Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:p> In response to wrongful convictions, there has been a revolution in criminal procedure and research in law and science. This review seeks to summarize the cross-disciplinary explosion in work studying known wrongful convictions, examining their causes, and assessing policy reforms designed to help detect and prevent errors in criminal justice. Scholars have increasingly studied the characteristics of known wrongful-conviction cases, including by analyzing archival records and by creating public registries of exonerations. Scholars have conducted research in law, psychology, statistics, criminology, and other disciplines, as well as interdisciplinary research, designed to better understand the phenomenon of wrongful convictions and how to prevent errors. Scientific bodies, such as the National Academy of Sciences, have made important recommendations based on this research. Furthermore, the conversation is global, with litigation, research, and policy work across jurisdictions. A wide range of jurisdictions have adopted noteworthy changes designed to safeguard crucial types of evidence, such as confession, forensic, and eyewitness evidence, during police investigations and at trial. As a result, law and science have increasingly come together to produce tangible improvements to criminal justice. </jats:p>

<jats:p> Between 1980 and 2007, probation rates in the United States skyrocketed alongside imprisonment rates; since 2007, both forms of criminal justice control have declined in use. Although a large literature in criminology and related fields has explored the causes and consequences of mass incarceration, very little research has explored the parallel rise of mass probation. This review takes stock of our knowledge of probation in the United States. In the first section, I trace the expansion of probation historically, across states, and for specific demographic groups. I then summarize the characteristics of adults on probation today and what we know about probation revocation. Lastly, I review the nascent literature on the causal effects of probation for individuals, families, neighborhoods, and society. I end by discussing a plan for research and the growing movement to blunt the harms of mass supervision. </jats:p>

<jats:p> Decisions tied to parole release, supervision, and revocation are major determinants of the ebb and flow of prison populations across two-thirds of US states. We argue that parole release, as an institution, has been an underacknowledged force in American incarceration and reincarceration policy and an important contributor to the nation's buildup to mass incarceration. In paroling states, no court or state agency holds greater power than parole boards over time actually served by the majority of offenders sent to prison. We examine the leverage exercised by parole boards through their discretionary release decisions and their powers to sanction violators of parole conditions. We note the state-by-state diversity and complexity associated with parole-release decisions and the absence of successful state systems that might serve as a model for other jurisdictions. We highlight the procedural shortfalls universally associated with parole decision-making. We discuss the long reach of parole supervision and the pains it imposes on those subject to its jurisdiction, including the substantial financial burdens levied on parolees. We then turn to the prospects for parole reform and outline a comprehensive blueprint for improving parole release in America. </jats:p>

<jats:p> This review addresses four key issues in the modern (post-1976) era of capital punishment in the United States. First, why has the United States retained the death penalty when all its peer countries (all other developed Western democracies) have abolished it? Second, how should we understand the role of race in shaping the distinctive path of capital punishment in the United States, given our country's history of race-based slavery and slavery's intractable legacy of discrimination? Third, what is the significance of the sudden and profound withering of the practice of capital punishment in the past two decades? And, finally, what would abolition of the death penalty in the United States (should it ever occur) mean for the larger criminal justice system? </jats:p>

<jats:p> Justice reinvestment was introduced in the early 2000s as a means to respond to the massive growth in incarceration in the United States that had occurred during the past three decades by diverting offenders from prison and redirecting a portion of the associated corrections expenditures into communities to build their capacities to manage offenders locally. Over the next 17 years, the concept evolved into a Congressionally funded federal grant program that shifted the focus of reinvestment away from community reinvestment and toward a state-agency practice improvement model that ultimately aimed to improve public safety. A distinct form of justice reinvestment, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), was the dominant practice of justice reinvestment in the United States. It was organized as a public–private partnership that engaged states in bipartisan efforts to enact legislative reforms and other policies to address sentencing and corrections practices and adopt high-performing evidence-based practices (EBPs) that would yield the desired public safety benefits. JRI contributed to legislative reforms and adoption of EBPs, especially in community supervision. The federal JRI effort has not yet provided peer-reviewed, published evidence that it has achieved its objectives. </jats:p>

<jats:p> This review explores past and future shifts in policing and criminology scholarship that have shaped, and been shaped by, what is done to enhance safety within political domains. Investigating established policing conceptualizations, the review demonstrates how the ideal of state-delivered safety as a public good was challenged by a sizeable policing industry, giving rise to debates about legal context, service provision, and conceptualizations of policing and security nodal arrangements. This review argues that these understandings are now confronted by new harms and new conceptualizations of social institutional affairs. Interrogating these claims through an examination of the Anthropocene and technologies of cyberspace, we canvass debates and show that a shared focus of attention for the future of policing will be a decentralization of security and an expansion of private security governance professionals (both human and nonhuman). </jats:p>

<jats:p> This autobiographical review reflects on how I came to attend college, go to graduate school, and become a professor of sociology specializing in criminology. My story is about an African-American child growing up in the rural Jim Crow South with expectations of being destined to have an impressive career. I identify the source of my high career expectations, the roles of family members in helping fulfill these expectations, the educational experiences that I had and what I took from them, and how my career evolved as a university professor. I also discuss my efforts to give back or pay forward to those who set the stage for my career early on and those who mentored, supported, or collaborated with me in the real-world context of university life. Most generally, this article provides a window into my personal journey from rural Georgia to success, “fame,” and giving back in academia. </jats:p>

<jats:p> The Editorial Committee of the Annual Review of Criminology has launched a new section within the journal in which we invite one or more authors to write a more personal and yet scholarly article that puts forth their perspective on an important and timely topic. For Volume 4, we asked Dr. Cynthia Lum and Dr. Phillip Atiba Goff to provide their perspectives on policing. </jats:p><jats:p> We hope our readers enjoy this new and exciting series of “Perspectives.” </jats:p>