I am pleased to present to the readers of this web site the fourth consecutive issue of this journal. This issue, Volume 3, Number 2, is especially significant, as we have a total of six fine articles covering a variety of unique topics. I believe readers will find that we are, as promised, becoming a leading on-line journal in the field of criminology.

The lead article represents what I consider to be a first in criminology: a female ex-convict who is now a professor at Indiana University-Southeast. Here we have a first-hand account of life inside a women's prison. Bernadette Olson writes about the often painful journey through a federal penitentiary and shares not only insights into her own struggles, but the struggles of some of her fellow prisoners. This was a unique experience for me, as I think it will be for the readers of this journal.

Next up is yet another unique perspective on the criminal justice system, in this case a concept I have yet to see in the criminological literature: therapeutic mental health courts. Judge Randal Fritzler, a pioneer in applying mental health perspectives in a courtroom (his own court, in fact), addresses a growing concern within the criminal justice system: that a significant proportion of offenders have serious mental health issues, which have a direct impact on their offending behavior. Traditional approaches in criminal justice, following the usual punitive approach and the idea of deterrence, need to be thrown in the dustbin of history when it comes to this kind of offender. Judge Fritzler tells us how this is to be accomplished.

Next up is a good look at what delinquency experts know (or should know) all too well: adolescents engage in a lot of risk taking behavior and as such should be treated more leniently. John D. Hewitt, Robert M. Regoli and Christopher A. Kierkus take one of the central arguments in the recent Supreme Court Case of Roper v. Simmons where the basis of the decision (that applying the death penalty to juveniles was unconstitutional) centered around the notion that adolescents can be distinguished from adults by their immaturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility.

In the next article, Glenn W. Muschert, Melissa Young-Spillers and Dawn Carr take on the many myths associated with child abduction cases and the AMBER alert system. Here they note that the legislation creating the AMBER alert system was based upon a few isolated horror stories of child abductions by complete strangers. As their analysis of actual cases demonstrates, the vast majority of abductions stem from familial conflicts. (Personally I found that this research paralleled a master's thesis I chaired in my own department by graduate student Michael Smoll who also arrived at identical conclusions.) One of the central arguments the authors make is that excessive attention to the rare cases of stranger abduction deflects attention away from family conflicts and thus do more harm than good to children.

In the fifth article Wendy Hicks utilizes a computer simulation model known as "PowerSim" to analyze the contrast between the deterrence argument and the "brutalization" argument (offered by Cochran and Chamlin in their study of the re-introduction of the death penalty in Oklahoma).

Finally, Terry E. Gingerich and Gregory D. Russell write about their study of the subject of Accreditation and Community Policing by contrasting the views of "Street Cops" and "Management Cops." This study compared CEOs, staff officers/middle managers, first line supervisors and line officers in "accredited agencies" with those of like officers in "non-accredited agencies" regarding "community policing." Some of their findings were surprising, such as the fact that line officers in accredited agencies were more receptive of community policing than their counterparts in non-accredited agencies. However, acceptance of community policing was greater the higher the rank (regardless of accreditation).

In the previous issue I asked readers to begin sending book reviews. So far I have not received any. I am hoping that this will be a regular feature of the journal, in addition to "research briefs" (see previous issue for an example). Feel free to send me any comments you may have about the journal, including suggestions for improvements and/or special issues. Your support will be appreciated. Please send your research to me at the following e-mail: [profrgs@cox.net]

Editor Randall G. Shelden, M.A., Ph.D.