<p> This thesis examines pretrial judicial decision-making, specifically the decisions to grant pretrial release and to impose bail. At bail hearings, judges must decide whether defendants should be detained, released on their own recognizance, or granted bail. In California, judges make this decision largely by relying on County Bail Schedules, which are similar to sentencing guidelines and prioritize the seriousness of the charged offense when determining bail. Pretrial detention, whether it is because the defendant is denied bail or because the defendant cannot afford the bail that was set, has negative implications, including the fact that defendants who are denied bail are more likely to plead guilty, and upon conviction are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration (Sacks &amp; Ackerman, 2012). They also face longer sentences than defendants who are released pending trial (Free, 2004; Tartaro &amp; Sedelmeier, 2009; Oleson, Lowenkamp, Cadigan, VonNostrand, &amp; Wooldredge, 2014). Despite the significant impact of decisions pertaining to pretrial release, there is limited research on these decisions, including on the factors judges consider in making the bail decision. This thesis presents findings from a predominantly qualitative study of bail hearings in two California counties. Relying on court observations and interviews, the study examines the factors that influence the imposition of bail. The data indicate that the bail decision is rarely contested, and that bail is usually set in accordance with the County Bail Schedule and without regard to the ability of the defendant to pay.</p><p>

<p> The juvenile system is no longer perceived as a social welfare model, but has become more punitive approximating a crime control model. Juveniles are not responsible for the majority of crime in the United States and are not the most serious and violent demographic; however, they are incarcerated at a higher rate than adults. Incarceration is an element of deterrence currently used by the juvenile justice system without a clear conclusion of whether or not it works to reduce juvenile crime. </p><p> The goal of this research was to first conduct a systematic review of prior studies on the effectiveness of incarceration on recidivism rates for juvenile offenders. A meta-analysis design was used on selected studies that met the inclusion criteria to determine if a relationship exists. This study compared and reviewed the recidivism rates of juvenile offenders sentenced to incarceration with a comparison group as identified in each study. The method for statistical measurement to test the research questions focused on analyzing effect sizes with a mean effect size through a meta-analysis. Moderators were analyzed across groups on their effect on recidivism. The length of the sentences for juveniles were examined and the results showed an association between longer sentences and reduced recidivism. Additionally, the effect sizes comparing recidivism between incarceration with non-incarceration resulted in negative relationship. Incarcerating juveniles is not a deterrent for criminal behavior, rather incarceration increased recidivism. It is time for policy makers to adhere to the evidence that incarceration does not deter crime and accept that imprisoning juveniles does not fulfill the promises of reducing crime and increasing public safety.</p>

<p> Parties to a legal action of child abuse can be prosecuted criminally as well as charged with allegations within the jurisdiction of juvenile/dependency court. This can lead to seemingly conflicting goals regarding contact and visitation between the two parties (victim and defendant; child and parent). In essence, restraining orders or visitation orders from one court can contradict the case goals of another court. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to (a) determine if there is a pattern of inconsistent goals in cases of concurrent jurisdictional child-abuse cases, (b) evaluate the effect of conflicting court orders on each jurisdiction&rsquo;s cases, and (c) examine the ability of these courts to process cases in a timely manner in light of both courts&rsquo; goals and concerns. Previous to this study, scholarly literature surrounding no-contact orders was limited to domestic violence and criminal contexts. There is no current scholarly research addressing the treatment of no-contact orders in concurrent jurisdiction cases. This study utilized standardized surveys, one-on-one interviews, and observations to evaluate and examine the areas of inquiry. Participants were chosen for their extensive knowledge and professional duties regarding both the juvenile/dependency and criminal court systems. The results of this research indicate that many participants considered these two jurisdictions to maintain contradictory goals, which is particularly problematic in contact/no-contact orders. Participants found the issue of restraining orders in this context to manifest in unfairness, confusion, and delay. A myriad of recommendations are offered in an effort to assist this county, as well as others, in its promotion of fairness to court participants and parties of these concurrent cases.</p><p>

