Credibility is one of the central concepts in the field of criminology. Practitioners and scholars try to ensure that their decisions are based on credible evidence, which is regarded as the essential premise for the effectiveness of the decision. The importance of the use of credible evidence is discussed when evaluating an approach within the corrections system (Carroll, 2017). The Missouri model is quite different from the conventional approach to the corrections system as the juvenile delinquents who are in correctional facilities are not subjected to violence and have fewer restrictions. Many people claim that the Missouri model should become a norm as it has proved to be effective. However, many scholars and practitioners stress that more studies have to be implemented to obtain credible evidence supporting the effectiveness of the model. Carroll (2017) argues that it is essential to identify the population that will benefit from the model most, particular methods to implement the model in different settings, examine long-term outcomes, identify some weaknesses or gaps, and so on.
It is clear that researchers and practitioners cannot rely on a case that shows the benefits of some systems. When it comes to the research, Maxfield (2015) notes that the data obtained should be generalizable, which is one of the criteria of credible evidence. Therefore, the model should be checked in different settings (for example, in different states) before it can be made a system used nationwide. It is also essential to make sure that short- and long-term effects are analyzed as interventions can be effective during a limited period of time and have adverse long-term outcomes.
Credible evidence is also critical in the field of migration agencies when it comes to the analysis of data obtained from asylum seekers. Van Veldhuizen, Horselenberg, Landström, Granhag, Van Koppen (2017) claim that the number of details is regarded as the major criteria of credibility. Thus, migration officers see the lack of details as an attempt to deceive. Nevertheless, researchers note that this criterion cannot be regarded as central since people may have memory issues due to various reasons (for example, certain psychological states).
This case unveils an important topic concerning the credibility of the evidence. Researchers and practitioners have to use proper criteria to assess the credibility of the evidence. The lack or abundance of details is not reliable enough, and other aspects should be taken into account. As for criminology research, Maxfield (2015) states that it is important to collect sufficient details to be able to come to plausible conclusions. At the same time, it is necessary to collect relevant data. For instance, migrant officers do not have to focus on details concerning places, people, and so on. It is possible to discuss values, traditions, and even emotions as these topics can help asylum seekers prove their origin.
On balance, it is possible to note that the debate concerning the credibility of the evidence is still ongoing as researchers and practitioners still have different views on criteria to utilize, aspects to focus on, and so on. At present, the credibility and effectiveness of many studies, interventions, and decisions can be questioned. The only way to ensure credibility is to carry out studies that focus on different aspects of an issue. Looking at things from a different angle is the most effective strategy when analyzing or evaluating some interventions, programs, and so on.
References
Carroll, V. (2017). Is the Missouri model really a panacea for youth corrections?The Denver Post. Web.
Maxfield, M. G. (2015). Basics of research methods for criminal justice and criminology. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Van Veldhuizen, T., Horselenberg, R., Landström, S., Granhag, P., & van Koppen, P. (2016). Interviewing asylum seekers: A vignette study on the questions asked to assess credibility of claims about origin and persecution. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 14(1), 3-22.