Crime & Delinquency

Forcible rape, a crime which the criminal justice system has historically been inept at handling, has finally achieved in the past decade the recognition it deserves as a societal and crim inological problem warranting serious attention. Its cogency to a variety of current social issues—the position of women in a traditionally male-dominated society, interracial conflict, the inconsistent and discriminating imposition of the death penalty—has put rape in the spotlight of public and official concern.

This article singles out a number of salient points of con cern in the control and reduction of rape and describes some efforts that have been or are being made to bring about a reversal in the upward trend o f rape rates.

A current, comprehensive, nation-wide research project on forcible rape is described, with a summary of how the results of the project are expected to be utilized by criminal justice agencies and by other organizations dealing with rape.

Other points of concern discussed in this paper are the legal and moral issues revolving around the lack of consensus in the definition of rape, not only as specified in state statutes but also as viewed by law enforcement agencies. Conceptual differences in the definition of rape lead to inequitable and inconsistent handling of rape by the criminal justice system in addition to seriously impugning the validity, and hence usefulness, of official crime statistics.

Finally, changes in the treatment of rape victims, with the concomitant benefits to them and to the criminal justice agencies responsible for controlling and prosecuting rape, are discussed.

This article reports the results of a nation-wide survey of parole policies on unmarried cohabitation by parolees. The survey found that approximately half of the parole depart ments generally forbid cohabitation by the unmarried parolee. The results are analyzed in detail. The ramifications of parole policies are examined from the perspective of two major pur poses of parole—rehabilitation and the protection of the com munity—and are also considered from the point of view of the parolee's "significant others."

Although the grand jury is an important component of the court system, the general public has little knowledge of its origin, its function, and its mode of operation. This study argues in favor of reforming it.

A brief account of its history is followed by a description of make-up, function, and proceedings. Cases are then related to show how the grand jury has been used politically during the last decade, pointing out how the inherent weaknesses of the present grand jury system have permitted it to be misused in various ways. Finally, the study marshals various informed suggestions for reform and stresses the urgency of reform to return the grand jury to its rightful role: investigator of sus pected crime and protector of individual liberty.

This article examines the argument that crime prevention programs which stress opportunity reduction or increased risk to offenders are without value because they merely displace crime—that is, shift its incidence to other forms, times, and locales. The paper is based in part on two empirical studies that examined the criminal histories of and interviews with 146 robbers and burglars.

Deterministic and opportunistic criminal behavior and the influence of personality, age, and crime type on the displace ment potential of various offenders are analyzed. The results suggest that there are definite limits to various displacement possibilities. Some crimes are so opportunistic that their pre vention in one circumstance will not lead to their occurrence in another. Even in instances where offenders blocked in one sphere would wish to operate in another, limits and costs will lessen the frequency of operation and therefore reduce the overall crime rate.

The study further suggests that the limitations to displace ment are most salient for specific types of crimes, criminals, and geographic areas. Thus the displacement potential of an anticrime strategy can be gauged in advance and, in certain instances, be minimized.

Palmer's critique of "What Works?" is a strong defense of what was best in the California tradition of "recidivism only" research; it is also a stubborn refusal to take the step forward from that kind of thinking to the era of "social planning" re search.

The primary reason for the impact of "What Works?" is the extraordinary gap between the claims of success made by proponents of various treatments and the reality revealed by good research.

Palmer bases his critique on grounds of research methods. In doing so, he makes an interpretation error by construing as "studies" the "efforts" Martinson mentions in his conclusion. In fact, "effort" represents an independent variable category; this use of the term does not justify Palmer's statement that Martinson inaccurately described individual studies, whose results had been favorable or partially favorable, as being few and isolated exceptions. The table in which Palmer tabulates 48 per cent of the research studies as having at least partially positive results is meaningless; it includes findings from studies of "interventions" as dissimilar as probation placement and castration. Palmer does not understand the difficulties of summarizing a body of research findings. The problem lies in drawing together often conflicting findings from individual studies which differ in the degree of reliance that can be placed on their conclusions. It is essential to weigh the evi dence and not merely count the studies. The real conclusion of "What Works?" is that the addition of isolated treatment elements to a system in which a given flow of offenders has generated a gross rate of recidivism has very little effect in changing this rate of recidivism.

To continue the search for treatment that will reduce the recidivism rate of the "middle base expectancy" group or that will show differential effects for that group is to become trapped in a dead end. The essence of the new "social plan ning" epoch is a change in the dependent variable from recidivism to the crime rate (combined with cost). The public does not care whether a program will demonstrate that the experimental group shows a lower recidivism rate than a con trol group; rather, it wants to know whether the program re duced the overall crime rate. To ask "which methods work best for which types of offenders and under what conditions or in what types of settings" is to impose the narrowest of questions on the search for knowledge. The economists, too, do not live in Palmer's world of "types" of offenders. To them, recidivism is an aspect o f occupational choice strength ened by the atrophy of skills and opportunity for legitimate work that occurs during a stay in prison.

The aim of future research will be to create the knowledge needed to reduce crime. It must combine the analytical skills of the economist, the jurisprudence of the lawyer, the sociol ogy of the life span, and the analysis of systems. Traditional "evaluation" will play a modest but declining role.

This paper reviews the major findings on formal methods of rehabilitation in the courts and correction and compares them with ratings of effectiveness assigned to an informal method, the use of volunteers.

An evaluation was made of over 250 reports, monographs, memos, etc., purporting to evaluate volunteer programs. Each study was analyzed for (1) specificity of program structure, (2) reliability and validity of the measurement procedures employed, (3) strengths and weaknesses of the research design, and (4) utility of the evaluation results for policy rela tive to decision-making. Only ten reports dealing with impact on clients were found to have policy utility. Volunteers were found to be at least as effective in accomplishing their objec tives (reducing recidivism, improving self-concept, etc.) as formal methods of rehabilitating offenders. Suggestions for improvements o f research are offered.

This article discusses the characteristics of the computer resource, especially its application in testing the status of the indeterminate sentence, historically associated with the juve nile justice system. Two related studies of the indeterminate sentence are summarized. The first investigates a computer analysis of factors related to institutional stay in thirty states; the second focuses on Ohio's juvenile population. The most salient national findings were the following: (1) Regardless of an institution's size, parole board status, and type of diagnostic classification system, no statistical significant difference in length of institutional stay was observed. (2) Given offender characteristics such as offense and sex, no significant varia tion in stay was demonstrated; however, there was a pattern of detaining status offenders longer than youth committed on felony index crimes and confining males longer than females. (3) While 65 per cent of the states reported having in-house computer capability, only 16 per cent documented length of institutional stay by offender characteristics. In the Ohio study, the major finding was that "younger" and "least dangerous" were characteristics associated with longer stay. Finally, specific measures adopted in Ohio to protect adjudi cated deliquents against the abuses of the indeterminate sentence are outlined.

This paper reviews some of the behavior therapy techniques used to correct antisocial behavior. Descriptions of aversive conditioning and positive reinforcement techniques are given. It is probably only a matter of time before these techniques are extended to prisons or other institutional settings. Behav ior techniques must be carefully regulated, lest they be used as punishment. Advantages and objections can be classified as questions of ethics, longevity of effect, and economy of use. With careful and thoughtful control, behavior therapies hold promise for the future of correction.