Qualifiers

[BG45]

Thanks LD!

Gozdziak (2010) Topic: Human Trafficking

1) Children who are trafficked are rarely asked questions that would reveal them to be victims
2) No single child trafficking victim has ever been identified at the United States border, they are always IDed later.

David (2010) Topic: Human Trafficking

1) Stats are especially hard to come by for this crime because police do not tend to train to investigate it and rarely realize what's going on. Qualitative studies are better to help policy makers understand.

[BG45]

Kangaspunta (2010) Topic: Human Trafficking
1) Less than 5% of all victims of this crime are ever identified as such.
2) Hard to compare stats on it from one country to another given differing definitions.
3) Working for UN to compile an index for 120 countries.

[BG45]

Stolz (2010) Topic: Human trafficking

1) Hard to investigate because victims rarely self identify. Those who do often end up dead.

[BG45]

Skinner (2011) Topic: Human Trafficking
1) US priorities well shown by the budget for human trafficking (prior to a cut it is to take in 2012) being equal to one day of the budget for the War on Drugs.
2) More people enslaved today than when slavery was a legalized institution.

[BG45]

Farrel et al (2010) Topic: Human Trafficking
1) At least 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked per year
2) Less than10% of police agencies each year IDed a trafficking case.
3) Larger departments are more likely to be trained.

[BG45]

Levi (2010) Topic: Tax Evasion and Compliance
1) Tax evasion is usually dealth with as a civil and administrative penalty than a criminal matter, despite the often large sums of money involved.
2) Social and political pressures exist that encourage people to pay their taxes, these pressures in theory exist for corporations as well, but many of them have legal loopholes that allow them to pay no taxes.

[BG45]

Braithwaite (2010) Topic: Tax Evasion and Compliance

1) Norms and attitudes of a community need to be considered when crafting any policy for tax evasion.
2) Need to differential on the issue of non-compliance; is this an intentional act of evasion or is a bad set of business decisions that went wrong? Is the person just not realizing their offshore account is illicit, or do they think they can get away with it?

[BG45]

Leighton (2010) Topic: Tax evasion and compliance
1) Anti-tax sentiment leads politicians to discourage tax enforcement
2) In 2008 the General Accounting Office (GAO) identified several strategies to generate large amounts of revenue for minimal expenditure.

[BG45]

I've been stressing on a practice question today, then a friend asked about legislation named after kids. And I wrote him, when I pasted it into word, about six pages on the issue. Maybe I'm psyching myself out?

[BG45]

[b][u]Question[/u] 1[/b] [b](33 points)[/b]
There has been a good deal of research done on the sentencing phase in the criminal process. Much of this research looks at disparities in sentencing (e.g., gender, race). Recent research has begun to look at the role that employment plays in judges’ decisions to sentence. Some researchers argue that judges will be less likely, for example, to give a man a harsh sentence if he is both gainfully employed and providing financial support to his family. This research is still in its infancy and more studies need to be conducted. One issue that needs to be addressed is the impact that employment has on the “in/out” decision [whether to sentence an individual to a period of incarceration (in) or some type of community based sanction (out)].
Your task is to design a [b][u]quantitative[/u][/b] research project that will assess whether employment influences the in/out decision. You should assume that you have been given access to official court records in Allegheny County, PA (essentially Pittsburgh). This will be your primary data source for this study. You should address the following points in your answer making sure to incorporate into your discussion your understanding of the methodological terms and concepts you are asked to address.[list=1]
[*]Which research design (i.e., cross-sectional, longitudinal, experimental, quasi-experimental) is most appropriate for this study? Why?
[*]Allegheny County processes approximately 18,500 cases each year. Discuss how you will sample these records in order to garner a sample of 500 cases. Be as specific as possible.
[*]How will you operationalize “gainful employment” for this study?
[*]What control variables will you include and why?
[*]Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of using official records [i]for this study[/i].


