1Volume XXIX, Issue 2 ACJS TODAY

Volume XXIX • Issue 2 • May/June 2004

ACJS National OfficeContact Information:

Laura Monaco: Association Managerlmonaco@acjs.org

Collene Cantner: Executive Assistantccantner@acjs.org

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences7319 Hanover Parkway, Suite C

Greenbelt, Maryland 20770Tel.: (301) 446-6300; (800) 757-ACJS (2257)

Fax: (301) 446-2819Website: http://www.acjs.org

Webmaster: holden@cmsu1.cmsu.edu

in this issue . . .The Administration of Capital Punishment (1); President’s Mes-sage (2); Book Review Submission Guidelines for ACJS Today(3) ; ACJS Website (3); Theorizing CJ Phenomena: A Call forDeveloping Infrafracture (6); Upcoming ACJS Annual Meetings(7); ACJS Today Editorial Staff (9); ACJS Today SubmissionsInformation (9); Book Reviews (10); ACJS Editor Position (11);Call for Manuscripts (12); ACA Seeks Articles (12); ACJS Publi-cations Order Form (17); ACJS 2003-2004 Executive Board (18).

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

TodayTHE ADMINISTRATION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

by J ON SORENSEN

Prairie View A&M University

continued on page 5

Like most Americans, I am not morally opposed to capital pun-ishment under certain circumstances. Early in my research on thedeath penalty, however, I became convinced that flaws in its impo-sition warranted abolition. Now, nearly twenty years later, I am notso sure. The efforts of the U.S. Supreme Court, elected officials,concerned citizens, and death penalty opponents have wroughtchanges in the administration of capital punishment in recent yearsthat address many of these flaws and have caused me to recon-sider my position. A close examination of recent empirical evi-dence challenges many widely held assumptions about how thedeath penalty is imposed. Most significant among these relate tothe issues of fairness, reliability and cost.

Fairness

While the issue of fairness encompasses a host of factors, themost common concern is whether the death penalty is imposedagainst racial minorities more often than whites because of theirminority status. There is little doubt that the death penalty, likeother penal sanctions, has been applied in a manner that was ra-cially discriminatory in the past. Currently, critics charge that thedeath penalty is still imposed in a discriminatory manner, arguingthat African Americans, while only 12% of the U.S. population,constitute 40% of the death row population and 35% of thoseexecuted.1 Proponents, however, may quickly point out that whenthe population at risk is used, instead of the general population,African Americans are actually less likely than whites to receive

capital punishment because African Americans account for over50% of those arrested for committing homicide.2

These simple comparisons cannot be relied on in determiningwhether capital punishment is administered in a racially biasedmanner. To show that the system is discriminatory, one must care-fully control for legally relevant factors that could have influencedthe imposition of the sanction. Only then can one presume thatsome of the residual disparity could be due to inappropriate racialconsiderations.

Studies thus performed during the modern era3 have found littleevidence that blacks are sentenced to death more often than whitesfor committing similar murders. Although some studies have foundthat cases involving black offenders and white victims are morelikely to be prosecuted as death penalty cases than similar casesinvolving other racial combinations, methodological shortcomingshave made it impossible to determine the veracity of these reportedrelationships.4 The only consistent racial disparity found in thesestudies is based on the race of the victim, cases involving whitevictims being prosecuted more often as death penalty cases thanthose involving black victims. However, it is unclear how such arelationship may be considered the result of discrimination. Forexample, such discrepancies could result from the socioeconomicstatus of the victim, the failure of defendants to accept plea bar-gains in such cases, or the lack of insistence on the part of blackvictims’ families to push for the death penalty rather than racialdiscrimination. Consideration of these potential explanations isvirtually absent from research studies on the death penalty.5

ACJS TODAY2 May/June 2004

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

2

As I write this, I am preparing to head off to lovely Bristol,Rhode Island to attend the regional meeting of the NEACJS.This will be the first of five such regional meetings I will beattending over the next six months. The main message I willcarry to each meeting is one I want to share with you here.As you may know, ACJS is well on the road to assuming itsrightful leadership role as the “keeper of the flame” with re-spect to quality criminal justice education. Let me brieflytell you where we have been on this road, where we arenow, and where we are going.

This past year, the ACJS Executive Board adopted theposition that ACJS would become a national certificationbody for criminal justice education. Pursuant to that deci-sion, the Board charged an ad hoc committee with develop-ing both standards and a plan for implementing those stan-dards. The proposed standards and a preliminary plan wereindeed developed and presented to the Board at the annualmeeting in Las Vegas in March. In essence, the plan pro-posed adopting an augmented version of the standards usedlast year by the Massachusetts Board of Higher Educationto assess criminal justice programs in that state under whatwas called the “Quinn Bill” assessments. These standardsare intended to replace our ACJS Minimum Standards cur-rently in use. The ad hoc committee also proposed a proce-dure for doing program reviews and for granting certifica-tion. The Board accepted the main outline of this plan, andthe committee was charged with seeking additional informa-tion, clarifying, and further refining the plan before the Boardwould make a final determination on adopting both the stan-dards and the procedures. As this process is not completed,we have not yet released these preliminary standards andprocedures to the general membership. Because they arenot finalized, and are thus subject to revision, it is our viewthat releasing them prematurely would only cause confusionabout what ultimately will be formally proposed. That said,the Massachusetts BHE standards themselves are in factavailable on their website, and they reflect to a considerabledegree the substance of what we are considering.

To assist in moving us forward, I have expanded theexisting Academic Review Committee (ARC) by rolling itand the ad hoc committees on standards and certification

and on assessment into one ARC committee. The co-chairs are Jay Berman, Dave Owens, and Tom Winfree.That seventeen person group now includes many of the folksin ACJS who have contemplated accreditation and certifi-cation over the years, several former ACJS presidents,former Board members, representatives of both four-yearand two-year programs, and members from every region ofthe country. They and the members of the Board, as well asmyself, take this as a very serious task, and we are givingevery consideration to the concerns, issues, and problemsthat surround the undertaking. Once the Board has prelimi-narily adopted the standards and the plan for carrying outcertification, we will present these to the membership forreview and comment. Following that, revisions deemed nec-essary by the Board will be made, and only then will finaladoption occur.

Needless to say, we want to move expeditiously butnot hastily. Perhaps it is appropriate to consider the wordsof the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Educationdecision of 50 years ago in this context, namely to moveforward with “all deliberate speed.” Criminal justice educa-tion, as we know it, is now in its fourth decade. I personallyhave been a criminal justice educator for 33 years. Duringthat time, we have come a very long way. But we still havea ways to go. When I ran for this office three years ago, my“campaign” statement emphasized my desire to work to doeverything I could to improve the quality of our educationalprograms. My fervent hope as an educator – as a kind oflegacy if you will — is to leave this presidency next yearwith our field better and stronger in this respect than it waswhen I assumed office. This can only happen with yourhelp and participation. So, I ask you to attend your re-gional meetings, consider and debate the issues of certifica-tion, watch for mailings and website postings, and ultimatelyhelp us – all of us — to do ourselves proud in our chosenprofession.

Jim FinckenauerPresident, ACJS

3Volume XXIX, Issue 2 ACJS TODAY

• Provide a review that will help the readership determine how useful the book will be for teaching ofparticular courses.

• Identify how the book is applicable to criminal justice, criminology, sociology, and other relatedcurriculums.

• Identify the courses for which the book will be useful and why.

• Identify the level of students most likely to find the book useful.

• Identify the teaching style most consistent with the book’s approach.

• Send reviews to Alex del Carmen, the ACJS Today Editor, at adelcarmen@uta.edu.

• Book review should be limited to no more than three (3) single-spaced pages with references inAPA style.

• Reviews sent as e-mail attachments in Word are acceptable.

