1. Read and follow directions

2. Choose 5 articles out of the 10 to summarize

3. Title needs to be the topic Prison Reentry and Rehabilitation

4. Follow the Example she posted as a guide

5. Cite the 5 articles in APA format which they are already cited for you

6. Please follow directions and it is double spaced there should be 2 paragraphs for each article so about 5-6 pages

CCJ 4497

Professor Leimberg

Scholarly Article Discussion

Directions

The purpose of this assignment is to help you understand how to read scholarly articles and gather important information from the article such as the research question/hypothesis, the methods used, and the findings. Reading these articles will help you to discover your ideas and thoughts about a topic and to prepare you to write a formal paper on the subject.

Cite your references according to APA guidelines. See

http://libguides.fiu.edu/criminology

for sources related to criminal justice and criminology.

The grade for this assignment will be based on the selection and quality of the articles chosen, the proper formatting of the references, and the quality of your interpretation.

You will need to submit annotations for 5 peer-reviewed articles from the list of 10 that were selected as part of last week’s assignment.

Additional Information

Reading a scholarly journal article is not easy. If an article has been published in a scholarly journal, presumably, the editors believed that it contained information significant to the discipline(s) covered by the journal. Here are a few tips that should assist you in critically evaluating the research articles you read.

The Title

Read the title carefully: more information is contained in the title than you think. It is very important that you pay attention to information in the title.

What are the major ideas addressed in the article?
Who were the participants? What was their affiliation?
Were they a special kind of group (e.g., adolescents, girls only)?

The Abstract

The purpose of the abstract is to summarize the article. Read the abstract carefully. If the author has done a good job, the abstract should provide you with the theoretical motivation for the paper, the major results and a brief general discussion. You should not JUST read the abstract, but often it is a great help to understanding the entire article.

What variables were examined? What were the findings?

Does the study show a cause-and-effect relationship between variables, or does it just show that a relationship exists?

Where was the work conducted (i.e., laboratory or field). If field, what was the geographical location?

The Introduction

The introduction will give you the rationale for the study (an explanation of what the study investigates and why). The introduction typically includes a review of previous research or theory that provides a context for the specific questions being addressed in the article. You should understand what the research question(s) being studied and what the authors predicted they would find? Reading the introduction of a journal article can be made easier if you keep a number of key questions in mind, and look for the answers to them:

What is the purpose of the article?

Is it reporting an empirical study, a new theory, or is it reviewing previously published theory and research on a certain topic?

What is the topic of the article?

What specifically is the article addressing? Is it answering a specific question, trying to explain certain observations, presenting a model of some process, exploring the relationship between two or more variables, or something else? Look to the title and abstract for guidance. What variables are mentioned?

Where is the article going?

Look over the structure of the article, paying particular note to headings and subheadings. Scan tables and figures. You want to get an overview of what the article starts out discussing, what it ends up concluding, and how it leads you to that conclusion. If you get a rough outline of the entire article in your head before you begin reading, you have a better chance of seeing how each piece fits into a larger framework.

Why is this an interesting or worthwhile topic/phenomenon to research? Why would this article interest researchers in the field (the journal editors would not have accepted the article for publication unless it met this role in some way)?

What is already known about this topic/phenomenon?
Where are the gaps in contemporary knowledge or understanding of this topic/phenomenon?

How does the research being reported fill gaps in our knowledge/ or understanding of this topic/phenomenon? What niche does this work fill?

What specific prediction(s) or hypothesis(es) are being tested? What were the main independent variables (what the researchers manipulated) and dependent variables (what the researchers measured)?

The Method

Generally speaking, when reading the method section you should ask yourself:

What research techniques are used by the author(s)?

Reading this section should provide you with a better idea of what was actually done in the research as well as a clue into the thinking of the researcher.

Is the method employed a valid test of the predictions or hypotheses?

There is rarely (if ever) a single way of testing a prediction or hypothesis. The researcher will have made a choice between a number of possible research designs/sets of materials/procedures/sample groups, etc. You need to consider whether the choices made by the researcher will allow them to make valid claims about their predictions or hypotheses.

Has the researcher overlooked any possible confounds or extraneous variables which could affect interpretations of the findings?

No piece of research is ‘perfect’, and there are usually limits as to how much ‘control’ can be achieved over the research environment. However, some researchers attempt to achieve more control in their research designs than others do. You need to consider whether sufficient control has been achieved.

How do the methods employed compare with the methods used in other investigations of the same topic/phenomenon?