[b][u]Answer[/u]:[/b]
[/list]

The purpose of this study is to address the issue of whether a judge will sentence a person to incarceration or a community based sanction based on the employment of the individual. The area that is to be used for this study is Allegheny County in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the largest city and primary source of individuals examined in this study is Pittsburgh. [list=1]
[*] The research design for this study will be cross sectional in nature as there is no need to follow a group for a number of years. Furthermore, there is nothing in this proposed study that will need to have any sort of time order analysis, nor does an experiment need to be conducted in any form. Rather, what is needed to fulfill the requirements of the study in a timely and cost effective manner is a simple cross sectional design.

This design has several advantages for the study that is at hand as described by Menard (2002) in his comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of longitudinal and cross-sectional research. Longitudinal research is cost prohibitive and time intensive. In order to complete this study in a timely manner, a cross sectional design would be preferable as it offers a snapshot in time. The researcher also wishes to keep the amount of funding necessary at a minimum, in keeping with the realities of the current economic times.
[/list]

Some limitations to the cross sectional design would include the inability to determine cohort and age effects, as well as an inability to determine temporal ordering and causation (Menard, 2002). However, this study does not look at causation and it is not being argued that gainful employment leads directly to a community sanction, but rather plays a possible role in the determination of sanctions; it is important to remember that not every correlation is causal, while causation always has correlation.


2. According to the information that has been provided, Allegheny County has approximately 18,500 cases per year, of which this study wishes to analyze 500 of that number. The process for determining this selection will be a systematic random sampling approach. A random case will be chosen and then every 37[sup]th[/sup] case from the original starting point will be sampled until the desired number of cases has been reached. The 37[sup]th[/sup] case is not an arbitrary number, but rather is the result of dividing 18,500 cases by the number of cases we wish to use in this study to obtain 37 cases as our sampling interval.

For instance, if we were to land on the 5[sup]th[/sup] case randomly as our first case, we would then take the 42nd case as our next case. This would be followed by the 79[sup]th[/sup] case and then by the 116[sup]th[/sup] case and so on and so forth until we reached the 500 cases needed to comprise our sampling frame.


3. Perhaps the most difficult part of this survey is to operationalize the term “gainful employment”. As recent discussions of the nature of the current economic situation have dominated national television media it has been stressed repeatedly on the major networks that a minimum wage job is no longer enough to support a person, let alone a family. The argument behind this study states that a judge might be more lenient on an individual who is gainfully employed and able to financially support a family, something that cannot be done on the current minimum wage rates even at full time employment.

Therefore the operational definition of “gainful employment” for this study will be: Gainful employment is an economic state where the individual is employed in a position, or multiple positions, and has the resources from this employment to help sustain and support the individual’s basic human needs in addition to familial financial support.

This construct will be measured in the form of the official records that are being used. The court records should provide an employment history of the individual being charged that will show gainful employment under this operationalized definition, or a lack there of.


4. A control variable is a variable that remains constant. In order to properly study if gainful employment has an impact on judicial decisions toward incarceration or community based alternatives, we must control for the extraneous factors that may also influence the sentence, but remain constant throughout.

The first variable that should be controlled is that of gender. This variable should be controlled due to the impact that it may have on sentencing; a woman may have gainful employment and be sentenced to a community based alternative while a man receives incarceration, or vice versa. Furthermore, gender studies in regards to sentencing are an entire field that can be debated, and this variable should be controlled so that the data examined in this study is not debated in this context.
The second variable to control will be that of race. This, like gender, is a constant that may have an impact on sentencing and has an entire field of debatable issues and sub-topics, especially in regards to incarceration in an urban environment where most of the cases are coming from, where up to 80% of African-American men may be involved with the criminal justice system in their lifetime (Clear, 2011). This variable should be controlled so that the data examined in this study is not debated in this context.

The third variable that will need to be controlled is marital status. This should be controlled due to how it may also impact sentencing. An example being, is a boyfriend who helps provide support for the family more likely to be incarcerated than a father who helps provide support for the family? This variable should be controlled so as not to have the data of the study debated within the context of marital relations.

Other variables will be addressed as the data is collected and reviewed prior to analysis.


5. There are a number of pros and cons to using official records as a source of information in an academic study. These will be discussed in a concise manner.