• Submission of a review to ACJS Today implies that the review has not been published elsewherenor is it currently under submission to another publication.

BOOK REVIEW SUBMISSION GUIDELINES FOR

ACJS TODAY

Visit the ACJS websiteat:

http://www.acjs.org

ACJS TODAY4 May/June 2004

continued from page 1

Further, empirical findings often directlycontradict the discrimination hypothesis.For example, research examining capitalmurders in Texas during 1974-88 found thatcases involving white victims were morelikely to be prosecuted as death penaltycases when the offender was white as op-posed to black.6 Additionally, regardless ofthe reason for the over-representation ofwhite victims among the death-sentencedpopulation in Texas, it appears that thistrend is reversing. The percentage of de-fendants sentenced to death for killing whitevictims has consistently decreased fromover 90% during the 1970s to less than 50%by 2003.7 A comparison of death-sentencedinmates to homicide arrests during 1994-2001confirms that cases involving white victimsare no longer over-represented among deathrow inmates in Texas. In fact, controllingfor legally relevant variables, the proportionof black victim cases and white victim casesresulting in death sentences were nearlyidentical. The only racial combination sig-nificantly over-represented on death row incomparison to arrests was the killing ofAsians by African Americans. What theoryof discrimination explains the harsher treat-ment of one minority group by another?8

Determining whether racial bias influ-ences the administration of capital punish-ment is much more complicated than sug-gested by those quoting simple, unadjustedracial proportions. Evidence of racial dis-crimination in death sentencing in the mod-ern era hinges on differences based on therace of the victim during the early stages ofcase processing. Upon closer examination,however, such findings often fail to ad-equately rule out other potential explana-tions for these differences.

Reliability

One of the greatest fears among bothopponents and proponents of the deathpenalty is that an innocent person may beexecuted. The specter of executing inno-cent defendants has been the driving forcebehind the abolition of the death penalty inother countries. The abolition of capitalpunishment in England, for example, is cred-ited in large part to the execution of JamesHanratty in 1962, who was widely believedto be innocent.9 Exonerations of non-capi-tal inmates using DNA testing, the commu-tation of death row inmates in Illinois byGovernor Ryan (due in large part to his fearof executing an innocent person), and eventhe influence of Hollywood with the release

of The Life of David Gayle, have recentlycaused many Americans to question whetherall of those awaiting execution are guilty ofthe crimes for which they were sentencedto death.

The empirical questions that arise fromsuch speculation involve the actual oddsof executing an innocent person and theevidence upon which such estimates arebased. In a landmark study, Bedau andRadelet cataloged 350 instances where in-dividuals were wrongfully convicted of capi-tal or “potentially” capital crimes in the U.S.during the twentieth century.10 A responseby the U.S. Attorney General’s Office illumi-nates some of the problems in definingwrongful convictions and estimating theirprevalence.11 Of the 350 defendants con-victed of “potentially capital crimes” in theoriginal study, Markman and Cassell pointout that only 139 were actually sentencedto death, of which only 23 were carried out.Assuming that each of the 23 executed indi-viduals were actually innocent, they calcu-lated the likelihood of executing an inno-cent person to be less than 1/3 of 1% (23 ofapproximately 7000 executions carried outduring that period). Markman and Cassellfurther challenged the evidence relied onby Bedau and Radelet in determining thatthese 23 executed individuals were actuallyinnocent. Bedau and Radelet admitted that“no state or federal officials have ever ac-knowledged that a wrongful execution hastaken place in this century.”12 The evidencethey relied upon to “prove” innocence inthese cases consisted of “another person’sconfession (6 cases), the implication of an-other person (3 cases), a state official’s opin-ion (6 cases), and ‘subsequent scholarlyjudgment’ that the defendant was innocent(8 cases).”13

Bedau and Radelet’s study served as thestarting point for the list of wrongful con-victions in death sentences during the mod-ern era now maintained and updated by theDeath Penalty Information Center (DPIC).This compilation, found on the DPIC websiteunder the title Cases of Innocence: 1973 –Present, includes short summaries of thecases of 113 persons wrongfully sentencedto death as of March 1, 2004.14 The DPICrestricts the list to cases in which “[defen-dants] had been sentenced to death, andsubsequently either a) their conviction wasoverturned and they were acquitted at a re-trial, or all charges were dropped; or b) theywere given an absolute pardon by the gov-ernor based on new evidence of innocence.”In a footnote, the DPIC admits that the

strength of evidence suggesting innocencevaries considerably among these cases,from 5 that did not meet their stated criteriafor inclusion to 13 cases in which “DNAplayed a substantial factor in establishingthe innocence of the inmate.” While thequestion of factual guilt would appear to beforeclosed in the latter cases, DNA evidenceseldom completely exonerates the defen-dant. As noted in an example by the Indi-ana Criminal Law Study Commission, “post-trial DNA testing showing that semen evi-dence belonged to the rape-murder victim’shusband, not the defendant, does not provethat the defendant did not rape and murderthe victim. Few convictions are the resultof a single piece of evidence. However, if areviewing court finds that the semen playeda strong part in proof of guilt, the remainingevidence, depending on its strength, mayor may not be sufficient to maintain thecourt’s full confidence under the law in thedefendant’s conviction.”15

While the DPIC “innocence list” is of-ten quoted as the authoritative source, thelimitations of the list should not be over-looked. First and most obviously, none ofthese cases actually resulted in execution.To opponents of the death penalty, the listnevertheless shows, by those that havecome to light, the pervasiveness of criticalmistakes in capital cases. Coupled with thefact that such investigations typically ceaseonce a death-sentenced inmate is executed,opponents state with confidence that inno-cent people have, and continue to be, ex-ecuted. On the other hand, proponentssometimes interpret these data as evidencethat fail-safes built into the system work tofree those who are potentially innocent fromdeath sentences before execution. Of themore than 7000 defendants sentenced todeath during this era, incontrovertible evi-dence that an innocent person has beenexecuted does not exist.

Each of these arguments, however, as-sumes that the defendants in these caseswere “factually” innocent of the crimes forwhich they were sentenced to death. Re-versals in these cases, however, turn muchmore often on the question of “legal” asopposed to “factual” guilt, as noted by theIndiana Criminal Law Study Commission. Inmany of these cases, reviewing courts re-mained confident that the defendants werefactually guilty, but were required to reversebased on procedural infirmities that theybelieved could be remedied upon retrial. Infact, such mistakes have warranted rever-sals in literally thousands of death penalty

5Volume XXIX, Issue 2 ACJS TODAY

continued on page 7

cases during the modern era, nearly all ofwhich resulted in subsequent convictions.A handful did not.

Occasionally, prosecutors are unable orreluctant to retry a case. In a case that isreversed for procedural errors, prosecutorsare often barred from using some of the evi-dence against defendants in future prosecu-tions. Other evidence may have been mis-placed or destroyed. Witnesses against thedefendant, often co-perpetrators, have ei-ther already received, or in some cases failedto receive, their promised deal, and thushave no incentive to testify for the pros-ecution again. Other witnesses may be dif-ficult to locate or even deceased. As timepasses, witness recall is affected, which caninject doubt into the proceedings. Publicsentiment may also have changed, no longersupporting a prosecution.

While courts overturn cases and pros-ecutors fail to sustain new convictions for amyriad reasons, seldom are defendants “fac-tually” innocent of the crime for which theywere initially sentenced to death.16 To speakof the initial convictions in such cases as“miscarriages of justice” as subsequent in-ability to convict as “exonerations” distortsthe true nature of these events.