<p>School resource officer programs, characterized as a major crime control model and violence prevention program have earned the designation as an effective prevention strategy to mitigate against student misconduct and violations of the law. This study explored school resource officers? perceptions of how arrests decisions influenced order within middle and high schools. The purpose of the study was to determine if a relationship existed between factors, circumstances, and the arrest decisions in middle and high schools. It was assumed the officers? decision to arrest or not arrest were dependent upon factors and circumstances that were interconnected to the functionality of maintaining social order within the school setting. The structural-functionalism theory offered a comprehensive approach to explore the relationship between the social structure of schools, functions of school resource officers and the impact of their arrests decisions in creating balance and stability in the school environment. For this study, the dependent variable was the arrest decisions of school resource officers and the independent variables were factors, circumstances and years of experience. The study hypothesized a correlation between the dependent variable (arrests decisions) and the independent variables, which were collapsed into three facets - factors, circumstances and years of experience. Although, it was presumed years of experience would influence arrests decisions, logistic regression analysis revealed it did not influence the arrest decision as much as the facet factors. The study further revealed females were more likely to arrest than males and more students were arrested at the high school level than at the middle school level. Academic achievement and criminal records were considered at the middle school level with little consideration in high school.

<p> The nonuse of community correction in the Nigeria criminal justice system has led to increased recidivism, contributed to prison congestion, introduced the risk of prison victimization, and lacked the provision of a rehabilitative structure for nonviolent offenders. The purpose of this phenomenological research study was to explore Nigerian judges&rsquo; use of alternatives to incarcerations for nonviolent offenders. Dolinko retributive punishment theory provided the theoretical framework for this study. Ten participant judges comprised the study sample from a purposeful and criterion random sampling method. Data were collected from participants through structured interviews and were coded manually, sorted, and analyzed using the Saldana data coding process framework. According to study findings, judges were inclined to use alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. Also, community correction could reduce overcrowding in prisons and provide the opportunity for self-improvement for nonviolent offenders supervised in the community. The implications for positive social change include a better understanding and implementation of community corrections for Nigeria judiciary and policymakers and the use of alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders, which would improve rehabilitation, reformation, and reintegration of offenders into society. </p><p>

This social learning analysis of Community Safety Partnerships in Scotland will develop two sets of arguments – one empirical and one epistemological. The empirical argument is that the well-documented difficulties in partnership working (largely a result of the very different occupational cultures, structures, roles and functions of the agencies generally brought on board) are not only very much in evidence but that current ways of organising and structuring partnership working in Scotland are also very often not conducive to overcoming them. It will be argued that viewing partnership working through the lens of a relational social learning perspective (Etienne Wenger’s theory of communities of practice) provides a clear set of recommendations for resolving these problems. These empirical arguments shall form the main focus of the thesis but, given the theoretical perspective employed, a related epistemological argument also emerged and shall be developed. It is generally accepted in theoretical criminology (and elsewhere in the social sciences) that the ideas and mentalities of the discipline have been shaped by the institutional contexts in which actors were doing criminology or criminal justice work (whether as practitioners or as scholars). Therefore, it will be argued that Community Safety Partnerships are important not only as sites of criminal justice practice but also as new institutional spaces in which ways of thinking about crime and community safety have the potential to be transformed. The empirical and epistemological arguments are interrelated because it will only be where the problems of conflict and communication within partnerships can be positively resolved that their potential to become sites of thinking that transcend traditional criminal justice mentalities will be fulfilled.

This thesis examines whether and how the EU counter-terrorism (CT) policy reconciles the demands of security with adequate protection of human rights. It starts from the assumption that human rights and security are mutually reinforcing and interdependent objectives in the CT fight where the erosion of one objective leads automatically to negative consequences in respect of the other objective. It specifically argues that the reconciliation of these two objectives has to be addressed at two distinct levels: first, in the framework of the EU primary law and, second, in the content of each EU CT provision. Consequently, the thesis examines both levels in order to respond to the research question. In the course of this investigation, the research has demonstrated that the legal framework resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon provides a basis for better addressing the human rights protection and security objectives of the EU CT policy. However, the analysis of three specific instruments – two in force and one at the level of a legislative proposal – provided contrasting results regarding the simultaneous fulfilment of the two imperatives outlined above. Moving beyond questions pertaining to the advancement of preventive criminal law and the possible reinforcement of a surveillance society, the thesis advances the hypothesis that, in the field, we are confronted more and more with what we could term ‘grey laws’ – following Dyzenhaus, Lynch and Reilly – due to their frailties as regards the tests of proportionality and legal certainty. Moreover, the thesis explores the EU’s stance as an actor in the field and the applicability of Wallace’s ‘pendulum model’ for CT decision-making, as well as the position of an individual subject to all the three measures indicated above. Solutions in order to overcome the identified shortcomings as well as further potential areas of research are also explored.