As researchers usually seek to make comparisons between their study and earlier studies, you need to consider whether or not the method employed allows the researcher to make valid comparisons between studies, and how much you feel they are entitled to generalize their findings.

The Results

This section is very important because it provides numerical evidence that supports or refutes the hypotheses being studied. When reading the results section you should ask yourself:

How do the results relate to the predictions/hypotheses set out in the introduction (i.e., are they supported or not)?

What differences did the authors find that support or refute the project hypotheses?

Are the results reported and analyzed in an unbiased manner?

The manner in which data are reported and analyzed could dramatically affect interpretation. For example, different types or formats of graphs can emphasize or de-emphasize the sizes of effects, and different inferential tests can yield different results.

The Discussion

The discussion should summarize the main findings in (relatively) plain English. How do the authors interpret the findings? That is, what do they say the findings tell us about their research question? Do we now know’ something new? Are there new questions raised? Do the authors discuss implications of their findings for theory, or for the “real world”? When reading the discussion section you should ask yourself:

Have the appropriate interpretations of the results been made?
Are there ways of interpreting the results that haven’t been considered?

Has the researcher presented an unbiased evaluation of the study/method employed?

Is the researcher justified in making any theoretical claims that are made on the basis of the study’s findings? Were the hypotheses supported or rejected?

What are the implications of those findings (what do they tell us about theory, research, or real life concerns)?

What suggestions are being made about future research into this topic/phenomenon or what does the researcher consider to be ‘the way forward’?

The Conclusion

The conclusions may be in a separate section at the end of the article or incorporated as part of the discussion section. The conclusions should summarize the important findings of the study and point out their significance to the general research area. They might also point out some limitations to the study and avenues for future research based on the findings of the study.

References

Barrenger, S., Draine, J., Angell, B., & Herman, D. (2017). Reincarceration Risk Among Men with Mental Illnesses Leaving Prison: A Risk Environment Analysis. Community Mental Health Journal, 53(8), 883–892.

https://doi-

org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1007/s10597-017-

0113-z

Garot, R. (2019). Rehabilitation Is Reentry. Prisoner Reentry in the 21st Century: Critical Perspectives of Returning Home.

Hlavka, H., Wheelock, D., & Jones, R. (2015). Exoffender Accounts of Successful Reentry from Prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54(6), 406–428. https://doi- org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/10509674.2015.1057630

Ho, D. (2011). Intervention-A New Way-Out to Solve the Chronic Offenders. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(2), 167–172.

Mobley, A. (2014). Prison reentry as a rite of passage for the formerly incarcerated. Contemporary Justice Review, 17(4), 465–477. https://doi- org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/10282580.2014.980968

Reisdorf, B. C., & Rikard, R. V. (2018). Digital Rehabilitation: A Model of Reentry Into the Digital Age. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(9), 1273–1290. https://doi- org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1177/0002764218773817

Serowik, K. L., & Yanos, P. (2013). The relationship between services and outcomes for a prison reentry population of those with severe mental illness. Mental Health & Substance Use: Dual Diagnosis, 6(1), 4–14. https://doi- org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/17523281.2012.660979

SHUFORD, J. A. (2018). The missing link in reentry: Changing prison culture. Corrections Today, 80(2), 42–102.

Thompkins, D. E., Curtis, R., & Wendel, T. (2010). Forum: the prison reentry industry. Dialectical Anthropology, 34(4), 427–429. https://doi- org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1007/s10624-010-9164-z

Woods, L. N., Lanza, A. S., Dyson, W., & Gordon, D. M. (2013). The Role of Prevention in Promoting Continuity of Health Care in Prisoner Reentry Initiatives. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 830–838. https://doi- org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300961

Scholarly Article Discussion: The Three Strike Law

The three strike law was enacted on March

4

th, 1994 in the hopes of permanently reducing recidivism rates especially among violent offenders (Helland & Tabarrok, 2007). The legislation, just as the name implies in baseball, sentences a criminal to a minimum 25-year sentence to life after their third offense, or strike. There are variations of the three strike law in different states, with California being the most aggressive state to adhere to the legislation. Proponents of the law believe that harsher penalties for repeat felons will deter them from committing more crimes; however, there is not enough wide-spread reliable data to support this conclusion. Critics claim that the three strike law is which leads to a violation of a criminal’s eighth amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment coupled with a fiscal cost too high, that is overcrowding prisons and the legal system (Eaton, 2003).

