criminal

Deterrence (Military strategy) A prime purpose of punishment has long been to deter future illicit behavior. Deterrence works on two levels. Specific deterrence occurs when an individual is punished for wrongdoing, and learns the price of misbehavior. General deterrence affects the population at large who observes the fact that misbehavior leads to punishment. Another possible […]

How did the crimes described in the case study affect the community? How would you incorporate family, friends, and the community into the restorative justice process? Identify specific restorative justice strategies you would use. If you were the facilitator of a meeting between Dante and family, friends, and community members, how would you prepare for

Assignment: Providing Accountability to the Community Crimes often affect not only the direct victims but also the victims’ families, friends, and even their communities. In last week’s Assignment, you examined restorative justice strategies to provide accountability and repair harm to the victim. In this Assignment, you explore restorative justice strategies to provide accountability and repair

The difference between general and specific The difference between general and specific deterrence is that specific deterrence refers to directly experiencing punishment as well as punishment avoidance while specific deterrence relates to experiencing punishment and punishment avoidance indirectly through the punishment of others. Specific punishment is aimed at an individual and is not focused on

Specific deterrence focuses on the individual committing the crimes and is punished for wrongdoing. General deterrence uses people who commit crimes as example to the rest of the population. They use it as a way to deter others from committing the same mistakes. (Bourassa, 2019) A significant non-violent crime in my area is possession. Possession

Summing It Up Shortly after the release of our final RFID evaluation report, I found myself in the conference room of a corrections agency in a nearby jurisdiction. The director objected to our finding that the technology had no impact when implemented at its most basic capacity, as was the case at NEPRC, and he

Inputs Outputs Outcomes Impacts Software: Program perimeter areas and exclusionary zones Alerts issued when inmates are out of place Greater inmate compliance with rules Reduced escapes, enhanced safety Hardware: Sensor installment and ankle bracelets Ankle bracelets on inmates Increased perception that infractions and violations of facility policy will be detected Reduced misconduct Training: Staff responses

Monitoring Fidelity Engaging users in this thinking early on not only engenders buy-in but also helps guide the development of performance measures. Performance measures can help document whether the technology was implemented as intended. Indeed, implementation fidelity is the cornerstone of effective technology deployment. Institutions must train their officers on how to properly use the

Understanding the Logic One early flaw in NEPRC’s deployment of RFID technology was the absence of a well-articulated logic model. Quite simply, a logic model asks the question, “How is the technology supposed to work?” Answering that question thoroughly will increase the odds that users deploy the technology as intended. In the case of NEPRC,

National Institute of Justice | www.NIJ.gov Although the contextual example for this article is implementing RFID technology in a women’s prison, the implications for policy, practice, and evaluation can apply to a wide array of criminal justice technologies in a variety of field settings. RFID in Correctional Settings RFIDs have a tag or “chip” that