Justice Policy Journal - Volume 4, Number 1 - Spring 2007
From the editor
By Randall G. Shelden, M.A., Ph.D.
From the Editor
It gives me great pleasure to announce that this journal has become a "peer reviewed" journal. The five articles that are included in this new issue of the journal have all been reviewed by someone other than myself! The Department of Criminal Justice at San Francisco State University has begun to become involved in the operation of not only this journal but the website for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. In the future we will add more outside reviewers. If any readers of this journal are interested in being a reviewer, please get in touch with me.
As to the current issue of this journal, I must say that we have some unique papers to say the least. One is written by an ex-convict (Daniel S. Murphy), another by a graduate student (Jared Shoemaker), and one paper that gives us a timely and critical paper on the USA Patriot Act. Finally, Kelly Brown critically examines the philosophy of "intensive supervision" and how it impacts recidivism rates.
In the near future, we plan on revising the format to the journal. Look for announcements of the changes on the CJCJ website (www.cjcj.org). We hope to add more sections, such as book reviews, and also devote some future issues to specific topics. We encourage readers to continue submitting papers and also to make suggestions for future issues. The next issue will be in the fall. Feel free to contact me at the following e-mail address: email@example.com.
Editor Randall G. Shelden, M.A., Ph.D.
By Mathew Robinson
This paper introduces and critically analyzes the USA PATRIOT Act, passed shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The author identifies and discusses benefits of the law, threats to civil liberties, important realities of the law (including how it is being used), and examines whether the intrusions it imposes on American citizens are reasonable. The paper also includes a detailed discussion of a major backlash against the law, discusses the likely future of the law, and concludes with implications of the law for the criminal justice discipline.
Appalachian State University in Boone, NC
Matthew Robinson is currently an Associate Professor of political science and criminal justice at Appalachian State University in Boone, NC. Robinson teaches and does research in the areas of criminological theory, civil liberties, injustices of criminal justice agencies, the death penalty, the war on drugs, and 9/11. He is the of the new books, Death Nation: The Experts Explain American Capital Punishment (Prentice Hall, 2008), and Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (State University of New York Press, 2007). Robinson is also author of four other books and more than fifty other pieces of published research. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
By Kelly L. Brown
Past research on intensive supervision probation (ISP) programs has found that program which include treatment components may more effectively reduce recidivism and that programs which offer a balanced approach to ISP may be most effective. Despite these claims, the existing literature has not examined the impact of supervision philosophy (e.g., a control or treatment orientation) of ISP programs on recidivism. This research examines the effects of supervision philosophy on re-arrest and failure to complete ISP. The findings reveal that supervision philosophy impacts program failure but not the re-arrest of intensive probationers. The results also suggest that other predictors of recidivism may be more important in predicting the recidivism of intensive probationers than supervision philosophy. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Kelly L. Brown
Indiana University in Kokomo, IN
Kelly Brown is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice in the School of Public and environmental affairs at Indiana University in Kokomo, IN. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati in 1999. She is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Kokomo. Her research and teaching interests include capital punishment and death row, attitudes toward crime and correctional policy, crime and deviance among college students, and religion and crime. She may be contacted at email@example.com or at School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Kokomo, P.O. Box 9003, Kokomo, Indiana 46904.
By Sanaz Alasti
This Article under takes a comparative study of stoning in Islam and Judaism. In Islam stoning (rajm), which is one of the punishments originally, came from Hodoud (Hodoud are punishments that the kind, the quantity and the quality of them are determined in shariah) is the penalty of adultery. But in Judaism stoning was only one of the four kinds of penalties used in cases like adultery; sodomy, idolatry and the ways in which this punishment is executed are quite different in Islam and Judaism. By comparing the size of the stones and the way it is done, one can say that in Islam the aim of this punishment is to be more painful. In Islam, there are no clear instructions about stoning in Quran, but there are some implications in Hadiths (saying and stories about Prophet Mohammad's behaviors told by his close followers), but it has been mentioned in Torah. Stoning is a kind of punishment that no matter for what reasons or charges is executed; it contradicts the International human right agreements such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In Muslim world statistics shows, they still execute stoning as a punishment (sometimes in public), but in Judaism we can find just some implications in history. Therefore, considering the contemporary standards of societies we can deliberate various evidentiary, procedural, and barriers to imposition of the stoning.
Golden Gate University School of Law, San Francisco, CA
Sanaz Alasti is currently a CA S.J.D. (Scientiae Juridicae Doctor) Candidate, Golden Gate University School of Law, San Francisco, CA; LL.M, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran (2003); LL.B (Honors), Allameh Tabatabae University, Tehran, Iran (2001). Research interest is on penology, history of criminal justice, comparative criminal justice systems. Contact Information: Golden Gate University, School of law, Advanced International legal studies program, San Francisco, CA. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
By Jared Shoemaker
Despite its failure to achieve its desired objectives, the War on Drugs continues on into a fourth decade with disastrous effects and extensive collateral damage. The current article explores civil asset forfeiture as one motivation that keeps the current drug policy intact. Specifically, it advances the premise that the current state of civil asset forfeiture law creates goal displacement that motivates law enforcement agencies to implement drug enforcement strategies that aggressively pursue civil asset forfeitures as a means of supplementing their budgets rather than as a legitimate tool for decreasing the supply of illicit drugs. The article explores how this goal displacement not only negatively impacts the progress of the War on Drugs, but also how it leads to disregard for individual due process rights, sometimes with tragic and life-altering consequences for innocent individuals. A brief discussion of the necessary reforms to civil asset forfeiture law is included.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Jared Shoemaker is currently completing his Master of Arts in Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His future plans include pursuing a Ph.D. in criminal justice. His research interests include jury decision-making, capital punishment, and the application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to criminal justice issues. He may be contacted at email@example.com or at the Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 455009, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5009.
By Daniel S. Murphy
The etics-emics debate, "neutral objectivity" versus "biased subjectivity," is ongoing within the academy. As academics we are indoctrinated into, and convince ourselves of, the ideology of objectivity. We are subjective human beings who attempt to develop objective standards. This stated, we are subjective by nature yet strive for the arcamedian point of absolute neutrality. The present paper explores the positive-negative aspects of incorporating personal-subjective experience(s) in teaching criminal justice. The reality of subjectivity is explored within the context of the unobtainable pursuit of pure objectivity.
Daniel S. Murphy
Appalachian State University
Daniel S. Murphy is an assistant professor of political science and criminal justice at Appalachian State University in Boone, NC. Having spent in excess of five years confined in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Murphy has a unique insight to the realities on both sides of the razor wire. Post incarceration he worked his way through Master's and Ph.D. and now merges his subjective experiences with academic training. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org or by phone at 828-262-6700.
Posted in Volume 4