In the article, “Three Strikes and You’re Out: Enhanced Sentences for Repeat Offenders Research Pathfinder,” Lisa Eaton discusses the public’s concern with crime and the three strikes effectiveness on recidivism rates. She explains that the genesis of the three strike law began in Washington in 1993 and since then, more and more states began to adopt the legislation, but on their own terms. The intended criminal is the violent anti-social offender and states modified the law in their own way. The varied definitions include:

different sentencings lengths, parole eligibility, the number of strikes required to trigger a mandatory sentence, the nature of crimes that qualify as strikes, the time elapsed between strikes, the type of felony that triggers the sentencing enhancement, and the degree of discretion permitted in invoking and applying the law (Eaton, 2003).

California is one of the most well-known states to enact the law with, “36,043 ‘second strike’ and 4,468 ‘third strike’ convictions in California” (Eaton, 2003). Opponents of three strikes claim the law violates the eighth amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment considering a majority of three strike defendants are charged with petty crimes so their sentencing is “disproportionate” (Eaton, 2003).

Eaton’s methodology focuses on each state’s three strike variation and uses legal periodicals, books, reports, treatise and individual/state cases and other secondary sources in an attempt to locate the most accurate and reliable studies. The article explains the difficulty in establishing the effectiveness of the law because of the variations within each state and inconclusive data showing long-term results. Eaton suggests each state can affect the outcome of a study because there isn’t a cohesive definition of a strike. How a “‘strike zone’ is defined, how many strikes are required to be ‘out,’ and what it means to be ‘out,’ varies widely” (2003). By examining each state’s definition of the law and individual cases, the article further points to the difficulty in studying its effectiveness. Although Eaton’s article is filled with rich and reliable studies regarding the legislation, what seems to be lacking is the overall conclusion of how researchers can resolve these shortcomings in future research. Eaton does include “recent developments in three-strikes case law,” but the reader would need to make their own assertions of the article to draw a conclusion (2003).

In the article, “Symbol and Substance: Effects of California’s Three Strikes Law on Felony Sentencing,” John Sutton (2013) explains three schools of thought related to the three strike law. There are the governmental advocates who believe the law will help fight crime and reduce costs associated with public safety, the second school involves critics who believe the law will create injustices for those tried under it, overcrowding in jails and increased government costs to uphold it. The third school is one of neutrality as the law is viewed as a “symbolic accomplishment” in the fight towards crime, but neither wreaks havoc on the criminal justice system nor makes advancements in reduced recidivism rates (Sutton, 2013). In Sutton’s analysis, he tests the “severity, racial disparities, and individual- and jurisdiction-level variability in sentence outcomes using data on felony cases from the 12 most populous counties in California” (2013). Three factors are used in the analysis, the seriousness of the crime, the potential bias in the sentencing process, and the bias that occurs within the criminal justice system itself. The fact that there are many different stages within the justice system increases the potential bias in each stage. For example, pretrial detention for those who cannot afford bail may be viewed by officials as defendants who need to stay in jail because they are more dangerous, when in fact they don’t have the means to leave (Sutton, 2013).

A few hypotheses were used in the study. One involved “macro level-studies” that tended to be more conservative in nature because of the political climate and the second focused on the prosecution’s means and limitations. There are only so many cases that can be tried and the rest must be pled out. The sample consisted of all male subjects in felony cases in twelve California counties. Possible outcomes that affected the results included the prosecutor’s decision of what type of crime constituted a defendant’s third strike. Independent variables like race and ethnicity were binary and prison length and sentence were calculated separately.

For hypothesis one, Sutton (2013) found that the law was more punitive and increased the defendant’s sentencing length and increased the likelihood they would go to prison once tried. The effects of race and ethnicity were not as significant as expected. For example, black defendants were sentenced at the same rate before the law and after, the only change being longer sentence lengths in line with the legislation. Also, “legal factors” viewed to enhance sentences showed no real change between the seriousness of the crime or the “effect of a prior felony conviction” (Sutton, 2013). An important finding revealed zero evidence of prosecutors using their power unfairly to decide what qualifies as a third strike offense, thus manipulation was not at play in the legal process. In conclusion, it is much more difficult to quantify an individual offender into separate variables and the likelihood that they would be sentenced more severely depends on the cluster of attributes they have as a whole (Sutton, 2013).

