Research in criminal justice is essential to constructing a functional penal system. In the sphere of criminal justice, inquiry can doubtlessly assist in the formulation of improved and more progressive laws and institutions. According to Neubauer and Fradella (2019), these competencies enable criminal justice professionals to support and promote the development of more efficient and impactful regulations and institutions. It additionally supports them in analyzing the current policies, strategies, and changes being implemented in the criminal justice system. Therefore, research in the criminal justice field enables experts to enhance the effectiveness of their specific units. This research contributes to policy implementation, justice administration, crime prevention, and, most importantly, the awareness of the antecedents of criminal wrongdoing.
Policing
Crime has gradually surged in recent decades, yet police agency funding has remained unchanged and sometimes reduced. In this context, scholars have been assisting police agencies in understanding the connections between some of their conventional (and costly) tactics and their aims (as solving crimes and safeguarding citizens). In this context, research has shown that preventive patrols did not guarantee a reduction in crime or a feeling of security for the public (Crawford, 2017). These results provide police administrators with the freedom to explore and test various patrol tactics, including proactive patrol instead of a random drive around the streets. Similarly, employing scientifically substantiated hypotheses, researchers have devised systems that enable law enforcement officers to respond to non-emergency requests for assistance in ways other than the immediate deployment of patrol troops (Yarwood et al., 2021). Various police agencies in the United States have implemented these methods. Crucially, several jurisdictions have concentrated on encouraging the populace to report crimes to the authorities more promptly.
The discovery of “solvability factors” represents one of the most significant advances in contemporary police, resulting from studies into criminal investigation. In several agencies, information gathered at the site of less severe offenses is evaluated today using solvability-factor scoresheets (Coupe et al., 2019). Based on the preliminary data collected, the analysis evaluates which crimes are likely to be solved. Those incidents are sent to the investigative department for further probe. The remaining cases are frequently dismissed based on the initial inquiry and revisited only if new evidence is obtained.
Prosecution
Case attrition is widely recognized as a widespread issue throughout U.S. jurisdictions. Numerous criminal arrests made by the police seldom end in convictions. Instead, the prosecutor decides not to press charges or drop the case in court. Accordingly, research has shown that issues with witnesses and victims and inadequate cooperation between the law enforcement agencies and prosecutors are the main reasons for case attrition (Lovell et al., 2021). These issues hinder the prosecution’s actions in varied contexts and pose evidentiary challenges. Based on the findings, understanding these challenges has evolved, resulting in various attempts to solve them. It is widely accepted that officers have a role to play in the result of a trial, and they should recognize that their job goes beyond submission (Neubauer & Fradella, 2019). Additionally, there has been an increase in prosecutor checks and official regulations because of findings that several arrests do not culminate in charges being filed. Prosecutors utilize the checks to gather information to support indictments, while police rely on the checklists to verify that solely solid evidence is submitted.
Successful prosecution relies heavily on cooperative victims. Studies have established that frequently, “noncooperative” victims refuse to participate as they recognize the perpetrator and have chosen to resolve the issue in a nonlegal way (Backes et al., 2020). Additionally, witnesses and victims usually misinterpret court appearance instructions. In light of these findings, police are encouraged to increase their efforts to identify and assist informants and survivors. Additionally, several offices oversee offenders as they go from custody through sentencing and use a variety of documentation procedures, further exacerbating case attrition (Lovell et al., 2021). Due to a lack of coordination between various authorities, criminals frequently walk through the system without consequences.
Sentencing
The evaluation of how well penal practice satisfies the objectives of rehabilitation, prevention, and incapacitation objectives has been a key component of studies in shaping the U.S. criminal justice system. Analyses of the results of rehabilitation services have demonstrated that participation in these initiatives does not, in a broad sense, substantially lower the likelihood of recidivism and that restoration is typically not a valid aim of penalties (Schmucker & Lösel, 2017). These studies provide the groundwork for the transition from arbitrary to definitive penalties, the elimination of treatment involvement as the key factor in parole determinations, and creation of objective punishment standards.
Given the undermining of rehabilitation, scholars have begun assessing the degree to which punishment achieves the goals of deterrence and incapacitation. Utilizing statistics regarding the frequency and severity of crime among specific criminals, they assess the drops in general crime levels that occur from imprisoning these criminals for varying periods. These simulations have been crucial as they allow legislators to quantify the impact of specific sentencing measures on crime.
