Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:05 pm
Time: 12:05 pm
Results for decision making
7 results foundAuthor: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: Money as a Criminal Justice Stakeholder: The Judge's Decision to Release or Detain a Defendant Pretrial Summary: Our best understanding of how to make meaningful improvements to criminal justice systems points to justice stakeholders cultivating a shared vision, using a collaborative policy process, and enhancing individual decision making with evidence-based practices. Unfortunately, however, using secured money to determine release at bail threatens to erode each of these ingredients. Money cares not for systemwide improvement, and those who buy their stakeholder status from money have little interest in coming together to work on evidence-based solutions to systemwide issues. Like virtually no other area of the law, when judges set secured financial conditions at bail, they are essentially abdicating their decision-making authority to the money itself, which in many ways then becomes a criminal justice stakeholder, with influence and control over such pressing issues as jail populations, court dockets, county budgets, and community safety. Money takes this decision-making authority and sells it to whoever will pay for the transfer, ultimately resulting in "decisions" that run counter to justice system goals as well as the intentions of bail-setting judges. The solution to this dilemma - a dilemma created and blossoming in only the last century in America - is for judges to fully understand the essence of their decision-making duty at bail, and in their adhering to a process in which they reclaim their roles as decision makers fully responsible for the pretrial release or detention of any particular defendant. Judges can achieve this understanding through a thorough knowledge of history, which illustrates that bail has always been a process in which bail-setting officials were expected to make "bail/no bail," or in-or-out decisions, immediately effectuated so that bailable defendants were released and unbailable defendants were detained. The history of bail shows that when bailable defendants (or those whom we feel should be bailable defendants) are detained or unbailable defendants (or those whom we feel should be unbailable defendants) are released, some correction is necessary to right the balance. Moreover, the history shows that America's switch from a personal surety system using primarily unsecured bonds to a commercial surety system using primarily secured bonds (along with other factors) has led to abuses to both the "bail" and "no bail" sides of our current dichotomies, thus leading to three generations of bail reform in America in the last 100 years. Judges can also achieve this understanding through a thorough knowledge of the pretrial legal foundations. These foundations follow the history in equating "bail" with release, and "no bail" with detention, suggesting, if not demanding an in-or-out decision by judicial officials who are tasked with embracing the risk associated with release and then mitigating that risk only to reasonable levels. Indeed, the history of bail, the legal foundations underlying bail, the pretrial research, the national standards on pretrial release, and the model federal and District of Columbia statutes are all premised on a "release/detain" decision-making process that is unobstructed by secured money at bail. Understanding the nuances of each of these bail fundamentals can help judges also to avoid that obstruction. Nevertheless, it is knowledge of the current pretrial research that perhaps provides judges with the necessary tools to avoid the obstruction of money and to make effective pretrial decisions. First, current pretrial research illustrates that not making an immediately effectuated release decision for low and moderate risk defendants can have both short- and long-term harmful effects for both defendants and society. It is important for judges to make effective bail decisions, but it is especially important that those decisions not frustrate the very purposes underlying the bail process, such as to avoid threats to public safety. Therefore, judges should be guided by recent research demonstrating that a decision to release that is immediately effectuated (and not delayed through the use of secured financial conditions) can increase release rates while not increasing the risk of failure to appear or the danger to the community to intolerable levels. Second, the use of pretrial risk assessment instruments can help judges determine which defendants should be kept in or let out of jail. Those instruments, coupled with research illustrating that using unsecured rather than secured bonds can facilitate the release of bailable defendants without increasing either the risk of failure to appear or the danger to the public, can be crucial in giving judges who still insist on using money at bail the comfort of knowing that their in-or-out decisions will cause the least possible harm. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_nic_money_as_a_stakeholder_september_8,_2014_ii.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_nic_money_as_a_stakeholder_september_8,_2014_ii.pdf Shelf Number: 134015 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Decision MakingJudgesPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Mungan, Murat C. Title: Identifying Criminals' Risk Preferences Summary: There is a 250 year old presumption in the criminology and law enforcement literature that people are deterred more by increases in the certainty rather than increases in the severity of legal sanctions. We call this presumption the Certainty Aversion Presumption (CAP). Simple criminal decision making models suggest that criminals must be risk-seeking if they behave consistently with CAP. This implication leads to disturbing interpretations, such as criminals being categorically different than law abiding people, who often display risk-averse behavior while making financial decisions. Moreover, policy discussions that incorrectly rely on criminals' risk attitudes implied by CAP are ill-informed, and may therefore have unintended negative consequences. In this article, we first demonstrate, contrary to most of the existing literature, that CAP consistent behavior does not imply risk-seeking behavior. A host of considerations that are unrelated to risk-attitudes can generate behavior that is consistent with CAP, including stigmatization; discounting; judgment proofness; the forfeitability of illegal gains; and the possibility of being punished for unsuccessful criminal attempts. Next, we discuss empirical methods that can be employed to gain a better understanding of criminals' risk-attitudes and responsiveness to various punishment schemes. These methods focus on the various non-risk-related-considerations that may be responsible for CAP consistent behavior. Finally, we discuss the importance of gaining a better understanding of criminals' attitudes for purposes of designing optimal law enforcement methods, punishment schemes for repeat offenders, plea bargaining procedures and standards of proof. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Law School, Institute for Law and Economics, 2015. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Paper No. 15-5: Accessed March 9, 2015 at: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2535&context=faculty_scholarship Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2535&context=faculty_scholarship Shelf Number: 134758 Keywords: Criminal BehaviorCriminalsDecision MakingRisk-Taking Behavior |
Author: Murphy, Joshua John Title: Beyond a Split-Second: An Exploratory Study of Police Use of Force and Use of Force Training in Canada Summary: The authority to use force, including lethal force is a defining feature of the police profession. A police officer's decision to use force carries potentially significant consequences for all involved and is arguably the most heavily scrutinized aspect of modern police work, despite its rare use. Situations involving the use of force are often characterized by a rapidly evolving scenario, complex environment, considerable uncertainty, and a potentially high degree of fear. These factors make it extremely challenging for officers to decide when and how to act. The high stakes nature of police use of force events and the level of scrutiny that the use of force attracts places a premium on the quality of training that officers are given, both in terms of content and application. Yet, in spite of the importance ascribed to training, the research in this area is limited, particularly from a Canadian perspective. What is known about use of force training comes largely from research and experience in the U.S.A., a significantly different policing environment than Canada. Using a qualitative research framework, this thesis seeks to fill the gap in Canadian use of force research and shed light on recruit and in-service training that is given to police officers. Using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with ten Canadian police academy and department-based use of force instructors, this study explores the factors involved in police use of force situations and how use of force training prepares officers for use of force events in Canada. The findings indicate that while current police training is evolving to better prepare officers for the realities of police use of force encounters, it is nonetheless limited by a number of factors. These factors are identified and discussed noting the implications for police services, policing scholars, and police oversight bodies. Details: Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University, 2014. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed March 12, 2015 at: http://summit.sfu.ca/item/14482 Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://summit.sfu.ca/item/14482 Shelf Number: 134912 Keywords: Decision MakingPolice BehaviorPolice TrainingPolice Use of Force (Canada) |
Author: Australia. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Title: Martin Place Siege: Joint Commonwealth - New South Wales review Summary: The Martin Place siege on 15 and 16 December last year was both an atrocity and a tragedy. The review found that there were no major failings of intelligence or process in the lead up to the siege. It is nonetheless important we learn whatever lessons At around 8.33 am on 15 December 2014, Man Haron Monis walked into the Lindt Cafe, on the corner of Martin Place and Phillip Street, in the heart of Sydney's commercial district. Shortly thereafter, he produced a gun and ordered that the customers and staff be locked inside as hostages. After a standoff lasting around 17 hours, the siege ended in gunfire. Three people died: two hostages and Monis. Several of the other hostages sustained injuries. The Martin Place siege has deeply affected the community. The Review analysed the events that led up to the siege and the range of interactions Monis had with agencies including the criminal justice system, beginning with his arrival in Australia. It asked: - were the decisions of government agencies in respect of Monis reasonable given the laws and policies in place when the decisions were made? - should decision-makers have had other information before them when making their decisions? Overall, the Review has found that the judgments made by government agencies were reasonable and that the information that should have been available to decision-makers was available. Changes to laws and policies in relation to national security involve judgments about public safety and personal liberty - i.e. the risk framework within which society operates. We expect that public discussion and consultation about these judgments will continue over the coming months as further information about the circumstances of the conduct of the Martin Place siege operation becomes available. However, the Review has concluded that some modest changes are needed to our laws and government processes to mitigate the public security risks exposed by this case. Some of these changes are already being made. For example, new bail arrangements have now been introduced in New South Wales. New programmes to counter violent extremism in the community are being developed. Other initiatives, such as a review of immigration policies, laws and capabilities in relation to visa applications should be pursued. The Review's recommendations would maintain broadly the current balance in our existing regulatory and legislative framework. The Review's decision to not propose steps beyond this is based on our view that introducing substantial further controls involves a larger choice about the sort of society we wish to live in and is properly the province of the public and our elected representatives. Any further controls would be based on judgments as to whether increases in policing, surveillance and controls and the related extra burden on the taxpayer and intrusions into Australians' lives would make us appreciably safer. Details: Canberra: Australian Government, 2015. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2015 at: https://www.pm.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/martin_place_siege_review.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://www.pm.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/martin_place_siege_review.pdf Shelf Number: 134913 Keywords: Deadly Force (Australia)Decision MakingExtremistsHostage TakingNational SecurityViolent Extremism |
Author: Fellman, Philip V. Title: Disrupting Terrorist Networks - A Dynamic Fitness Landscape Approach Summary: The study of terrorist networks as well as the study of how to impede their successful functioning has been the topic of considerable attention since the odious event of the 2001 World Trade Center disaster. While serious students of terrorism were indeed engaged in the subject prior to this time, a far more general concern has arisen subsequently. Nonetheless, much of the subject remains shrouded in obscurity, not the least because of difficulties with language and the representation or translation of names, and the inherent complexity and ambiguity of the subject matter. One of the most fruitful scientific approaches to the study of terrorism has been network analysis (Krebs, 2002; Carley, 2002a; Carley and Dombroski, 2002; Butts, 2003a; Sageman, 2004, etc.) As has been argued elsewhere, this approach may be particularly useful, when properly applied, for disrupting the flow of communications (C4I) between levels of terrorist organizations (Carley, Krackhardt and Lee, 2001; Carley, 2002b; Fellman and Wright, 2003; Fellman and Strathern, 2004; Carley et al, 2003; 2004). In the present paper we examine a recent paper by Ghemawat and Levinthal, (2000) applying Stuart Kauffman's NK-Boolean fitness landscape approach to the formal mechanics of decision theory. Using their generalized NK-simulation approach, we suggest some ways in which optimal decision-making for terrorist networks might be constrained and following our earlier analysis, suggest ways in which the forced compartmentation of terrorist organizations by counter-terrorist security organizations might be more likely to impact the quality of terrorist organizations' decision-making and command execution. Details: Unpublished Paper, 2007. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2016 at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.4036.pdf Year: 2007 Country: International URL: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.4036.pdf Shelf Number: 138424 Keywords: Criminal NetworksDecision MakingNetwork AnalysisTerrorismTerrorists |
Author: Haapanen, Rudy Title: Understanding Ethnic Disparities in Juvenile Probation: What Affects Decisions? Summary: Ethnic disparities in juvenile justice system (JJS) involvement are well-documented and have been reported as persistent despite decades of effort. It has also been argued that JJS involvement does more harm than good, translating as continual and ongoing disadvantage for ethnic minorities. Although the evidence for ethnic bias in community corrections is equivocal and there are those who hold a more positive view of community corrections, any disparities are still a cause for concern. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) solicited research focused on two of the primary research and evaluation objectives: - Decision-making at disposition decision points impacting Hispanic/Latino youth, including disproportionate entry and deeper involvement in the juvenile justice system and/or transfer to the adult criminal justice system. - Disproportionate use of secure detention, which includes adult jails and lockups, and placement for Hispanic/Latino youth. The proposal for this study, like the solicitation itself, assumed that disparities exist, and argued that understanding the basis for disparities in a county - and therefore the potential for system change to reduce disparities-requires an understanding of the factors that govern decision making other than current offense, such as the dispositional alternatives available in a particular setting and the characteristics of youth in relation to the alternatives. The present study, however, was not limited to issues involving Hispanic/Latino youth. The data provided the ability to assess possible disparities for Blacks as well, and the analysis and results are presented for the three major ethnic groups in California (White, Black and Latino), with other groups combined into a fourth category. Details: Davis, CA: University of California at Davis, 2016. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250802.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250802.pdf Shelf Number: 146437 Keywords: Decision MakingDisproportionate Minority Confinement Ethnic MinoritiesHispanic YouthJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationLatinosRacial Disparities |
Author: Macdonald, Geraldine Title: Evaluation of the Safeguarding Children Assessment and Analysis Framework (SAAF): Research report Summary: In 2010 Professor Eileen Munro was commissioned to chair a review of the child protection system in England. A central question posed for the review panel by the then Secretary for State was 'what helps professionals make the best judgments they can to protect a vulnerable child? In the final report, Munro highlighted the failure of historical attempts to improve assessment and decision making via increased regulation, guidance and procedural requirements, rather than by developing and supporting the analytic and decision-making skills of social workers (Munro, 2011). A key recommendation was to move away from a culture of prescription and compliance (the 'status quo') to one that emphasised the importance of professional judgement. Achieving this safely necessitates ensuring that staff are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to exercise sound judgement. There is a large body of evidence that social workers are adept at gathering information, but find it challenging to analyse complex bodies of evidence and reach an accurate judgement as to whether a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. Serious case reviews provide persistent evidence of the failure of professionals to draw appropriate conclusions from the information available to them and some studies have suggested that child protection assessments are 'only slightly better than guessing' (Dorsey, Mustillo, Farmer, & Elbogen, 2008). Key reasons for poor quality assessments and decision-making are an inability or failure to critically appraise information collected, random errors, and our susceptibility to sources of bias such as observation bias (a tendency to see things and people in a particular way, based on certain features or on what we are told about them), the bias of 'cultural relativism' (the tendency to exercise different standards across different cultures) and the dominance of first impressions. These, and other sources of bias, have consistently been implicated in serious case reviews and inquiries in child deaths. Research suggests that providing professionals with tools to help them organise and critically appraise information in a systematic way, can minimise bias and error and improve decision making Details: London: Department of Education, 2017. 274p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2018 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/666477/Evaluation_of_the_Safeguarding_Children_Assessment_and_Analysis_Framework.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/666477/Evaluation_of_the_Safeguarding_Children_Assessment_and_Analysis_Framework.pdf Shelf Number: 148894 Keywords: Child Abuse and Neglect Child Maltreatment Child Protection Child Welfare Decision MakingSocial Workers |