Suchergebnisse

According to Laub (2004), criminology has a developmental life course with specific turning points that allow for innovations in how we understand and respond to crime. I argue that criminology should take another turn in direction, focusing on microgeographic hot spots. By examining articles published in Criminology, I show that only marginal attention has been paid to this area of study to date—often termed the criminology of place. I illustrate the potential utility of a turning point by examining the law of crime concentration at place, which states that for a defined measure of crime at a specific microgeographic unit, the concentration of crime will fall within a narrow bandwidth of percentages for a defined cumulative proportion of crime. By providing the first cross‐city comparison of crime concentration using a common geographic unit, the same crime type, and examining a general crime measure, I find strong support for a law of crime concentration. I also show that crime concentration stays within a narrow bandwidth across time, despite strong volatility in crime incidents. By drawing from these findings, I identify several key research questions for future study. In conclusion, I argue that a focus on the criminology of place provides significant opportunity for young scholars and has great promise for advancing criminology as a science.

In this article, more general lessons are drawn from two randomized experiments in hot spots policing that the author helped design and implement in the 1990s: the Minneapolis Hot Spots Experiment and the Jersey City Drug Market Analysis Experiment. Using a case study approach, factors that facilitate and inhibit development and implementation of randomized trials are identified with particular focus on the special problems and/or advantages of place-based experiments. While the author's main comments focus on the success of place-based randomized trials in evaluating hot spots policing approaches, he draws insight as well into the reasons why the successful example of experiments in hot spots policing has not inspired similar place-based experimentation in other areas of policing or criminal justice. Eight specific lessons regarding the implementation and development of place-based randomized trials and experimental methods more generally are identified.

In this article, more general lessons are drawn from two randomized experiments in hot-spots policing that the author helped design & implement in the 1990s: the Minneapolis Hot Spots Experiment & the Jersey City Drug Market Analysis Experiment. Using a case study approach, factors that facilitate & inhibit development & implementation of randomized trials are identified with particular focus on the special problems &/or advantages of place-based experiments. While the author's main comments focus on the success of place-based randomized trials in evaluating hot spots policing approaches, he draws insight as well into the reasons why the successful example of experiments in hot spots policing has not inspired similar place-based experimentation in other areas of policing or criminal justice. Eight specific lessons regarding the implementation & development of place-based randomized trials & experimental methods more generally are identified. 87 References. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2005 The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]

Examines the role of research and evaluation in criminal justice programs and practices, focusing on crime prevention; US, chiefly; 9 articles. Drawn from the Second Annual Jerry Lee Crime Prevention Symposium held at the University of Maryland, College Park, and in Washington, D.C. in Apr. 2002. Contents: Cures that harm: unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs, by Joan McCord; When can we conclude treatments or programs "don't work"?, by David Weisburd, Cynthia M. Lum, and Sue-Ming Yang; Methodological quality standards for evaluation research, by David P. Farrington; Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: good, bad, and ugly, by Mark W. Lipsey; Effects of child skills training in preventing antisocial behavior: a systematic review of randomized evaluations, by Friedrich Lösel, Andreas Beelmann; Effects of closed-circuit television on crime, by Brandon C. Welsh, David P. Farrington; The effectiveness of juvenile curfews at crime prevention, by Kenneth Adams; The costs and benefits of sentencing: a systematic review, by Cynthia McDougall, Mark A. Cohen, Raymond Swaray, and Amanda Perry; Standards for evidence and evidence for standards: the case of school-based drug prevention, by Anthony Petrosino.

In considering the ethical dilemmas associated with randomized experiments, scholars ordinarily focus on the ways in which randomization of treatments or interventions violates accepted norms of conduct of social science research more generally or evaluation of crime and justice questions more specifically. The weight of ethical judgment is thus put on experimental research to justify meeting ethical standards. In this article, it is argued that just the opposite should be true, and that in fact there is a moral imperative for the conduct of randomized experiments in crime and justice. That imperative develops from our professional obligation to provide valid answers to questions about the effectiveness of treatments, practices, and programs. It is supported by a statistical argument that makes randomized experiments the preferred method for ruling out alternative causes of the outcomes observed. Common objections to experimentation are reviewed and found overall to relate more to the failure to institutionalize experimentation than to any inherent limitations in the experimental method and its application in crime and justice settings. It is argued that the failure of crime and justice practitioners, funders, and evaluators to develop a comprehensive infrastructure for experimental evaluation represents a serious violation of professional standards.