Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 349–361 | Cite as

Interaction of criminological research and public policy

  • Alfred Blumstein
Article

Abstract

We examine here some of the interactions of research and policy over the past several decades. The “rehabilitation period” was effectively terminated by nulleffect evaluations of various rehabilitation techniques. The “just deserts-utilitarian period” was fed by research estimates of the deterrent and incapacitative effects of criminal justice activities. The more recent “overt politicization period” saw the earlier attempt to bring rational and theory-based perspectives to policy development replaced by much stronger emphasis on political concerns. We explore possible ways to reestablish the research-policy connections.

Key Words

criminological research public policy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avi-Itzhak, B., and Shinnar, R. (1973). Quantitative models in crime control.J. Crim. Just. 1(3): 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, G. (1967). Crime and punishment: An economic approach.J. Polit. Econ. 78(2): 526–536.Google Scholar
  3. Blumstein, A. (1995). Youth violence, guns and the illicit-drug industry.J. Crim. Law Criminol. 86(1): 10–36.Google Scholar
  4. Blumstein, A., and Cohen, J. (1979). Estimation of individual crime rates from arrest records.J. Crim. Law Criminol. 70: 561–585.Google Scholar
  5. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., and Nagin, D. (1978).Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating-the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, Report of the Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., and Miller, H. D. (1980). Demographically disaggregated projections of prison populations.J. Crim. Just. 8: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaiken, J. M., and Chaiken, M. R. (1982).Varieties of Criminal Behavior, Rand Report R-2814-NIJ. Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Ehrlich, I. (1975). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A question of life and death.Am. Econ. Rev. 65(3): 397–417.Google Scholar
  9. Empey, L. T., and Rabow, J. (1961). Experiment in delinquency rehabilitation.Am. Sociol. Rev. 26: 679–696.Google Scholar
  10. Glaser, D. (1965). Correctional research: An elusive paradise.J. Res. Crime Delina. 2: 1–11.Google Scholar
  11. Gottfredson, D., Wilkins, L., and Hoffman, P. (1978).Guidelines for Parole and Sentencing, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Greenwood, P. W., Rydell, C. P., Abrahamse, A. F., Caulkins, J. P., Chiesa, J., Model, K. E., and Klein, S. P. (1994).Three Strikes and You're Out: Estimated Benefits and Costs of California's New Mandatory-Sentencing Law, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Greenwood, P. W., Model, K. E., Rydell, C. P., and Chiesa, J. (1996).Diverting Children from a Life of Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Knapp, K. (1982). Impact of the Minnesota sentencing guidelines on sentencing practices.Hamline Law Rev. 5: 237–256.Google Scholar
  15. Knapp, K., Tift, R., Popplewell, F., Richardson, B., and Broucek, J. (1979).Development of Statewide Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota: Data Collection Instruments, Minesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  16. Lipton, D., Martinson, R., and Wilks, J. (1975).The Effectiveness of Correctional, Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform.Public Interest 10: 22–54.Google Scholar
  18. Morris, N. (1974).The Future of Imprisonment, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967).The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. Robison, J.O., and Smith, G. (1971). The effectiveness of correctional programs.J. Res. Crime Delinq. 17: 67–80.Google Scholar
  21. Rydell, C. P., and Everingham, S. S. (1994).Controlling Cocaine: Supply Versus Demand Programs, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  22. Sechrest, L., White, S., and Brown, E. (1979).The Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders: Problems and Prospects, Report of the Panel on Rehabilitative Techniques, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. von Hirsch, A. (1976).Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments, Hill and Wang, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Warren, M. Q., Palmer, T. B., Neto, V. V., and Turner, J. K. (1966).Community Treatment Project: An Evaluation of Community Treatment for Delinquents, Fifth Progress Report, CIP Research Report No. 7, California Youth Authority, Sacramento.Google Scholar
  25. Wilkins, L. T., Kress, J., Gottfredson, D. M., Calpin, J. C., and Gelman, A. M. (1978).Sentencing Guidelines: Structuring Judicial Discretion—Report on the Feasibility Study, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, J. Q. (1975). Lock'em up and other thoughts on crime.N. Y. Times Mag. Mar. 9.Google Scholar
  27. Zedlewski, E. W. (1987).Making Confinement Decisions, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfred Blumstein
    • 1
  1. 1.John Heinz III School of Public Policy and ManagementCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations