Matching Items (5)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Criminal Justice
- Creators: Spohn, Cassia
Description
A polygraph exam attempts to measure “truthfulness” based on several physiological factors—such as changes in heart rate, breathing, sweating, and other physical responses. Ever since the polygraph exam was invented in 1921, however, it has been surrounded by heavy controversy. The largest controversy is whether or not polygraph exams are scientifically valid. Aside from debate over whether “truthfulness” can actually be scientifically measured, polygraph testing is vulnerable to factors like the skill level of the examiner, the IQ of the subject, the setting of the exam, and finally, the ability for subjects to employ “countermeasures.” Countermeasures include physical movements, mental exercises, drug use, and biofeedback training. In addition to these drawbacks, the polygraph exam is not admissible in court. Despite this, the polygraph can still serve other purposes—anywhere from assisting in the law enforcement hiring process to classifying the behavior of convicted sex offenders. Polygraph examinations may be administered at various points during a criminal investigation, both pre-conviction and post-conviction. For example, when a criminal investigation first begins, a subject may be polygraphed to be eliminated as a suspect. Once charges are filed against an individual for an offense, law enforcement may polygraph the subject to obtain more information. After conviction, an offender may be polygraphed at various points during their incarceration, as a part of research studies, as well as part of monitoring sex offenders. In the United States, more than thirty states require that polygraph exams be administered to monitor sex offenders. These periodic exams help track sexual offender’s therapeutic progress, identify risk factors, and shed light on any new offenses. This thesis paper provides a synthesis of the current state of literature surrounding the use of post-conviction polygraphs on sex offenders by outlining the numerous advantages and disadvantages.
ContributorsBlakley, Audrey Kay (Author) / Fox, Kate (Thesis director) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / School of Accountancy (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
The United States (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) have a long and complicated history, but through this they have learned an abundance of things from each other. In this paper, I will argue that the two countries still have much to learn from each other to this day about how to enforce the law and manage crime. An important structure that the United Kingdom helped influence the United States in was the development of their criminal justice system. Although the two country’s values differ, there are great similarities in the ways the two countries deal with crime but numerous differences as well. Looking deeper into the differences between the two systems can help future research identify new and innovative ways to combat crime and actively reduce crime rates. This paper will compare violent crime rates in the USA and UK for four years (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). Doing so will provide evidence regarding the degree to which the police in each country have been able to effectively enforce the law. After evaluating these differences, I will conclude with a discussion of the key items that I believe each country should take from the other to create a path forward to better justice. Our societies are constantly evolving, creating a necessity to progress our laws and aspects of the criminal justice system, and examining internal workings will only tell so much. There is never a reason to stop learning from each other, which is why this type of research is important.
ContributorsEubanks, Hannah E. (Author) / Spohn, Cassia (Thesis director) / Fradella, Hank (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
Inmate misconduct, and the formal disciplinary proceeding that follow official misconduct, is a common occurrence within correctional institutions. Decisions regarding punishment sanction post-disciplinary proceeding are important because they have direct implications for inmate freedom of movement within the institutional setting, yet this decision point has rarely been the subject of empirical research. Research that does look at this decision point commonly focuses on the presence or absence of a single category of disciplinary punishment – that being solitary confinement or disciplinary segregation. As such, prior research fails to observe the full range of post-disciplinary punishment options.
Addressing this gap in the literature, this study provides the first rigorous empirical examination of the inmate-level characteristics that influence punishment outcome following guilty institutional misconduct proceedings. Guided by criminal sentencing literature, the inmate- level characteristics are divided into groups of legal factors, quasi-legal factors, and extra-legal factors. Representing a significant advancement beyond prior research, this study operationalizes punishment outcome in two ways – as an interval-level ordered sanction severity scale and as individual punishment categories. A series of multivariate models with sample selection corrections are estimated to model the direct and interactive effects of the legal, quasi-legal, and extra-legal inmate characteristics on punishment outcome.
Results of the fully-saturated direct effects models reveal a consistent pattern across both operationalizations of the punishment outcome. The legal factor of misconduct offense and the prosocial behavior quasi-legal factors of working a prison job and program involvement are significantly related to punishment outcomes. The quasi-legal factor representing criminogenic risk and the extra-legal factors of inmate gender and race/ethnicity are not significantly related to punishment outcomes. When the direct effects models re-estimated on samples split by inmate gender and race/ethnicity, however, the extra-legal factors of gender and race/ethnicity condition the effects of some of the legal and quasi-legal factors on punishment outcome. Results of this study suggest that, holding constant the effect of legal misconduct-related factors, disparities exist in post-disciplinary sanctioning based on inmate race/ethnicity and gender.
Addressing this gap in the literature, this study provides the first rigorous empirical examination of the inmate-level characteristics that influence punishment outcome following guilty institutional misconduct proceedings. Guided by criminal sentencing literature, the inmate- level characteristics are divided into groups of legal factors, quasi-legal factors, and extra-legal factors. Representing a significant advancement beyond prior research, this study operationalizes punishment outcome in two ways – as an interval-level ordered sanction severity scale and as individual punishment categories. A series of multivariate models with sample selection corrections are estimated to model the direct and interactive effects of the legal, quasi-legal, and extra-legal inmate characteristics on punishment outcome.
Results of the fully-saturated direct effects models reveal a consistent pattern across both operationalizations of the punishment outcome. The legal factor of misconduct offense and the prosocial behavior quasi-legal factors of working a prison job and program involvement are significantly related to punishment outcomes. The quasi-legal factor representing criminogenic risk and the extra-legal factors of inmate gender and race/ethnicity are not significantly related to punishment outcomes. When the direct effects models re-estimated on samples split by inmate gender and race/ethnicity, however, the extra-legal factors of gender and race/ethnicity condition the effects of some of the legal and quasi-legal factors on punishment outcome. Results of this study suggest that, holding constant the effect of legal misconduct-related factors, disparities exist in post-disciplinary sanctioning based on inmate race/ethnicity and gender.
ContributorsGinsburg Kempany, Katherine (Author) / Hepburn, John R. (Thesis advisor) / Reisig, Michael D (Committee member) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Belonging to a tribe or American Indian Indigenous group in the United States, even if one has already been enrolled or accepted into the community, is a lifelong endeavor. Belonging may be achieved by meeting specific criteria during one life stage yet one must continue to behave and act in ways that align with community expectations to maintain a sense of belonging throughout all life stages. This descriptive qualitative case study presents the findings of in-depth interviews, with five individual tribal members, two male and three female participants, ranging in age from 25 to 55, who are college graduates and tribal members. The study aimed to understand the different forms and ideas of belonging for tribal members, how the notion of belonging is understood and achieved over the life course, and how phenotypic arguments, blood quantum, the role of schooling and demonstration of tribal knowledge influences the extent to which belonging is earned and how that can change over time. The study sought to answer the following questions: How do tribal members define “belonging”? How and in what ways do tribal members learn how to become members of the community? And, what can tribal communities and tribal members do to foster a sense of belonging for members who have left to obtain professional or academic training and seek to return to serve the nation?
The study focused on participants the Gila River Indian Community, a tribal community in southwest Arizona with approximately 23,000 enrolled members, who completed a higher education degree and sought to return to serve as professionals and/or leaders at their tribal nation. Interviews were conducted off-reservation in the Phoenix metropolitan area within a 30-day window and held during the month of September
2015. Interviews were analyzed using three iterative levels of content analysis. Findings suggest there can be three methods of belonging within Gila River: belonging by cultural practices, belonging by legal definition, and belonging by both cultural and legal definition. However, the three methods of belonging do not automatically equate to being accepted by other tribal members.
The study focused on participants the Gila River Indian Community, a tribal community in southwest Arizona with approximately 23,000 enrolled members, who completed a higher education degree and sought to return to serve as professionals and/or leaders at their tribal nation. Interviews were conducted off-reservation in the Phoenix metropolitan area within a 30-day window and held during the month of September
2015. Interviews were analyzed using three iterative levels of content analysis. Findings suggest there can be three methods of belonging within Gila River: belonging by cultural practices, belonging by legal definition, and belonging by both cultural and legal definition. However, the three methods of belonging do not automatically equate to being accepted by other tribal members.
ContributorsMolina, Mario (Author) / Brayboy, Bryan (Thesis advisor) / Moore, Elsie (Committee member) / Nakagawa, Kathryn (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
In this dissertation, I examine the treatment and sentencing of American Indian defendants. This work contributes to research on cumulative disadvantage and the role race and social context play to influence federal sentencing outcomes. Disparities in federal sentencing for racial and ethnic minorities are an important concern to scholars and policy makers. Literature suggests that blacks and Latinos are sentenced more harshly than similarly situated white offenders. These findings are concerning because they suggest that minorities are treated unfairly by the criminal justice system, questions the legitimacy of how offenders are processed and treated, and defendants of color who are meted out tougher punishments face substantial social and economic difficulties thereafter. Although the black-white and Latino-white disparities have been identified and highlighted, less is known about whether disparities extend to other minority groups, and consequently little is known about the treatment of these neglected groups.
I investigate whether American Indian defendants experience cumulative disadvantages at multiple decision points, disadvantage over time, and the effect of social context on drawing on American Indian disadvantage, the focal concerns and minority threat perspectives. The focal concerns perspective is used to develop hypotheses about how American Indian defendants will receive harsher punishments at multiple decision points. I also use this perspective to predict that American Indian disadvantages will increase over time. Lastly, I examine social context and its effect on punishment decisions for American Indians using the minority threat perspective. I hypothesize that social context impacts how American Indian defendants are sentenced at the federal level.
Data come from the Federal Justice Statistics Program Data Series, the US Census, and the Uniform Crime Report, with a focus on data gathered from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the United States Sentencing Commission. A range of modeling strategies are used to test the hypotheses including multinomial logistic regression, ordinary least squares regression, and multilevel modeling.
The results suggest that cumulative disadvantages against American Indian defendants is pronounced, American Indian disparity over time is significant for certain outcomes, and social context plays a limited role in American Indian sentencing disadvantage.
I investigate whether American Indian defendants experience cumulative disadvantages at multiple decision points, disadvantage over time, and the effect of social context on drawing on American Indian disadvantage, the focal concerns and minority threat perspectives. The focal concerns perspective is used to develop hypotheses about how American Indian defendants will receive harsher punishments at multiple decision points. I also use this perspective to predict that American Indian disadvantages will increase over time. Lastly, I examine social context and its effect on punishment decisions for American Indians using the minority threat perspective. I hypothesize that social context impacts how American Indian defendants are sentenced at the federal level.
Data come from the Federal Justice Statistics Program Data Series, the US Census, and the Uniform Crime Report, with a focus on data gathered from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the United States Sentencing Commission. A range of modeling strategies are used to test the hypotheses including multinomial logistic regression, ordinary least squares regression, and multilevel modeling.
The results suggest that cumulative disadvantages against American Indian defendants is pronounced, American Indian disparity over time is significant for certain outcomes, and social context plays a limited role in American Indian sentencing disadvantage.
ContributorsRedner-Vera, Erica N. (Author) / Wang, Xia (Thesis advisor) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / Wallace, Danielle (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019