Criminal Justice Policy Review

The focus of previous probation studies has been on identifying the significant predictors of probation outcomes (e.g., violations and arrests) and probation processes (e.g., revocation). In this study, the authors examine how the passage of Arizona's mandatory drug treatment law affected probation violations and the revocation process. They rely on probation, prosecution, and sentencing case file data of imprisoned low-level drug offenders to analyze how the mandatory drug treatment law influenced the decision-making processes of probation officers, prosecutors, and judges. Findings indicate that the majority of revocations leading to incarceration involved technical violations and not the commission of new crimes. Furthermore, the type of violations significantly differed pre- and postimplementation of the law, as did prosecution and sentencing decisions. Policy implications for probation supervision and drug treatment laws are discussed.

Using data on felony-convicted drug and nondrug offenders, this article compares recidivism rates of offenders sentenced to prison with those of offenders placed on probation. It also replicates and extends a previous study by Dejong. Testing the hypothesis that the deterrent effect of imprisonment is conditioned by the offender's stakes in conformity, results reveal offenders who were sentenced to prison had significantly higher recidivism rates than offenders placed on probation. Moreover, the effect of imprisonment did not depend on the offender's stakes in conformity; regardless of whether they had weak or strong bonds to conventional society, drug and drug-involved offenders who were incarcerated recidivated more often and more quickly than other types of offenders. Rather than serving as a more effective deterrent for offenders with stronger bonds to conventional society, incarceration may have transformed high-stakes offenders into low-stakes offenders with little to lose as a result of a new arrest.

Agricultural crime victimization—including theft of farm crops, livestock, pesticides, and equipment—and efforts to address it remain largely ignored despite the potential of such crime to adversely affect the lives and businesses of farmers and increase the costs of food to consumers. The Agricultural Crime, Technology, Information, and Operations Network (ACTION) initiative, located in California's central valley, was recently developed to combat such crime. The authors present findings from a process and outcome evaluation of this program. The findings are limited by the design of the study but nonetheless suggest that efforts to increase guardianship measures among farmers (e.g., marking equipment and livestock and using surveillance equipment), to “harden targets” (e.g., locking tractors and storing chemicals in locked storage sheds), and to arrest and prosecute offenders may help reduce agricultural crime victimization.

Victim assistance officials work to ensure that victims can overcome the negative consequences of victimization. In performing these activities, they collaborate with a number of professionals from seemingly disparate fields. Among others, they often work with various health care professionals. In this article, attention is given to the barriers that may limit effective collaboration between health care professionals and victim assistance professionals. A total of 44 sexual assault crisis center workers completed a survey assessing collaboration barriers. Results suggest that the types of barriers arising vary among specific types of health care providers. One set of barriers arises when collaborating with health care professionals such as nurses and hospital workers. Another set of obstacles arises with mental health workers. Implications are provided.

Helmet laws are suggestive of a societal trend toward the increased formal control of risky behaviors. Applying Tittle's integrated model, this case study sees the intersection of federal cost recovery interests, social solidarity concerns, and views of motorcyclists as “social dynamite” as setting the stage for motorcycle safety issues to become constructed as social problems. A governmental bureaucracy has led numerous helmet law campaigns. Financial burden and public safety arguments are used to justify helmet restrictions. A countermovement argues that helmet laws could lead to a slippery slope of declining freedoms. Implications of the debates between opposing positions are raised.