This is a quantitative study, therefore numbers are important to us. Official data provides numbers for a large amount of variables that will be used. This includes demographics that were previously mentioned as control variables, but also provides us with amount of time employed in a position, the amount of money made at this form of employment, the number and type of previous offenses, number of family members, and so on. This data is vital to providing a full picture for a quantitative study of this nature; however, official records are often filled with holes that will result in missing cases/instances of pieces of data when we enter it into SPSS or another analytical program. These missing cases will negatively impact our analysis, as they will still need to be reported and accounted for in the results, while contributing nothing to the overall findings.

Similarly, the use of official data only means that we close off other sources of data for possible use. In determining employment in this case for example, we are limited in that we can’t give the defendants a survey about their employment. Nor, given our reliance on official data only, can we interview anyone else who has been involved in this process: judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys/public defenders, witnesses, police officers, and jurors. The ability to survey all those involved at each step of the process would have allowed us to run more detailed analyses with further variables that may be missing entirely from the official data that we have access to.

(wow the board didn't like my formatting.)

[BG45]

[b]Question 2 (33 points)[/b]
As you know, the Pre-Sentence Investigation (or PSI) is a report used by the judge to help determine an appropriate felony sentence. PSIs are developed by probation officers assigned to the court. The PSI summarizes information about the defendant’s criminal and social history that is relevant to the sentencing decision, and typically includes a sentencing recommendation.
Sentencing research shows that judges typically follow the sentence recommended in the PSI. One question is whether judges are swayed by probation officers’ recommendations or whether probation officers tailor their recommendations to the particular judge. There is very little research on this process.
Design a [b][u]qualitative[/u][/b] research project that will help us understand the process by which probation officers arrive at their sentencing recommendation. Assume that you have full access to the Allegheny County felony court and its personnel. For the sake of this exam, assume further that there are 24 probation officers writing PSIs and 6 felony court judges.
In your answer, be sure to include:[list=1]
[*]A statement of your preliminary research question(s) to guide your project design. [i](Section A should demonstrate that you know the difference between a qualitative and a quantitative research question.) [/i](5 points)
[*]A discussion of the type(s) of [u]interviews[/u] you would use for the project. Include what type of interview, with whom, and your reasoning. (10 points)
[*]A discussion of whether or not you would “sit in on” and [u]observe[/u] probation officers while they gather information and produce PSIs. Be sure to state whether you think observation would be useful, and explain your reasoning. (10 points)
[/list]
(Sections B and C should demonstrate your grasp of the purpose and strength of these two qualitative methods.)[list=1]
[*]Discuss[i] the research ethics involved in the study you have sketched out above. [/i](Section D requires that you demonstrate and [u]apply[/u] what you know about research ethics to this specific research project.) (8 points)
[/list]

[b][u]Answer:[/u][/b]

[u]Section A:[/u] Before we can begin a qualitative study, it is important to have the research questions previously laid out. While some qualitative research acknowledges that new questions will continue to arise as the research progresses (Berg, Maxwell) it is important to realize that it is extremely rare for research to begin without a fixed goal in mind (Liebow). In this study there is a goal of determining if judges are swayed by pre-sentence investigation reports, or if probation officers tailor them to judges opinions.

Q1. What is the process through which a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) is written?
Q2. How much effort does a judge place into the reading of a PSI?
Q3. Do writing styles of PSIs vary by probation officer?
Q4: Do writing styles of PSIs vary by what judge it is sent to?
Q5. What is the impact of a PSI on a judge’s decision?

Data collection questions would further break each of these down by asking the who, what, when, where, why, and how’s of each in particular matters.

[u]Section B[/u]:

While I would like to employee a standardized interview, as it is directly structured with no variations (Berg, 2009) I think that it would be an impediment in this case. The lack of ability to phrase questions in a different manner or order would not be preferable in a situation where you are dealing with individuals of varying levels of education and experience; for instance the researcher knows probation officers in another jurisdiction who have Masters degrees and who have colleagues who have a Bachelors degree.