Corrections
The prison overpopulation situation has necessitated studies to assist prison officials in managing imprisonment, parole, and probation with the constrained facilities made accessible by overloaded national funding. In doing so, academics have gotten engaged in attempts to categorize offenders as per their violence risk while confined and their likelihood of recidivism if freed (Hamilton et al., 2021). Through research, policymakers have been informed of the looming corrections issue and the necessity for preparedness. Using past prison term data, Stevenson (2018) forecasted anticipated prison demographics and observed correlations between imprisonment rates. It moreover presented advice for population management. Ever since, experts in numerous jurisdictions have created prison categorization schemes intended to enhance the placement of criminals in prisons with varying degrees of risk, including minimal, medium, and maximum (Coupe et al., 2019). Many other places have since reproduced these categorization tools, which are widely used, rather than interventional discretion, to govern prison safety allocations.
To assist in the decision-making process during pretrial, probation, and parole, a significant amount of study in corrections has been devoted to predicting recidivism. The strategies and goals of these initiatives have, for the most part, remained consistent. They consist of researching a cohort of repeat offenders to uncover the factors linked to their behavior. When the factors associated with repeat offenses have been discovered, those in charge of making decisions about release may use that knowledge to make more informed choices. Data on the attributes of the perpetrator has further had a significant impact on bail determinations. Researchers have discovered that offenders with community ties are unlikely to run, notwithstanding their ability to afford bail bonds (Feiler, 2022). The Vera Institute of Justice has developed a scoring system that considers the accused’s residence stability, job, family ties, and past criminal background (Stemen, 2017). The number of points an offender earns puts him in a certain flight-risk group. Numerous courts in the United States are presently using the Vera system, which has undergone extensive testing and verification at various sites.
Studies of a comparable type have been carried out on parolees. The Salient Factor Score (SFS) is a recidivism prediction system established by researchers at the United States Parole Commission. According to Wormith (2017), the SFS has significantly impacted parole release. The application of objective data to determine parolee discharge has been hailed as a landmark legal change in Anglo-American history. Several states in the U.S. apply standards for parole that are patterned after the SFS (DiBenedetto, 2018). These comprise the number of past crimes, their gravity, and how recently they occurred, in addition to the perpetrator’s condition while serving a term in the criminal justice system. These common patterns provide the impetus for simplifying some aspects of the recommendations in some situations. Thus, research has been crucial in shaping policies and practices in the U.S. criminal justice system.
Research is crucial for individuals working in law enforcement, prisons, and other areas of the justice system. When law enforcement officers, prison officials, and parole agents understand the fundamental ideas, techniques, and methodologies in criminal justice research, they are better equipped to recognize and effectively apply evidence-based innovation duties. Consequently, these capabilities facilitate and promote the creation of new guidelines and procedures by criminal justice professionals. Thus, the research contributes to identifying more efficient techniques for police departments and the justice system administration.
References
Backes, B. L., Fedina, L., & Holmes, J. L. (2020). The criminal justice system response to intimate partner stalking: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research.Journal of Family Violence, 35(7), 665-678.
Coupe, R. T., Ariel, B., & Mueller-Johnson, K. (2019). Crime solvability factors: Police resources and crime detection. Cham: Springer.
Crawford, A. (2017). Reassurance policing: Feeling is believing. In A. Henry & D. J. Smith. (Eds), Transformations of policing, (pp. 143-168), Routledge.
DiBenedetto, R. (2018). Reducing Recidivism Or Misclassifying Offenders: How Implementing Risk and Needs Assessment in the Federal Prison System Will Perpetuate Racial Bias.Journal of Law & Policy 27, 414.
Feiler, J. (2022). America’s Cash Bail Crisis: Learning from Our Common-Law Roots.Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 45(2), 114.
Hamilton, Z., Duwe, G., Kigerl, A., Gwinn, J., Langan, N., & Dollar, C. (2021). Tailoring to a mandate: The development and validation of the Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (PATTERN). Justice Quarterly, 1-27.
Lovell, R., Overman, L., Huang, D., & Flannery, D. J. (2021). The bureaucratic burden of identifying your rapist and remaining “cooperative”: What the sexual assault kit initiative tells us about sexual assault case attrition and outcomes.American journal of criminal justice, 46(3), 528-553.
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2019). America’s courts and the criminal justice system. Cengage.
Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2017). Sexual offender treatment for reducing recidivism among convicted sex offenders: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1-75.
Stemen, D. (2017). The prison paradox: More incarceration will not make us safer. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Stevenson, M. (2018). Assessing risk assessment in action. Minnesota Law Review, 103, 303.
Wormith, J. S. (2017). Automated offender risk assessment.Criminology & Public Policy 16, 281.
Yarwood, N., King, M., & Henshaw, M. (2021). Expanding the range of metrics used in response officer dispatch decisions.Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(2), 1062-1079.