Cost

Prior to the modern era, the cost of capi-tal punishment was not really an issue forthe sanction was carried out relativelyquickly and efficiently. However, the “su-per due process” afforded capital defen-dants in the modern era has meant exten-sive appeals, numerous reversals, and as-sociated delays in the execution of deathsentences. A series of studies conductedmainly by journalists since the late 1980shave found the procedures associated withthe death penalty to be quite costly, exceed-ing by far the cost of life imprisonment.Again the most prolific disseminator ofthese findings has been the DPIC, statingthat the overall cost of the death penalty isabout $2 to $3 million per execution.17 Be-cause these estimates are based on ques-tionable assumptions, however, they shouldnot be uncritically accepted.

One of the studies quoted extensivelyin the popular press, on websites, and inthe academic literature was published by theDallas Morning News, which estimated thecost of a death penalty case in Texas to be$2.3 million.18 Many of the specific costestimates used in the study appear to bewell-grounded and are consistent with other

available sources. For instance, the reporterestimated the cost of a death penalty trial tobe $266k, the cost of state and federal ap-peals to amount to nearly $200k, and thecost of incarceration on death row prior toexecution to be $137k. However, the reporterincluded a mysterious $1.7 million “estimateof appellate court costs and outlays associ-ated with the death penalty.” Excluding thisunfathomable and completely unverifiable19

“per capita” estimate, a death penalty casein Texas, at about $600k, would appear tofare favorably with a “40-year” life sentence,which was estimated to cost $750k in thesame report.

While the Dallas Morning News reportand those completed by other journalistsprovide only rough estimates, economistshave occasionally been enlisted to studythe issue. The first comprehensive exami-nation was performed by Duke researchersto estimate the cost of capital punishmentin North Carolina.20 Cook and colleaguesincluded in their calculations not only thedirect costs of litigation, such as fees forpublic defenders, prosecutors, and judges,but they also calculated an hourly “load”rate that would account for the indirect costsassociated with trial, as well as appeals andretrials. The researchers performed similarcalculations for non-capital trials where de-fendants were sentenced to a 20-year “life”prison sentence. They provided two sepa-rate cost estimates. In the first, a capitalmurder case was found to exceed the costof a non-capital first-degree murder case by$163k ($67k over the cost of a non-capitaltrial plus an additional $262k for appeals,minus $166k in prison savings). In a sec-ond estimate, the researchers calculated thecost for “successful” capital prosecutions,meaning those resulting in execution, includ-ing the costs associated with reversals, re-sentencing, and ultimately housing for lifemany of those initially sentenced to death.Assuming a 10% successful execution ratefor those initially prosecuted as capital mur-der, the cost per execution was estimated tobe $2.16 million. While this is the figurefavored by the DPIC and other abolitionistgroups, the researchers admit that the esti-mate is tenuous and dramatically affectedby the percentage of death penalty casesassumed to result in executions. For example,the authors’ calculation of cost savings perexecution decreases to $780k if the hypo-thetical execution rate is increased to 30%.

Their study, however, was completed in1993, before a major change in the statutorydefinition of “life.” Rather than 20 years,

North Carolina inmates convicted of capi-tal murder must now serve the rest of theirnatural life in prison with no possibility forparole. Given the average age at entranceto prison and the average life expectancy, ithas been estimated that such inmates willserve about 47 years behind bars.21 Includ-ing the additional 27 years of confinement,the total cost of a life sentence would be$593k.22 Under the current definition of life,the cost associated with a capital murdercase in North Carolina appears to be a bar-gain, saving the state $264k in incarcera-tion costs. Also in recent years, the per-centage of death penalty cases resulting inexecutions has increased dramatically fromthe early modern era, lowering the costsassociated with unsuccessful capital mur-der prosecutions. Given the lack of paroleeligibility, the cost savings of life imprison-ment essentially washes out when the rateof success in executing death sentencesreaches 50%.23

The available evidence thus suggeststhat capital punishment, if carried out withany degree of regularity, can be cost effec-tive.

Conclusion

In the early modern era, states wentthrough a period of trial and error, in whichthe Supreme Court defined the constitu-tional limits of statutes through its reviewof specific cases. It was during this periodof flux the above concerns came to light.Since that time, elected officials have madededicated efforts to address these con-cerns, making the process fairer by provid-ing greater resources for defense, makingthe process more certain by providing forpost-conviction DNA testing, and makingthe process more efficient by streamliningappeals. Routinization in the process dur-ing recent years has resulted in significantchanges in the way that the death penaltyhas been administered, although admittedlyat different levels of success depending onthe jurisdiction. First, this routinizationseems to have attenuated racial disparity.Any remaining “disparity” likely stems fromfactors other than inappropriate racial con-siderations. Second, the danger of execut-ing a truly innocent individual has beenshown to be virtually nil. With safeguardsand watchdogs in place, along with the ad-vance of scientific testing such as DNAanalysis, there is very little chance that an

ACJS TODAY6 May/June 2004

continued on page 8

Introduction: Crime Theory Substi-tuting for CJ Theory

What is criminal justice theory? Whatdoes it mean to theorize criminal justice phe-nomena? Amazingly, despite the large num-ber of academic programs and scholarlyworks dedicated to studying criminal jus-tice, our field has hardly asked, let aloneanswered, these fundamental questions (ex-ceptions include Bernard and Engel 2001;Marenin and Worrall 1998; Hagan 1989). Astrong theoretical infrastructure is the heartand soul of any area of study. The time ispast due to begin recognizing and develop-ing a theoretical foundation explicitly in-tended to make theoretical sense of criminaljustice.

It is not that Criminal Justice Studies andCriminology aren’t experienced with theoryand the activity of theorizing. Our field hasamassed an impressive body of theoreticalwork. Its focus, however, has concentratedmostly on answering the why of crime andexplaining crime rates. When we use theterm “theory” in our field, we are generallyreferring to crime theory. Our “theorycourses” and “theory textbooks” concen-trate almost exclusively on explaining crime.Theoretical research in our field, as evi-denced by the articles published in Crimi-nology and Justice Quarterly, mostly testpre-existing explanations for crime. Ourfield’s theoretical infrastructure is built onexplanations of crime, not criminal justice.

An underlying assumption in our fieldis that the discipline Criminology is moreinterested in explaining the why of crime andthus by nature more theoretically oriented.Studying criminal justice is a policy-basedpursuit more interested in effecting practi-cal crime-control initiatives, as derived fromtheories of crime (Gibbons 1994). Studyingcriminal justice is tacitly relegated to the lim-ited role of discerning “how to” and “whatworks” – laudable objectives, but incom-plete insofar as substantively understand-ing the nature of our formal reaction to crime.Dantzker’s (1998:107) delineation betweenCriminology and Criminal Justice is typicalof this view.

Criminology is the scientific study ofcrime as a social phenomenon – that is, thetheoretical application involving the studyof the nature and extent of criminal behav-ior. Criminal Justice is the applied and sci-entific study of the practical applications ofcriminal behavior – that is, the actions, poli-cies, and functions of the agencies withinthe criminal justice system charged withaddressing this behavior.

Are not both Criminal Justice Studiesand Criminology diminishing their theoreti-cal integrity with this conception? Surelythe study of criminal justice, by both crimi-nological and criminal justice scholars, hasinvolved far more than merely describingits functioning and devising means of crimecontrol. There is no reason that the studyof criminal justice cannot be approached inthe same way Dantzker views the study ofcrime. By slightly modifying his quote,Criminal Justice studies could similarly beviewed as the scholarly examination ofcriminal justice as a social phenomenon –that is, the theoretical application involv-ing the study of the nature and extent ofcriminal justice behavior.

