based prediction, and plausible future applications of neuroscience to the treatment of criminals. But first, we discuss the human brain and how it works. </jats:p>

<jats:p> Predictive analytics in policing is a data-driven approach to ( a) characterizing crime patterns across time and space and ( b) leveraging this knowledge for the prevention of crime and disorder. This article outlines the current state of the field, providing a review of forecasting tools that have been successfully applied by police to the task of crime prediction. We then discuss options for structured design and evaluation of a predictive policing program so that the benefits of proactive intervention efforts are maximized given fixed resource constraints. We highlight examples of predictive policing programs that have been implemented and evaluated by police agencies in the field. Finally, we discuss ethical issues related to predictive analytics in policing and suggest approaches for minimizing potential harm to vulnerable communities while providing an equitable distribution of the benefits of crime prevention across populations within police jurisdiction. </jats:p>

<jats:p> Since the late 1990s, many countries have been debating what prostitution policies to apply, and, particularly in Europe, several have changed the overall approach to the phenomenon and the people involved. Prostitution is more than ever before firmly placed on policy agendas as a topic related to gender equality and globalization. Furthermore, it is seen in context with issues relating to organized crime, health, and gentrification. In both policy debates and the academic discourse, particular ways of regulating prostitution are treated as models and a central discussion is which model among these works best. In this article, I argue that this search for a best practice of prostitution policy that can be transferred to and work similarly in a new jurisdiction builds on a lack of understanding of the importance of context and implementation. How policies work depends on, among other factors, aims, implementation structures, and characteristics of local prostitution markets. But I present a broad spectrum of research to clarify what should be taken into consideration when assessing policies’ abilities to achieve diverse goals. I argue that a fundamental problem in both prostitution policy debates and scholarship is that the arguments over prostitution policies have become too detached from the many and differing contexts in which these policies operate and I propose a way forward for research. </jats:p>