When the United States Supreme Court approved the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, it did so based on the promise of new safeguards against comparative excessiveness and relative disproportionality resulting from jury sentencing in capital cases. As Justice Stevens noted in 2008, one of these safeguards – meaningful appellate review of death sentences – is, in practice, non-existent. This thesis examines the use of this purported safeguard by the Ohio Supreme Court, in the form of comparative proportionality review, to determine the degree to which Ohio capital cases are ‘relatively proportionate’ in the time period after the state adopted life without parole as a sentencing option in 1996. Specifically, this thesis employs two approaches to identifying ‘similar’ cases – the overall aggravation approach (through logistic regression analysis) and the fact specific approach – and then compares each death sentence to its group of ‘similar’ cases to determine whether it is relatively proportionate, given the death sentencing ratio of its comparable group. After establishing that at least forty per cent of Ohio cases were relatively disproportionate, the thesis argues that Ohio’s current approach violates the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. In particular, the Court’s failure to examine cases sentenced to life as part of its proportionality review and its use of the precedent-seeking approach has the outcome of ignoring death sentences that are comparatively excessive. Finally, the thesis concludes by offering a normative model by which Ohio can improve its administration of comparative proportionality review. The thesis advocates the use of a ‘purposive’ approach, defining ‘similarity’ on the basis of the intended purpose of punishment, and suggesting that just deserts retribution provides the best approach for determining ‘similarity’.

Whether the capital sentencing statute in Texas provides a vehicle for jurors to give effect to mitigation evidence has been a critical factor when the United States Supreme Court has sought to determine its constitutionality. Unlike the majority of other American jurisdictions which maintain capital punishment as a penalty, Texas utilizes a particularly unique scheme which places an assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness at the center of the sentencing decision. Using data gathered from personally conducted interviews with forty-six former capital jurors and trial transcripts from each trial in which they served, this thesis demonstrates how the current sentencing scheme in Texas fails to provide jurors with an adequate vehicle for considering mitigation evidence. Beginning with an analysis of the process of jury selection this study examines the various ways in which the sentencing scheme is explained to potential jurors by the judge, prosecution, and defense attorneys. Of crucial importance is how the mitigation instruction is reconstituted by trial judges and prosecutors into an extension of the defendant’s potential future dangerousness. Emerging from this analysis is the central role that the interpretation of the sentencing statute by legal actors play in determining how jurors view the evidence presented throughout the trial, as well as what factors they believe they are legally permitted to consider in sentencing. The findings of this study strongly suggest that the focus of the sentencing scheme on the defendant’s dangerousness inhibits jurors’ ability to view mitigation evidence unrelated to the crime as mitigating. Thus, the Texas capital sentencing statute in its application appears to prevent jurors from giving effect to personal mitigation, an essential element of a constitutionally satisfactory death penalty statute.

Recent policies in England and Wales and the United States have recognised for the first time enforcement mechanisms for victims of crime under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) in the United States as well the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales (the Code). Although very different from one another, these policies ostensibly aimed to provide a stronger commitment to victims’ rights, by recognising an accessible, timely and impartial process that recognises accountability and provides individual remedies in cases of breaches. This thesis engages in a careful in-depth analysis of these mechanisms and their implementation based on elite qualitative interviews, case law analysis and a multidisciplinary examination of the relevant literature. It argues that on the whole, these mechanisms have presented a number of limitations, and thus in many respects cannot and have not delivered accessible, and timely means to respond to victims’ rights breaches. Most importantly, it demonstrates that for certain types of breaches and in certain contextual settings, these mechanisms have recognised only limited or no redress at all for breaches. This research takes the available victims’ literature further by arguing that many of these promises have been closer to rhetoric than reality and providing a more nuanced portrait of the substantial difficulties and limitations that relate to these enforcement mechanisms. In effect, these limitations can be understood in light of the nature and structural components of these selected mechanisms, as well as the ways they have been implemented by the main actors involved in these processes and the different contexts under which the different types of breaches take place. Finally, despite their limitations, when compared to one another, each mechanism can be considered a better option for access, timeliness and redress – depending on context and the type of breach. Following from this analysis, a complementary approach is developed which can facilitate and increase opportunity for redress for a wider range of situations. It is important to bear in mind however the limits of the complementary approach; namely, that it only includes elements inspired from the two mechanisms examined in this thesis and that there are several limitations that relate to transplants and policy transfers.