Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T01:39:25.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Research Models in Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

John A. Gardiner*
Affiliation:
National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Extract

A generation ago, one professor at Harvard Law School used to greet his students at the beginning of the semester with an offer to debate them on any subject so long as he was allowed to “state the question.” Any review of the crime, law enforcement, and criminal justice literature produced during the last ten years indicates that there is still as much disagreement over how the “relevant” questions should be stated as there is over the answers to these questions. Despite a strong public demand to “stop crime,” there is little consensus within the research community as to the questions (if any) which, if answered, would assist in the prevention of crime or the improvement of police, court, and correctional processes. Much of the literature “states the question” in terms of the narrowly defined “efficiency” of law enforcement and criminal justice agencies; a second group asks questions concerning the functions assigned to the criminal justice system; and a third set of critics are concerned with the implications of decisions made by the police, judges, and correctional officials for a democratic system of government. While I cannot attempt to review the literature which has been generated under these three models, I will describe each briefly and suggest some of the problems that have risen in research on law enforcement and criminal justice.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 by the Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

AUTHOR'S NOTE: The opinions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, or the United States Department of Justice.

References

BLUMSTEIN, Alfred (1967) “Systems Analysis and the Criminal Justice System,” 374 Annals 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GARDINER, John A. (1970) The Politics of Corruption: Organized Crime in an American City. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
GARDINER, John A. (1969) Traffic and the Police: Variations in Law Enforcement Policy, Part II. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GOLDSTEIN, Herman, and Frank J., REMINGTON (1967) “The Police Role in a Democratic Society,” in President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Police. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
KADISH, Sanford H. (1967) “The Crisis of Over-Criminalization,” 374 Annals 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KAUFMAN, Herbert (1956) “Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrine of Public Administration,” 50 American Political Science Review 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaFAVE, Wayne R. (1965) Arrest: The Decision to Take a Suspect into Custody. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
PACKER, Herbert L. (1968) The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967a) Task Force Report: Drunkenness. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967b) Task Force Report: Science and Technology. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
SKOLNICK, Jerome H. (1966) Justice Without Trial. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
STERN, Gerald (1967) “Public Drunkenness: Crime or Health Problem?” 374 Annals 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WILSON, James Q. (1968) Varieties of Police Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar