This volume is an updated and revised version of the General Course on Public International Law delivered by the Author at The Hague Academy of International Law in 2005. Professor Cançado Trindade, Doctor honoris causa of seven Latin American Universities in distinct countries, was for many years Judge of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and President of that Court for half a decade (1999-2004). He is currently Judge of the International Court of Justice; he is also Member of the Curatorium of The Hague Academy of International Law, as well as of the Institut de Droit International, and of the Brazilian Academy of Juridical Letters.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

A theme that has persisted throughout the history of American corrections is that efforts should be made to reform offenders. In particular, at the beginning of the 1900s, the rehabilitative ideal was enthusiastically trumpeted and helped to direct the renovation of the correctional system (e.g., implementation of indeterminate sentencing, parole, probation, a separate juvenile justice system). For the next seven decades, offender treatment reigned as the dominant correctional philosophy. Then, in the early 1970s, rehabilitation suffered a precipitous reversal of fortune. The larger disruptions in American society in this era prompted a general critique of the “state run” criminal justice system. Rehabilitation was blamed by liberals for allowing the state to act coercively against offenders, and was blamed by conservatives for allowing the state to act leniently toward offenders. In this context, the death knell of rehabilitation was seemingly sounded by Robert Martinson's (1974b) influential “nothing works” essay, which reported that few treatment programs reduced recidivism. This review of evaluation studies gave legitimacy to the antitreatment sentiments of the day; it ostensibly “proved” what everyone “already knew”: Rehabilitation did not work. In the subsequent quarter century, a growing revisionist movement has questioned Martinson's portrayal of the empirical status of the effectiveness of treatment interventions. Through painstaking literature reviews, these revisionist scholars have shown that many correctional treatment programs are effective in decreasing recidivism. More recently, they have undertaken more sophisticated quantitative syntheses of an increasing body of evaluation studies through a technique called “meta-analysis.” These meta-analyses reveal that across evaluation studies, the recidivism rate is, on average, 10 percentage points lower for the treatment group than for the control group. However, this research has also suggested that some correctional interventions have no effect on offender criminality (e.g., punishment-oriented programs), while others achieve substantial reductions in recidivism (i.e., approximately 25 percent). This variation in program success has led to a search for those “principles” that distinguish effective treatment interventions from ineffective ones. There is theoretical and empirical support for the conclusion that the rehabilitation programs that achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism use cognitive-behavioral treatments, target known predictors of crime for change, and intervene mainly with high-risk offenders. “Multisystemic treatment” is a concrete example of an effective program that largely conforms to these principles. In the time ahead, it would appear prudent that correctional policy and practice be “evidence based.” Knowledgeable about the extant research, policymakers would embrace the view that rehabilitation programs, informed by the principles of effective intervention, can “work” to reduce recidivism and thus can help foster public safety. By reaffirming rehabilitation, they would also be pursuing a policy that is consistent with public opinion research showing that Americans continue to believe that offender treatment should be an integral goal of the correctional system.

Fear of Crime in the United States: Causes, Consequences, and Contradictions examines the nature and extent of crime-related fear. The authors describe and evaluate key research findings in the specific areas of methodology; gender, age, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status; contextual predictors; and the consequences of fear of crime. They discuss the improvement of fear of crime measures over time; the consistent finding that women are more afraid of crime; the impact of age, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status on fear; and the importance of environmental factors (such as witnessing crime and perceptions of diversity, disorder, and decline) and indirect victimization (through acquaintances and the media) on fear. The book also describes the physical, psychological, behavioral, and social effects of fear of crime. In the end, the authors tie the findings together to suggest important policy and research implications from the wealth of available research. There is no other book of which I am aware that so masterfully reviews empirical studies on fear of crime during the past half century to show how the research has changed and will continue to evolve. As long as there is crime, there will be perceptions of risk and fear of victimization; and Lane et al. help one to sift through the research with conceptual precision to formulate the most scientifically valid conclusions about the phenomena. The book is a hedgehog view of the research but points the way to needed research on topics such as fear of terrorism and how social context shapes perceptions of crime. The book is must-reading for those involved in research on victimization or fear of crime. - Kenneth F. Ferraro, Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center on Aging and the Life Course, Purdue University This book consolidates the literature on fear of crime in a way that is unprecedented and that lends much-needed coherence to the area. It is