And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one ofthy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Matthew 5. 30 The great War on Pover,ty of the 1960s focused on the root causes of crime, unemployment, lack of education, and discrimination. It was eventually agreed that the War on Poverty failed as a crime control program, and the focus of policy shifted toward more proximate causes of crime. Infact, it seems safe to say that since the 1960s, the United States has looked primarily to the criminal justice system to solve its crime problem. With the 1990s upon us, what can we say about the success of crime control policies that rely on the criminal justice system? The picture, taken one approach or program at a time, is not good. It is now generally agreed that the criminal justice system fails to rehabilitate offenders, to make them less likely to commit criminal acts as a result of treatment or training; that the system fails to deter potential offenders, to make them less likely to commit criminal acts out of fear of penal sanctions; and that such programs as increased police patrols, reinstatement of the death penalty, and modification of the exclusionary rule are unlikely to have much effect on crime, at least within the limits imposed on them by reasonable assessments of their costs.

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one ofthy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Matthew 5. 30 The great War on Pover,ty of the 1960s focused on the root causes of crime, unemployment, lack of education, and discrimination. It was eventually agreed that the War on Poverty failed as a crime control program, and the focus of policy shifted toward more proximate causes of crime. Infact, it seems safe to say that since the 1960s, the United States has looked primarily to the criminal justice system to solve its crime problem. With the 1990s upon us, what can we say about the success of crime control policies that rely on the criminal justice system? The picture, taken one approach or program at a time, is not good. It is now generally agreed that the criminal justice system fails to rehabilitate offenders, to make them less likely to commit criminal acts as a result of treatment or training; that the system fails to deter potential offenders, to make them less likely to commit criminal acts out of fear of penal sanctions; and that such programs as increased police patrols, reinstatement of the death penalty, and modification of the exclusionary rule are unlikely to have much effect on crime, at least within the limits imposed on them by reasonable assessments of their costs.

This report describes the results of a research project designed to determine the potential benefits of selective incapacitation. The data for this research consist of a survey administered to approximately 2,100 male prison and jail inmates in three states--California, Michigan, and Texas. They also include information from official records for the prison inmates. Section II reviews prior research on criminal careers and then describes the survey data on which this study is based. Section III introduces and describes the concept of selective incapacitation. Section IV summarizes findings on the distribution of individual offenses and describes a predictive scale for identifying high-rate offenders. Section V estimates the potential impacts of selective incapacitation policies. The final section summarizes what the authors think they have learned about selective incapacitation and suggests the kind of research that remains to be done.

The authors of this major book in criminal jurisprudence develop a framework for evaluating policies that focus on dangerous offenders. They first examine the general issues that arise as society considers the benefits and risks of concentrating on a particular category of criminals. They then outline how that approach might work at each stage of the criminal justice system--sentencing, pretrial detention, prosecution, and investigation.

For the American criminal justice system, 1975 was a watershed year. Offender rehabilitation and individualized sentencing fell from favor. The partisan politics of “law and order” took over. Among the results four decades later are the world’s harshest punishments and highest imprisonment rate. Policymakers’ interest in what science could tell them plummeted just when scientific work on crime, recidivism, and the justice system began to blossom. Some policy areas—sentencing, gun violence, drugs, youth violence—became evidence-free zones. In others—developmental crime prevention, policing, recidivism studies, evidence mattered. Crime and Justice in America: 1975-2025 tells how policy and knowledge did and did not interact over time and charts prospects for the future. What accounts for the timing of particular issues and research advances? What did science learn or reveal about crime and justice, and how did that knowledge influence policy? Where are we now, and, perhaps even more important, where are we going? The contributors to this volume, the leading scholars in their fields, bring unsurpassed breadth and depth of knowledge to bear in answering these questions. They include Philip J. Cook, Francis T. Cullen, Jeffrey Fagan, David Farrington, Daniel S. Nagin, Peter Reuter, Lawrence W. Sherman, and Franklin E. Zimring. For thirty-five years, the Crime and Justice series has provided a platform for the work of sociologists, psychologists, criminal lawyers, justice scholars, and political scientists as it explores the full range of issues concerning crime, its causes, and it remedies.

This book presents a critical history of Western criminological thought from the Enlightenment to the development of modern criminological theories, mainly in the United States, over the last hundred years. It explores a variety of approaches including the classical school, the various currents of positivist criminology, and the managerial movement. Mehozay contends that Western criminological thought can be seen as an ideological project based on ‘otherness’, justifying social hierarchies and sustaining the control of some people over others. He demonstrates how ideologies of otherness, such as the non-rational other, the pathological other and more, validate projects of control, exclusion, modernization, and care.