Some traditional criminological theoristsmight take exception to this view. After all,they would argue, crime theory has alreadybeen used as the foundational material fordeveloping models of criminal justice func-tioning (see Einstatder and Henry 1995).This approach to understanding criminaljustice takes traditional crime theories andinfers a model of criminal justice function-ing based on that particular conception ofcrime causation. While modeling CJ func-tioning does shed important theoretical lighton the system, even those involved in theactivity admit that these models do not con-stitute the development of theory(Einstatder and Henry 1995). This exercisealso reinforces the notion that there can beno other theoretical foundation for under-standing criminal justice behavior, besidesthose pre-existing theories designed to maketheoretical sense of crime.

Criminal Justice Theory: Varietiesand Possibilities

Theorizing crime has proved to be a com-plex endeavor. The object of study is diffi-

cult to identify and agree upon, a plethoraof theories compete for prominence, anddetermining the strength and worth of thesetheories is wrought with controversy andconflicting evidence. This description is notmeant as an indictment; rather, criminologi-cal theory’s complexity and conflicts renderit dynamic and intellectually stimulating.

Theorizing criminal justice harbors highpotential for this type of complexity andstimulation. The central reason is the multi-faceted nature of our object of study. Theentity we call “criminal justice” is actuallycomprised of numerous objects of study –including the criminal justice system, eachof the major components within that sys-tem (police, courts, corrections, juvenile jus-tice), crime control agencies and practicesthat fall outside the formal criminal justicesystem (private sector agencies, social ser-vices), and other participants in criminal jus-tice including, but not limited to, academicresearchers, the media, the legislative body,and the public.

The following questions are just asample of the types of inquiry we’re inter-ested in when theorizing criminal justice.

• How do we best make theoreticalsense of the criminal justiceapparatus’s (CJA) long-term histori-cal development?

• What accounts for the steep growthin power and size of the CJA over thelast 30 years?

• How do we best make theoreticalsense of current and possible futuretrends associated with the CJA?

• On what theoretical basis can webest understand various controver-sial issues facing the CJA (e.g., racialprofiling, death penalty, erosion ofconstitutional safeguards, privati-zation, etc.)?

• On what theoretical basis can webest make sense of past and currentcriminal justice reform efforts, includ-ing what drives them and why theysucceed or do not?

• How does the CJA affect the largersociety in which it operates; con-versely, what societal forces shapethe CJA?

• How do we best make theoreticalsense of the behaviors of criminaljustice practitioners?

THEORIZING CJ PHENOMENA: A CALL FOR

DEVELOPING INFRASTRUCTURE

by PETER B. KRASKA

Eastern Kentucky University

7Volume XXIX, Issue 2 ACJS TODAY

continued from page 6

UPCOMING ACJS

Chicago,Illinois

March 15-19, 2005

Baltimore,Maryland

February 28-March 4, 2006

execution will be deemed a miscarriage ofjustice because of an individual’s factualinnocence. Finally, the process itself hasbecome more efficient without sacrificingprotection for defendants. Capital punish-ment in active death penalty jurisdictions isat least as efficient as life imprisonment, andperhaps more so.

Endnotes1JESSE L. JACKSON, SR. ET AL, LEGAL LYNCH-

ING: THE DEATH PENALTY AND AMERICA’S FU-TURE (Random House 2003).

2James Alan Fox & Marianne W. Zawitz,Homicide Trends in the United States, USDept. of Justice–Bureau of Justice Statis-tics, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm (last accessedMarch 12, 2004); WILLAM WILLBANKS , THE

MYTH OF A RACIST CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

(Brooks/Cole 1987).3The modern era includes the time pe-

riod during which states reorganized theirdeath penalty schemes to comply with thedictates of the U.S. Supreme Court decisionin Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

4See United States General AccountingOffice, Death Penalty Sentencing: Re-search Indicates Pattern of Racial Dispari-ties, Report to Senate and House Commit-tees on the Judiciary (Feb. 1990).

5These studies also often fail to considerthe role that the victim may have played inprosecutors’ decision not to seek the deathpenalty, such as when a drug dealer isrobbed and murdered or a rival gang mem-ber is killed in a drive-by shooting. See JonSorensen et al, Empirical Studies on Raceand Death Penalty Sentencing: A DecadeAfter the GAO Report, 37 CRIM. LAW BULLE-TIN 395 (2002).

6Jonathan R. Sorensen & James W.Marquart, Prosecutorial and Jury Deci-sion-Making in Post-Furman Texas Capi-tal Cases, 28 REV. OF L. & SOC. CHANGE 743,766 (1990-1991).

7While space constraints preclude fur-ther discussion, a full description of themethodology and analysis is available fromthe author upon request.

8This “significant” finding is much morelikely the result of shortcomings in the SHRdata. For instance, many important legallyrelevant variables are missing from the datathat could explain the harsher treatment inthe processing of inter-racial homicides in-volving black offenders and Asian victims.One likely explanation for the difference isthat a number of the cases involving Asianvictims were committed during serial rob-

beries of Asian businesses and includedmany additional robberies, assaults, andeven murders.

9Ironically, a recent DNA test carried outat the behest of his family to conclusivelyclear Hanratty’s name actually proved thathe was in fact guilty of the crime. JamesHanratty: The Final Verdict, BBC News(May 10, 2002), available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1977508.stm(last accessed on March 12, 2004).

10Hugo Bedau & Michael Radelet, Mis-carriages of Justice in Potentially CapitalCases, 40 STAN. L. REV. 21 (1987).

11Stephen Markman & Paul Cassell, Pro-tecting the Innocent: A Response to theBedau-Radelet Study, 41 STANFORD L.REV.121 (1988).

12Cited by id. at 18.13Id. at 127.14Death Penalty Information Center,

Cases of Innocence: 1973–Present, avail-able at, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article/php?scid=6&did=109 (last updatedMarch 1, 2004).

15Indiana Criminal Law Study Commis-sion, The Application of Indiana’s CapitalSentencing Law: Findings of the IndianaCriminal Law Study Commission, 6-7 (Jan.10, 2002), available at, http://www.gov/cji/lawstudy/law_book.pdf (last accessedMarch 12, 2004).

16The basis for my insights and conclu-sions in regard to these cases extends be-yond the literature. I undertook an exten-sive re-examination of the seven Texas casesincluded in the DPIC list of innocence. Al-though egregious procedural errors oc-curred in the prosecution of a couple of thesecases, the weight of the evidence suggeststhat each of the defendants was either guiltyof the crime for which he was initially con-victed, or at a minimum could have been triedas a party to the crime.

17See Richard C. Dieter, The Costs of theDeath Penalty, presented to the Joint Com-mittee on Criminal Justice, Legislature ofMassachusetts, Mar. 27, 2003.

18Christy Hoppe, Executions Cost TexasMillions, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, Mar. 8,1992, available at http://www.tcadp.org/costs.html (last accessed Nov. 4, 2003).

19While this figure accounts for the bulkof Hoppe’s overall estimate, there is no ex-planation of how this figure was derived.The U.S. General Accounting Office, 1989(GAO) is listed as the source of this esti-mate. In an email communication, Hoppestated that she no longer retained back-ground materials for that story, but did re-

call that the figures were presented to a con-gressional subcommittee by the GAO andthat she had “found out about its existencethrough a printed article on the subcommit-tee hearing.” Email correspondence withChristy Hoppe, reporter for DALLAS MORN-ING NEWS, (November 5, 2003). Nevertheless,a search of government documents and sec-ondary sources did not turn up the sourceof this estimate. The only 1989 GAO reportfound referring to the cost of capital pun-ishment, Criminal Justice: Limited DataAvailable on Costs of Death Sentences,Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee onCivil and Constitutional Rights, Commit-tee on the Judiciary, House of Representa-tives, did not include any discussion of fed-eral outlays on the death penalty. In fact,the first caption in the report read, “FederalData on the Cost of the Death Penalty AreNonexistent.”

20Philip J. Cook et al, The Costs of Pro-cessing Murder Cases in North Carolina(May 1993), available at http://www.pps.aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/comnc.pdf (last accessed on March12, 2004).