This environment would also not be conducive to a focus group. Judges days are consistently packed with a docket that is often scheduled months in advance. Probation officers often have most of a day scheduled out before it begins as well. Trying to bring together members of either, or both groups, would cause undue harm to the professional services that they render.

Instead, I would use a semi-standardized or unstandardized interview type. The semi-standardized interview would allow for the variation of wording and question order to deal with varying experience and education levels, while maintaining a structure. It allows for the advantage of being able to make clarifications if the question is not at first understood, and to further tailor probes between interview subjects as needed.

The unstandardized interview is the most difficult for a researcher to adequately conduct because there is a total lack of structure. However, it is the most like a conversation and is the least likely to make an individual feel as though they are being used as some sort of specimen in a scientific endeavor; this may help them open up. In the researcher’s personal experience with probation officers, formality inside of the office setting when it is not required, is an impediment to interaction.

A further possible positive of the undstandardized interview is that since there is not set of questions, nor wording to them, the seemingly casual nature of the interview may yield new avenues to explore. These avenues might not have been uncovered in a structured or semi-structured interview situation.

[u]Section C:[/u]

This section will seek to explain why I feel it would be beneficial to me as the researcher to sit in on a PSI interview and observe how it is conducted. At the same time, I will acknowledge that there are limitations to this effort.

Part of qualitative research is realizing your own biases (Martin, lecture). I realize that I am biased in liking to understand how a process works rather than taking a person’s word on it, and I have conducted a Pre-Sentence Investigation in a previous position. Both of these biases must be acknowledged as reasons that contribute to my desire to observe a PSI, but also allow for the researcher to beware of reactivity (Maxwell).

It would be beneficial to sit in on a PSI to determine if the probation officer is following his or her own method of conducting it, or is going by the pre-determined checklists that many agencies keep. This would speak to the style that the officer would then use in drafting the PSI and would link directly back to my first Research Question which asked about the process that a probation officer goes through in the writing of a PSI.

However, there are negative points to observation. Part of the PSI process, in addition to looking at records, is to interview individuals. Their consent would also presumably be needed for the researcher to sit in on the pre-sentence investigation interview. Furthermore, individuals, professional or otherwise, may alter their normal behavior because they know that they’re being watched. This may be done knowingly, or unknowingly.

Another negative aspect is that the probation officers may feel that the researcher is trying to become involved in ways that they may not like. In all research, especially qualitative, it is important to not “burn bridges” with those you would one day like to do further research with, or one of your colleagues might. The probation officers’ opinions should be asked prior to the researcher making the request to sit in; prior to the probation officers themselves, it would be important to go through a gatekeeper first, be it the Chief Probation Officer or a court official.

[u]Section D:[/u]

The researcher feels that the ethical concerns of this proposed study are limited. However, those ethical concerns that have been identified will now be described.

It is important to remember that the researcher is the research instrument. Since this is a study being done with individuals who work in the justice system (judges and probation officers) and cooperation has been assured, there will be no need to use deception in the course of this research.

The prior point is included, because prior to doing anything in the study that has been outlined, the ongoing process of informed consent must begin at the outset, despite the assured cooperation; if the probation officers and judges are not kept “in the loop” it may be a breach of ethics. The researcher, if observation permissions are granted, will also have to have an informed consent form signed by any individuals who are being interviewed, so that they may know the researcher’s purpose and to give the ostensible permission that would be needed as a deception model is not being utilized.
The researcher has a number of ethical responsibilities to the participants, which makes up the “bulk” of the ethical concerns for the study that has been outlined. First, the researcher will use aliases so that no names will be given in the final research to link back to the individuals who are involved. Efforts will be made to not identify the subjects in any noticeable ways to anyone who may read the research once it is published; this will be especially difficult with the limited number of felony judges (six).

The researcher is obligated to avoid harm to the subjects. Probation officers, judges, and any PSI interviewees will not be intentionally harmed in a physical, emotional, or professional manner during the course of this study. This is most likely to become an issue during PSI interview observation, where some questions a probation officer asks may provoke emotional responses in the subject; should the researcher be asked to leave by the interviewee, it will be done with haste.

Reciprocity is another issue that must be ethically addressed in this proposed study. The researcher is intruding into the professional lives of these judges and probation officers. The researcher realizes that he is in the debt of these individuals for allowing him the opportunity to share in their experiences and will be happy to do small things around the office if requested, such as making copies and coffee. In addition to such small things, the researcher will allow feedback to be shared by the probation officers and judges on how to better improve the methods to minimize obtrusiveness, and a selection will be made of four probation officers and one judge (the proper ratio when dividing their numbers) to comment on the recorded observations of the researcher. This provides for recognition and is a display of gratitude to the professionals for their participation.

Once the research is concluded, it is ethically correct to send a copy of it along with personalized thanks to those involved in the study. This continues the ethical dimension of reciprocity and allows for doors to remain open for possible future research.

[BG45]

Have them on January 13th and week after...

[center][b]Theory Note Cards: Feminist Theories[/b][/center]

[b]Lombroso (1876) [/b]– Females who are more masculine commit more crime

[b]Quetelet (1835) [/b]– Of the Development of the Propensity to Crime. Studied in France, the relationship between gender and crime. Men are more likely to commit crime.

[b]Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) – [/b]Differences between males and females are based in child rearing practices. Females have more self control.

[b]Adler (1975) - [/b] Women become more masculine as they adopt traditional male roles.

[b]Simon (1975) – [/b]As women change roles, they were afforded more opportunities to commit crime. Agreed with Adler on increasing female crime (not empirically supported).

[b]Heimer & DeCoster (1999) [/b]– Boys are more violent because they learn the definition more favorably.

[b]Cote (2007)[/b] – Conducted longitudinal analysis from the developmental perspective. Little difference in infancy, but during life course the physical aggression gap widens. Females are more into indirect aggression like malicious gossip. Differences are attributed to social relations and different sexual pressures.

[b]Giordano & Rockwell (2000)[/b] – Interviewed 127 female inmates. Women were inundated with crime from family and friends. Anecdotal evidence that definitions, both direct and indirect learning of behavior through family and close associates of the family.

[b]Hagan et al. (1985)[/b] – Power Control Theory. Parents control girls behavior more closely than boys. In families where both parents work, the genders are treated more equal. Families where father works and mother stays at home, way more restrictive of girls.

[BG45]

[center][b]Theory Note Cards: Rational Choice Theories[/b][/center]

[b]Clark and Cornish (1985) – [/b]Not all weight the cost/benefit actions the same.

[b]Tunnel (1990) – [/b]Offenders don’t think about the risk/their assessment of risk is not realistic. Offenders do not rationally take into account the cost of their activities. They do not feel as though they can be caught and stopped.

[b]Cromwell et al. (1991) – [/b]Burglars aren’t rational.

[BG45]

[center][b]Theory Note Cards: Integration of Theories[/b][/center]

[b]General Notes[/b]: Falsification – if we can’t account for known facts and lack empirical support, it is falsified. Nearly all rhetoric falsified on some level and doesn’t work. Theoretical competition – empirical validity of one theory compared to another. Force development through competition. To integrate is to combine theories.

Two main types: Conceptual – merge concepts that are similar.
Propositional – linking separate but giving principles
side by side – example is life course
end to end – 1-2-3 (Eliot et al. 1979)
Up and down – example is social control-learning

[b]Hirschi (1979)[/b] – Incompatible assumptions. Theories can only be integrated if they argue the same thing. (Against). (This is the view the committee members hold, avoid integration at all costs.)

[b]Eliot et al. 1979 – [/b]Most theories only explain 10-20% of the variance. Different theories explain different portions of crime variances, so theory competition is useless. Found support for integrated theory using National Youth Survey data.

[center][b]Theory Note Cards: Developmental Theories[/b][/center]

[b]Age Crime Debate – [/b]Traditional views hold that average age 20 there is less offending. The career criminal view holds that there is a decline caused by changes in participation, some stop but others continue at a high rate. Because some offenders always participate and others end early, may be one set of factors that determines who participates in crime and another set of factors that effects the frequency and duration.