Marvell & Moody describe in “The Lethal Effects of Three‐Strikes Laws” how deterrence is affected, specifically in homicides (2001). They focus on how deterrence affects a criminal with two strikes against them and their decision to engage in a felony. Marvell & Moody (2001) surmise that the “cost” is what the criminal takes into account when they make the choice to commit a crime. Even if the cost is too high, deterrence might not be the outcome. Suppose for example a second strike individual commits a robbery and realizes that if he or she gets caught, they would receive a minimum of 25 years to life. They murder the victims they robbed in order to eradicate the possibility any witnesses can identify them as suspects. Marvell & Moody hypothesize that the opposite effect of deterrence occurs and there is an actual increase that a criminal will murder their victim (s) to escape capture (2001). “The difference between three-strikes states and other states is roughly 10 percentage points, which translates to some 1,400 extra murders per year in the three-strikes states” (Marvell & Moody, 2001).

The research design used during the 29-year study in all fifty states is a fixed-effect model. The dependent variable is crime rate and a dummy rate variable is used for the three strike law. Their findings revealed that homicide rates increased short-term (and also long-term) averaging “60 additional homicides occurred” short-term, and for states who have not enacted the law, those states saved lives yearly (Marvell & Moody, 2001).

A shortcoming of the study indicated that perhaps the increase in homicides for violent crimes is because of an overall trend and not necessarily connected with the law. Also noteworthy, states with the most severe three strike law, had the least increase in homicide rates. Although more studies need to be done, Marvell and Moody (2001) concluded that the three strike law has no overall reduction in crime, although incapacitation was not taken into account. They surmise that the cost is too high to continue to keep the three strike law in effect.

In the article, “Does Three Strikes Deter?” Helland & Tabarrok (2007) compare deterrence in criminals with two strikes and in criminals with one or two strikes, but who underwent two separate trials to create a stronger causal relationship. They claim that there is a detriment for those who study deterrence because researchers cannot discern the difference between incapacitation and those truly deterred, which significantly skews results. Their study is limited by the fact that bias does occur because the profile of the criminal’s arrests focuses on a marginal effect and not the total outcome. The data was a random sample of prisoners released in California and the study was conducted as a quasi-experiment (Helland & Tabarrok, 2007).

There are two important values used in the study. One being the number of arrests and the risk involved for released prisoners. The findings showed in some states that criminals with two strikes against them had an increased chance of a new felony conviction. For those who were tried twice for separate felonies, but only convicted of one or two strikes, the findings revealed a significant reduction in the chance of committing another strike, although the findings varied in each state. In California, the three strike legislation has reduced “felony arrest rates among the class of criminals with two strikes by 17 to 20 percent” (Helland & Tabarrok, 2007).

In the article, “Officer Down: Implications of Three Strikes for Public Safety” Johnson & Saint-Germain investigate the impact that the three strike law has on suspects and law enforcement officers and whether there was an increase in violent confrontations (2005). The study was longitudinal in nature using a time series analysis from 1990-2001. Questionnaires were mailed to six large police departments in California and one in Arizona where the three strike law has not been implemented. The data included the number of arrests, whether those arrests involved threat or harm to a police officer and whether use of force was used by the police officer (Johnson & Saint-Germain, 2005).

The findings showed a statistically significant increase in arrests made after the three strike policy was implemented, despite lower crime rates. The study did not discern between felony and misdemeanor arrests. The use of force by a police officer became more unpredictable after the three strike law and did not correlate to the number of arrests made. The same results were found with officer-related shootings after 1994. In order for this study to become more reliable, the number of arrests versus the number of officer-related harm must increase over time to show a valid correlation. The three strike law might be dangerous for officers, but no evidence was significant enough to support that conclusion (Johnson & Saint-Germain, 2005).

References

Eaton, L. (2003). Three strikes and you’re out: Enhanced sentences for repeat offenders

research pathfinder. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 22(4), 55-85. doi:10.1300/j113v22n04_0

Helland, E., & Tabarrok, A. (2007). Does three strikes deter? Journal of Human

Resources,XLII(2), 309-330. doi:10.3368/jhr.xlii.2.309

John R., S. (2013). Symbol and substance: Effects of California’s three strikes law on felony

sentencing. Law & Society Review, (1), 37. doi:10.1111/lasr.12001

Johnson, J. L., & Saint-Germain, M. A. (2005). Officer down: Implications of three strikes for

public safety. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(4), 443-460. doi:10.1177/0887403405277001

Marvell, T. B., & Moody, C. E. (2001). The lethal effects of three‐strikes

laws. The Journal of Legal Studies, (1), 89. doi:10.1086/468112

4