21Mark Goodpaster, Cost ComparisonBetween a Death Penalty Case and a CaseWhere the Charge and Conviction is Lifewithout Parole, in THE APPLICATION OF

INDIANA ’S CAPITAL SENTENCING LAW: FINDINGS

OF THE INDIANA CRIMINAL LAW STUDY COM-MISSION, 122A-122FF (2002).

22Based on the operating cost, in 1991dollars, of $15,819 per year to house inmatesin minimum security, the additional 27 yearswould cost $427k (added to the $166k insavings for the 20 years for a total of $593k).Supra note 19 at 72.

23Based on a re-calculation of the au-thors’ “Summing up the Costs.” Supra note19 at 77-79.

ACJS TODAY8 May/June 2004

• What best explains the internalfunctioning and practices of criminaljustice agencies?

These questions demonstrate that ourfield’s crime theories, because they havebeen constructed specifically to explaincrime, are insufficient for providing adequateanswers. Attempting to explain the behav-ior of the state, public agencies, the criminallaw apparatus, trends in crime control think-ing and practice, private crime control orga-nizations, and trends in social control, ne-cessitate a theoretical infrastructure uniqueto these unique objects of study.

Numerous approaches to developingcriminal justice theory are possible. One wasalready mentioned: constructing models ofcriminal justice functioning based on differ-ing theories of crime. David Duffee (1990)has taken the more traditional approach byattempting to articulate a general theory ofcriminal justice, grounded in the context oflocal communities. Bernard and Engel (2001)organize criminal justice theory around thepossible dependent variables employed inthe existing literature. Another avenue hasbeen to answer specific theoretical ques-tions about a specific object of study. DavidGarland (2001), for example, limits his theo-retical analysis to the question of what ac-counts for the rapid growth of criminal jus-tice over the last 30 years. Other research-ers concentrate on explaining individualpractitioner behavior – such as why somepolice officers engage in corruption. Finally,some academics have worked on develop-ing normative theories of criminal justice,concentrating on philosophical principlesintended to guide criminal justice practices(Braithewaite and Pettit 1990; Ellis and Ellis1989).

Theoretical Orientations–Infrastructure Beginnings

Despite these various avenues for de-veloping criminal justice theory, our field stilldoes not have a well-recognized theoreticalinfrastructure about criminal justice. To be-gin the process of rectifying this situation,Kraska (2004), in his book, Theorizing Crimi-nal Justice: Eight Essential Orientations,has taken the unique approach of identify-ing and articulating the contours of eight“theoretical orientations” found in tradi-tional and contemporary scholarship aboutthe criminal justice system and trends incrime control. Theoretical orientations arenot specific theories ready made for test-

ing; rather, they are broad-based interpre-tive constructs. Each orientation frameshow we think about criminal justice phe-nomena, guiding the questions we mightask, influencing the research and specifictheory-testing we might conduct, orientingour interpretations of criminal justice phe-nomena, and affecting policy and practice.These orientations are organized around thenotion of metaphor – an approach thathelps us make theoretical sense of criminaljustice by relating it to something else. Theyinclude criminal justice as: (1) Rational-Le-galism; (2) System; (3) Crime Control vs.Due Process; (4) Politics; (5) Socially Con-structed Reality; (6) Growth Complex; (7)Oppression; (8) Late Modernity.

These eight orientations demonstratethat our field actually has a rich set of theo-retical lenses through which to make senseof criminal justice phenomena, aside fromtheories about crime. The multi-theoreticalapproach found in this book not only cata-logs the diversity of thinking and scholarlywork in our field of study about criminaljustice, it also avoids the ethnocentric ten-dency to view phenomena through a singletheoretical filter (Kraska 2004). Even thoughthe system’s metaphor is the most recog-nized, a large body of work has also emergedusing the interpretive orientation (socialconstructionism/cultural studies), the po-litical framework, the growth-complex ori-entation, and most recently, studying crimi-nal justice through the lens of “late moder-nity.”

The oppression orientation is anotherinformative example. Critical criminologyhas a massive body of work theorizing thebehavior of the State, the legal apparatus,and trends in social control – all in relationto gender, race, and class. In fact, com-pared to this area’s analysis of criminal jus-tice behavior, explaining law- breaking hasbeen a secondary pursuit. This is one rea-son critical scholarship often seems out ofplace in most criminological theory text-books: their object of study – an oppres-sive crime control apparatus – does notcoincide well with theories focused only oncrime causation. Even when critical crimi-nologists explore the causes of crime, theymost often focus on the oppressive featuresof how the State differentially defines actsas crime among marginalized groups (again,focusing on State behavior). Theorizingcriminal justice seems a better descriptionof this large body of work than does theo-rizing crime.

Conclusion: Nothing as Practicalas a Good Theory

In 1998 Marenin and Worrall (1998:465)asserted that “criminal justice is an academicdiscipline in practice but not yet in theory.”Our field has not placed high value on thisendeavor for two primary reasons. The firsthas already been discussed – crime theorysuffices. The second is more difficult toovercome: while exploring the why of crimehas prima facie importance, our field has notarticulated nor acknowledged what valuetheorizing criminal justice provides us. Someassume, in fact, that studying criminal justiceis inherently and necessarily a-theoreticalbecause it concentrates on practice. Thenotion that practice can somehow besevered from theory has been thoroughlydebunked in most other major fields of study(Bernsetin 1976; Fay 1977; Habermas 1972;Carr and Stephens 1986). Theory andpractice are implied in one another; nopolicy analysis, implementation, strategicplan, or practitioner action is devoid oftheory. To deny the integral role theoryplays in all these instances is to remainignorant of its influenceTheorizing criminal justice phenomenashould also not be viewed as an endeavorintended exclusively for practical change.Numerous scholars in our field, includingmyself, find studying our society’s reactionto crime intellectually stimulating in and ofitself. Throughout my career, I’ve beenfascinated with criminal justice phenomena– much like a biologist studies the animalkingdom or an anthropologist studiesindigenous subcultures (see Kraska 2001).Studying humans and organizationsattempting to control wrong-doing (andsometimes engaging in wrong-doing whiletrying to control it) yields intriguing insightsabout the nature of society, our politicallandscape, and cutting-edge cultural trends.In short, how we react to crime tells us a lotabout ourselves and where our societymight be headed.

Theories are repositories forsubstantive thought, filters for thinkingthrough our history and majorcontemporary issues and trends, thefoundational material through which wedevelop innovative solutions to ourproblems, and the backdrop for all researchin our field – whether it be policy-based,descriptive, or theoretical. Developing andteaching a body of knowledge about criminal

continued from page 6

9Volume XXIX, Issue 2 ACJS TODAY

justice requires the incorporation of criminaljustice theory in our writing and research,within the classroom, and in our criminaljustice and criminology curricula.Establishing a well-recognized theoreticalinfrastructure about criminal justice shouldbe a higher priority. Thinking about andunderstanding the why of criminal justice isvital for credible pedagogy; it is alsoessential in laying claim to being a legitimateacademic discipline.

References

Bernard, T and R. Engel (2001) “Conceptu-alizing Criminal Justice Theory.” Justice Quar-terly 18(1): 1-30.

Bernstein, R.J. (1976) The Restructuring ofSocial and Political Theory. London: MethuenUniversity Press.

Braithewaite, J and P. Pettit (1990) Not JustDeserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Jus-tice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Carr. W. and K. Stephens (1986) BecomingCritical: Education, Knowledge and Action Re-search. London: The Falmer Press.

Dantzker, M.L. (1998) Criminology andCriminal Justice: Comparing, Contrasting, andIntertwining Disciplines. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann

Duffee, D.E. (1980, 1990) Explaining Crimi-nal Justice: Community Theory and Criminal

Justice Reform. Prospect Heights, IL: WavelandPress.