[b]Moffit (1993)[/b] – Life Course Theory. Life course persistent offenders and adolescent limited. LCP offenders start early and end late. LA begin late and have a short career, with some factor causing maturity, such as getting married or having a career.

[b]Sampson & Laub (1990, 2005) – [/b]Age graded social control. Re-analyzed the Glueck data. Theory has 3 components. It explains juvenile delinquency, explores behavioral transitions as youth become adults. Explains adult crime.

[b]Sampson & Laub (1990) – [/b]Events later in life can change a person.

[b]Simons et al. (1994) – [/b]451 2-parent families in four waves, grades 7-10. Most were rural and white. Found support for different avenues to delinquency for early and late starters. Control explains early starters better.

[b]Bernard, Snipers, & Gerauld (2010) – [/b]Debate has waned, more view the two sides not as polar opposites. new developmental theories are being developed and tested, the debate is less important.

[b]Nagin & Land (1993) – [/b]Found support for both. Developmental theories have adopted the language of the career criminal paradigm. Developmental theories ID factors across people’s lives that account for stability and change in anti-social behavior.

[b]Maruna (2001) – [/b]The theory of redemptive scripts. Asked why do people with everything against them stop committing crime. What separates desistors from persistors is differential scripts they use to describe their long term criminality. Persistors – life forces beyond their control. Desistors – redemptive scripts.

[b]Gottfredson & Hirschi (1990) – [/b]Criminal propensity position. Some more prone to commit crime than others, but all’s propensity to commit crime is stable over the life course (self control) after age 8. Propensity may manifest in a number of ways, based on circumstance, so that people with same propensity may vary based on opportunity. Actual vary in criminal offending is based on person’s point in the age crime curve. All people follow this curve. Thus agues age crime curve is invariant and doesn’t require explanation, all this is required is to explain why different people have different criminal propensities.

[b]Farington (2005) – [/b]Summarized developmental theory conclusions.

[b]Alfred et al (1986) – [/b]The panel on research on criminal careers. Get new set of terms to describe criminal behavior. Participation – yes and no. Frequency, the rate of offending of those engaged. Seriousness, onset, desistance. First major new system interpret relate age and crime, set off debate.

[b]Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin (1972)[/b] – Study in Philadelphia, found 6% of juveniles account for 52% of contact with cops and 70% of all juvenile contact involves felonies. These figures led some to conclude that small group of active criminals accounted for large proportion of crime.

[BG45]

[center][b]Theory Note Cards: Deterrence Theories[/b][/center]

[b]Beccaria (1764)[/b] – swift, certain, and just severe enough for the crime. Free will, we maximize our pleasure and minimize our pain. Will weigh the costs and benefits of our actions. If the punishment is fitting it shout deter.

[b]Kelling (1974) – [/b]Kansas City study, not deter if extra cops placed on the beat. Compared regular police beat with one with more cops added. Tested if increased police presence would increase certainty of punishment, thus lowering crime. No support.

[b]Sellin (1959) – [/b]One of the earliest empirical tests. Compared homicide states with and without the death penalty, no difference.

[b]Cook (1980) – [/b]Capital punishment not a deterrent. Found higher homicide rates in states with death penalty than those without.

[b]Pratt et al. (2006) – [/b]Meta analysis, police size and arrest ratio a weak measure. Found objective (police size, arrest rates) among weakest predictors of crime. Perceptual, such as the deterrent effect perceived of severity was not existent. Deterrent effect of perceived certainty was significant, but weak.

[b]Paternoster (1987) – [/b]Many cross sectional studies show support, longitudinal do not. Discuss importance of moral inhibitions and social control. Some people would not commit a crime, even if given the chance.

[b]Paternoster (1985) – [/b]Found informal deterrence to be related to crime. When variables of control and learning were included, perceived risk of informal sanctions by family and friends. The relationship between risk of legal penalty and crime is almost non-existent.

[b]Hobbes (16-17[sup]th[/sup] century) – [/b]People enter into a social contract with the state to prevent chaos.