Einstadter, W. and S. Henry (1995) Crimi-nological Theory: An Analysis of its UnderlyingAssumptions. New York: Harcourt Brace Pub-lishers.

Ellis, R.D. and C.S. Ellis (1989) Theories ofCriminal Justice: A Critical Reappraisal.Wolfeborro, NH: Longwood Academic.

Fay, B. (1977) Social Theory and PoliticalPractice. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Gibbons, D.C. (1994) Talking About Crimeand Criminals: Problem and Issues in TheoryDevelopment in Criminology. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hagan, J. (1989) “Why Is There So LittleCriminal Justice Theory? Neglected Macro- andMicro-Level Links Between Organizations andPower.” Journal of Research in Crime and De-linquency 26(2): 116-135.

Habermas, J. (1972) Knowledge and HumanInterests. Translated by J.J. Shapiro, London:Heinemann.

Kraska, P.B. (2001) Militarizing the Ameri-can Criminal Justice System: The ChangingRoles of the Armed Forces and Police. Boston:Northeastern University Press.

———. (2004) Theorizing Criminal Jus-tice: Eight Essential Orientations. ProspectHeights, Illinois: Waveland Press.

Marenin, O. and J. Worrall (1998) “CriminalJustice: Portrait of a Discipline in Progress.”Journal of Criminal Justice 26(6): 465-480.

Editorial StaffEditor:Alejandro del CarmenAssociate ProfessorCriminology & Criminal JusticeDepartmentUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlington, Texas 76019-0595(817) 272-2498adelcarmen@uta.edu

Publication Specialist:Jamie HansonUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlington, Texas 76019-0595(817) 272-1288jamiehanson11@hotmail.com

Book Review Editor:Cary AdkinsonCollege of Criminal JusticeSam Houston State UniversityHuntsville, Texas 77341(936) 294-1654stdcda11@shsu.edu

ACJS Today is published four times a year(January/February, May/June, September/October, and November/December). Copy-right © 2000 by the Academy of Criminal Jus-tice Sciences. All rights reserved. Distrib-uted to all current members of ACJS.

Inquiries : Address all correspondence con-cerning editorial materials to: Editor, ACJSToday, c/o Professor Alex del Carmen, De-partment of Criminology and Criminal Justice,Box 19595, University of Texas at Arlington,Arlington, TX 76019-0595 • (817) 272-5673.

Postmaster : Please send all addresschanges to: ACJS Today, c/o Laura Monaco,7319 Hanover Parkway, Suite C, Greenbelt,Maryland 20770.

Membership : For information concerningACJS membership and advertising materials,contact Laura Monaco, 7319 Hanover Park-way, Suite C, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 orvisit our website at http://www.acjs.org.

Academy of Criminal JusticeSciences

Today

ACJS TODAY

SUBMISSIONS INFORMATION

The deadline for submissions to be included in the September/Oc-tober ACJS Today is August 20, 2004 . Submissions, in MicrosoftWord format should be e-mailed or sent to:

Alex del CarmenAssociate Professor and Graduate Advisor

Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeBox 19595

University of Texas at ArlingtonArlington, Texas 76019-0595

Office Phone: (817) 272-3318Fax: (817) 272-5673

E-mail: adelcarmen@uta.edu

ACJS TODAY10 May/June 2004

BOOK REVIEWS

Forst’s issue for the work is an impor-tant one: how might the criminal justice sys-tem be more effective at both limiting falsepositives (errors of due process) and falsenegatives (errors of impunity). The hook islegitimacy; our current dark state of affairsis the result of the criminal justice system’sfailure to avert a quiet crisis of confidence(sometimes that crisis is not so quiet, asevidenced by examples Forst provides).That failure is the result of an inability toperform promised roles: catch and punishoffenders, maintain the peace for and not tomolest non-offenders, and protect the con-stitutionally guaranteed rights of everyone.Over the course of several chapters, Forstapplies his model to errors of justice in po-lice, courts, and corrections contexts.

Toward his end, Forst recommends weseek an “elusive equilibrium” between anoveremphasis on errors of impunity and er-rors of due process. As a key example, hedesires to strike a balance between the costsof criminal justice system responses and thecosts of future crime, at a point where thetotal cost of crime reaches a minimum.

For purposes of clarity, Forst uses clas-sical probability-based social science logicas a framework for the idea of justice errors,their address and prevention. Although asound idea, the execution is a little awkward.For example, in a comparison between pros-ecutors and researchers, Forst portrays pros-ecutors as more than likely being praisedmore for zealous prosecution than for a pur-suit of justice. Although this argument isseaworthy, even in an adversarial system,prosecutors should, and more often do, seekto do justice. Thus an important argumentfor his case is missed: prosecutors and re-searchers both should serve the idea ofTruth, even in an adversarial legal system.It would seem that this last qualification isparticularly powerful, given that the valueof justice would undergird the otherwiseadversarial nature of the criminal court, andwould have offered convincing evidence forhis point.

An important question it is, but one thatis far more difficult to resolve than this workseems to recognize. One conclusion to bedrawn from his model is that we should bewilling to accept a marginal increase in thenumber of individuals convicted of crimesthey did not commit, in order to decreasethe number of culpable individuals who es-cape punishment. How this mechanismwould work is not fully clear; the case ismade through a relatively simplistic hypo-thetical statistical analysis of homogenouscases under laboratory-like conditions. Theidea that we should be willing to accept morefalse positives in order to reduce the num-ber of false negatives may be a result of hisuse of statistical inferential logic as hisframework; the implications of punishing thenon-culpable are explored only cursorily.

Despite these criticisms, I feel this workwould be useful as one of several readingsfor a Master’s level criminal justice overviewor capstone class, or perhaps for a Ph.D.criminal justice proseminar class. Forst’suse of examples is beyond question broadand insightful. His linking of social sciencemethod and the pursuit of an error-free jus-tice system in this manner seems to offer aunique way of teaching or reinforcing bothmethod and system concepts. Failure forthe professor to agree fully with a work suchas this only makes class discussions thatmuch more lively. I feel there are consider-able problems with Forst’s arguments, al-though his original premise is interesting;nevertheless, I would use his book in myclassroom. I would not hesitate, therefore,to recommend that others use it in theirs.

Forst, B. (2004). Errors of Justice. NewYork: Cambridge.

REVIEWER: MICHAEL J. DEVALVE

Sam Houston State University

It is important, when studying the areaof law enforcement, to be familiar with thehistory of its implementation and the rea-son for its necessity, including its generalgoals and objectives. It is equally impor-tant to include an analysis of the fairnessand effectiveness of law enforcement in or-

Skogan, W., & Frydl, K. (eds.). (2004).Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing:The Evidence. Washington, D.C.: The Na-tional Academies Press.

REVIEWER: ELIZABETH QUINN DEVALVE

Sam Houston State University

der to examine how well it meets those goalsand objectives and if its purpose is evolv-ing and to what end. Fairness and Effec-tiveness in Policing: The Evidence fulfillsthe need of this second area in an exquisitemanner, including analyses of the followingtopics: a) current research on policing andhow it is carried out; b) the nature of UnitedStates specific policing; c) an investigationinto police behavior, both with people andsituations and within organizations; d) ef-fectiveness of police to reduce crime, disor-der and fear; e) compliance of police to law;f) legitimacy of the police through policefairness; and g) future research needs forpolicing.

The authors review research dating from1968 evaluating what has been found withregard to effectiveness and fairness of po-licing. An overall assessment illuminatesthe fact that there are numerous pockets ofinformation that are missing in regard topolicing practices. This fact informs us thataccurate representations about policing maynot be available yet and that research needsto fill these gaps to best understand thecurrent state of policing in the United States.

The content of the report focuses onevaluating police operations in respect tofairness and effectiveness and suggests thatpolice work that the public perceives as“just” more effectively garners a law-abid-ing society, as opposed to police work thatis harsh and indiscriminate. Additionally,the presence of police in society is furtherlegitimized by perceptions of fair treatment.This work explores the juxtaposition of hav-ing to respond to relatively nationwidegoals, including crime prevention, reductionin disorder and fear of crime, and, more re-cently, the police role in antiterrorism, com-bined with the differing policies on how tobe most effective across states and, moreprecisely, jurisdictions. It emphasizes thedifficulty in evaluating departments when awide range of discretion is used by line of-ficers across jurisdictions every day but alsoaddresses the issue of police allocation ofresources with competing demands ofneighborhood and city-level factors.

The authors indicate that there is a seri-ous lack of research on the nature of polic-ing on police-citizen contact, police behav-ior, and organizational administration. Fur-

11Volume XXIX, Issue 2 ACJS TODAY

thermore, research focuses almost singu-larly on patrol officers, thereby excludingintegral components of law enforcement. Ona more positive note, the issues of race andgender and policing are discussed both inthe context of police-citizen interactions andas officer characteristics. In this sense, theauthors suggest that there needs to be en-hanced research in multiple areas relatingto the nature of policing, but information isnot completely lacking in every aspect.

A review of the effectiveness of the mainmodel of policing, reactive policing, is pre-sented with an evaluation of other, perhapsmore effective, techniques, such as focusedpolicing and community and problem-ori-ented policing techniques. Furthermore, anassessment is made evaluating the link be-tween police compliance with laws govern-ing their authority and with perceived le-gitimacy by the public it serves. Areas ofpolice misconduct are reviewed in additionto administration’s response to misconduct.Because police are the most visible compo-nent of the criminal justice system, thepublic’s judgment of the validity of the sys-tem and laws in general can be affectedgreatly by those representatives seen mostoften. Finally, the authors propose multiplerecommendations to address the lack of re-search in all areas presented with specificideas on how best to carry out the neededstudies.

This text could be used in a number ofcourses: a) as a supplement to an introduc-tory undergraduate course in law enforce-ment so that students can compare goals ofpolicing to effectiveness of current strate-gies; b) as a guide for evaluation to assesshow well a component of the criminal jus-tice system is serving its constituents; andc) as a reader for a graduate seminar in lawenforcement where students gain a knowl-edge beyond the “typical” understandingof law enforcement. Additionally, practitio-ners may find this text useful to shed lighton policing issues that may be presentwithin their own departments.

This reviewer recommends this bookemphatically. It has multiple uses in theclassroom, both at the undergraduate andgraduate level, and is equally useful to prac-titioners. It does a fantastic job of repre-senting the available research on policingand elucidates the gaps that need to be filledin order for a true understanding of policefairness and effectiveness in the UnitedStates.

The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences is seeking applications for the positionof Editor of the Journal of Criminal Justice Education: An official publication of theAcademy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

The Editor Selection Committee of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences isaccepting applications for the position of Editor of the Journal of Criminal JusticeEducation. The Editor will be responsible for administering a high quality academicjournal for the ACJS membership. The Editor will set editorial policy, select deputyand associate editors, create a peer review system, and manage the journal.Applications must meet the following criteria:

• Demonstrated record of scholarly activity as measured by such indicatorsas publications in refereed journals, book publication, and research;

• Prior editorial experience as measured by such indicators as editorialresponsibilities for other scholarly publications and past experience as areferee, associate, or deputy editor of an academic journal, or otherdemonstrated editorial experience;

• Earned doctorate or terminal degree in criminal justice or related field;

• Senior (associate professor or above) academic rank at host institution;

• ACJS membership;

• Formal declaration of support from host institution, including release time,space, and other support services the institution will commit to editorship.

Those interested in being considered should provide a formal proposal to the EditorSelection Committee no later than January 7, 2005 . The proposal should include:

• Statement of editorial philosophy for the Journal of Criminal JusticeEducation;

• Statement of applicant’s qualifications, including vita;

• Formal declaration of institutional support;

• A budget including a breakdown of the expenses that will be provided bythe host institution and those expected for the Academy.

The Executive Board of the Academy will appoint the Editor for a three-year term.Applications and requests for further information should be directed to:

Jeffery T. Walker

Department of Criminal Justice

University of Arkansas, Little Rock

Little Rock, AR 72204-1099

(501) 569-3083

The Editor’s first issue will be March, 2006 (Volume 17, Number 1). The ACJSExecutive Board recently approved a $5,000 stipend for the Editor.

ACJS EDITOR POSITION

ACJS TODAY12 May/June 2004

Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society (formerly Justice Professional) invites all interestedpersons to submit manuscripts for a special issue on victims and victimology. Submissions on a broad range of topics under thegeneral heading of victims and victimology are encouraged. The journal regularly accepts, and will also consider for this specialissue, literature reviews, research notes, and summary reports of innovative research projects. Manuscripts should be no morethan 30 typed, double-spaced pages including tables, figures and references. APA style should be used, and all manuscripts willbe peer-reviewed. Send four copies of the manuscripts to:

Laura J. Moriarty

Virginia Commonwealth UniversityP.O. Box 842019

College of Humanities and SciencesOffice of the Dean

Richmond, VA 23284-2019

To be considered for this special issue, manuscripts should be received by August 1, 2004.

CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS

Have you just completed a research study or scholarly essay that you think would be of interest to those in corrections? CorrectionsCompendium , the research journal of the American Correctional Association, is seeking submissions for upcoming issues. Itsinternational readership includes individuals involved in various sectors of the corrections and criminal justice fields, includingindividuals employed in academia, correctional institutions and community corrections. A leading peer-reviewed publication inthe corrections field, Compendium welcomes you to submit your research-based papers for possible publication. We are opento submissions on all subjects — provided that they relate to corrections and adhere to standards of quality scholarship. A typicalarticle is approximately 3,000 to 6,000 words, excluding references, endnotes, tables, charts, etc. All submissions are reviewedby members of our editorial advisory board. Articles must not have been published elsewhere or be under consideration byanother publication. A complete list of our guidelines is available on our Web site at Do you think you may have just what we arelooking for? If so, please send your unformatted article on an IBM-compatible disk in WordPerfect or Microsoft Word, doublespaced, with any tables or charts at the end of the copy, and accompanied by a hard copy to:

Susan Clayton, Managing Editor

American Correctional Association

4380 Forbes Boulevard,

Lanham, MD 20706-4322

or e-mail it to: susanc@aca.org.

Please remember to include your name, title, affiliation, address, daytime telephone number, fax number and e-mail address.

ACA SEEKS ARTICLES

The Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice invites individuals to submit manuscripts for consideration for inclusion in aplanned special issue on the topic, Miscarriages of Criminal Justice (August 2005 issue) . The Guest Editor encouragessubmissions on all aspects of the subject but is especially interested in manuscripts that focus on why miscarriages occur andwhat can be done about them. Inquiries about the appropriateness of topics should be directed to Robert M. Bohm , JCCJ GuestEditor, via e-mail (rbohm@ mail.ucf.edu) or telephone (407-823-5944).All manuscripts will be peer reviewed. Manuscripts should be no more than 25 typed, double-spaced pages including tables,figures and references. Manuscripts must be received no later than January 15, 2005 . Please send four manuscript copies,along with the manuscript on disk, to:

Robert M. BohmDepartment of

Criminal Justice & Legal StudiesUniversity of Central Florida

Orlando, FL 32816○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

13Volume XXIX, Issue 2 ACJS TODAY

International Perspectiveson

Crime, Justice and Public OrderJune 6-10, 2004 Bucharest, Romania

Co-SponsorsJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice Office of the Prime Minister

The City University of New York Government of Romania

Department of Justice New Scotland Yard Federal Bureau of Investigation Metropolitan Police Service

John Jay College is proud to present the Seventh Biennial International Conference which will provide an opportunityfor experts from around the world to come together to discuss ideas, share effective strategies and develop innovativeprograms to address pressing criminal justice issues.

Workshops and panels will be held at various historic locations in the heart of Bucharest. The Conference willinclude but not be limited to the following themes:

Criminal Justice Education Impact of CrimeMulti-agency Law Enforcement Cooperation VictimizationGuns, Drugs, and Violent Crime Technology and CrimeForensic Science, Psychology and Psychiatry Social ControlIssues of Corrections, Probation and Parole Police AccountabilityGangs: Prevention and Enforcement Crime and the MediaEthical Issues in Criminal Justice Globalization of Crime

In addition, receptions and site visits to criminal justice facilities

For more information and registration forms contact:Dr. Roberta Blotner

International Perspectives on Crime, Justice and Public OrderJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice

The City University of New York899 Tenth Avenue, Room 623T

New York, NY 10019(212) 237-8654; FAX (212) 237-8610

E-mail: conference2004@jjay.cuny.eduOr visit us at www.conference2004.jjay.cuny.edu

ACJS TODAY14 May/June 2004

15Volume XXIX, Issue 2 ACJS TODAY

ACJS TODAY16 May/June 2004

17Volume XXIX, Issue 2 ACJS TODAY

ACJS TodayMembers Only**

Employment BulletinFree with ACJS Membership**$15.00 per volume (October – April)

Journal of Criminal Justice Education(JCJE)Free with ACJS Membership**One Issue $65.00One Year $125.00

Justice Quarterly (JQ)Free with ACJS Membership**One Issue $65.00One Year $250.00Two Years $475.00Three Years $700.00

JQ and JCJE PackageOne year $350.00Two years $650.00Three Years $950.00

PUBLICA TIONS:Guide to Graduate Programs in CriminalJustice and CriminologyOne Copy $15.00(Temporarily Out of Print)

Media GuideMedia FREEOne Copy $5.00

Minimum Standards for Criminal JusticeEducation: Guidelines for College andUniversity-Level ProgramsOne Copy FREE

Teaching About Comparative/InternationalCriminal Justice: A Resource ManualOne Copy $12.00

Annual Meeting ProgramOne copy $25.00

SERVICES:Mailing LabelsProvided on floppy disk unless otherwise requested.An additional $50.00 will be charged for adhesive labels.Contact the ACJS National Office for further information.

Entire Member List $495.00Subset of Member List $395.00

SHIPPING INFORMA TION:Federal Express Shipping* 2nd Day Standard Overnight Priority Overnight*There is no charge for shipping via US Mail. If you choose to have your shipment sent via Federal Express, you must provide pre-payment with a credit card only.

Name: Address:City: State: Zip:Country: Phone: Fax:

PAYMENT INFORMA TION: (U.S. dollars only made payable to ACJS)

Check Visa MasterCard American Express Money OrderCard Number: Expiration Date:Name as it appears on card:

Signature: _________________________________________________

Return form and payment to:Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

Attn: Order Processing7319 Hanover Parkway, Suite C

Greenbelt, Maryland 20770(301) 446-6300; (800) 757-ACJS (2257); FAX: (301) 446-2819

**GO TO ACJS MEMBERSHIP PAGE**

PLEASE COMPLETE, PRINT OUT, THEN FAX OR MAIL TO ADDRESS BELOW.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

ACJS PUBLICATIONS ORDER FORM

ACJS TODAY18 May/June 2004

ACJS 2003-2004 EXECUTIVE BOARD

Association ManagerLaura Monaco

ACJS7319 Hanover Parkway, Suite C

Greenbelt, MD 20770(301) 446-6300; (800) 757-ACJS (2257); Fax: (301) 446-2819

http://www.acjs.org

PresidentSteven P. LabBowling Green State UniversityCriminal Justice ProgramBowling Green, OH 43403(419) 372-2326 •Fax: (419) 372-2400slab@bgnet@bgsu.edu

First Vice PresidentJames Finckenauer389 Sayre DrivePrinceton, NJ 08540(609) 514-8583 (Home)(973) 353-3301 (Office)Fax: (973) 353-5896finckena@aol.com

Second Vice PresidentLaura J. MoriartyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityCollege of Humanities and Sciences826 West FranklinBlanton HousePost Office Box 842019Richmond, VA 23284-2019(804) 828-1674 • Fax: (804) 828-1576ljmoriar@vcu.edu

Immediate Past PresidentRichard R. BennettAmerican UniversityDepartment of Justice, Law and Society4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NorthwestWashington, DC 20016(202) 885-2956 • Fax: (202) 885-2353bennett@american.edu

Tr easurer (2002-2005)Mary K. StohrBoise State UniversityDepartment of Criminal Justice Administration1910 University DriveBoise, ID 83725(208) 426-1378 • Fax: (208) 426-4371mstohr@boisestate.edu

Secretary (2002-2004)Brandon ApplegateUniversity of Central FloridaDepartment of Criminal JusticePost Office Box 161600Orlando, FL 32816(407) 823-3739 • Fax: (407) 823-5360bapplega@mail.ucf.edu

Trustee-at-Large (2003-2006)Leanne Fiftal AlaridUniversity of Missouri at Kansas CityDepartment of Sociology & Criminal Justice5100 Rockhill Road208 Haag HallKansas City, MO 64110(816) 235-5706 • Fax: (816) 235-1117alaridl@umkc.edu

Trustee-at-Large (2001-2004)Richard N. HoldenCentral Missouri State UniversityDepartment of Criminal JusticeWarrensburg, MO 64093(660) 543-4950 • Fax: (660) 543-8306holden@cmsu1.cmsu.edu

Trustee-at-Large (2002-2005)Joycelyn PollockSouthwest Texas State UniversityDepartment of Criminal JusticeHAC 120San Marcos, TX 78666(512) 245-7706 • Fax: (512) 245-8063jp12@swt.edu

Trustee (Region One) (2001-2004)Roslyn MuraskinLong Island University—C.W. Post CampusDepartment of Criminal Justice720 Northern BoulevardPost Hall 3C3Brookville, NY 11548(516) 299-3146 • Fax: (516) 299-2640Roslyn.Muraskin@liu.edu

Trustee (Region Two) (2002-2005)Ronald D. HunterState University of West GeorgiaDept of Sociology, Anthropology & Crim.Carrollton, GA 30118-2110(770) 836-4301 • Fax: (770) 838-3036rhunter@westga.edu

Trustee (Region Thr ee) (2002-2005)Jody L. SundtUniversity of IndianaDepartment of Criminal JusticeSycamore Hall 203Bloomington, IN 47405-7005(812) 856-2677 • Fax: (812) 853-5527jsundt@indiana.edu

Trustee (Region Four) (2003-2006)W. Wesley JohnsonSam Houston State UniversityCollege of Criminal JusticePost Office Box 2296Huntsville, TX 77341-2296(936) 294-1640 • Fax: (936) 294-1653johnson@shsu.edu

Trustee (Region Five) (2002-2004)Faith LutzeWashington State UniversityCriminal Justice ProgramPost Office Box 644880Pullman, WA 99164-4880(509) 335-2272 • Fax: (509) 335-7990lutze@mial.wsu.edu

AC

AD

EM

Y O

F C

RIM

INA

L JU

ST

ICE

SC

IEN

CE

SA

CJS

TO

DAY

7319

Han

over

Par

kway

, Sui

te C

Gre

enbe

lt, M

aryl

and

2077

0