Search results

This chapter provides a genealogy of the Gladue–Ipeelee principle of special consideration of Indigenous circumstances at sentencing. The principle is codified in the 1996 statutory requirement that “all available sanctions other than imprisonment … should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders” (s. 718.2e of the Criminal Code of Canada). Using the Foucaultian genealogy method to produce a “history of the present,” this chapter eschews normative questions of how s. 718.2e has “failed” to reduce Indigenous over-incarceration to instead focus on how practices of “special consideration” reproduce settler-state paternalism. This chapter addresses three key components of the Gladue–Ipeelee principle: the collection of circumstances information, the characterization of those circumstances, and finally their consideration at sentencing. Part one focuses on questions of legitimacy and authority and explicates how authority and responsibility to produce Indigenous circumstances knowledge was transferred from the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) to Indigenous Courtworker organizations in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Part two identifies how authority shapes problematization by examining the characterization of Indigenous circumstances in the two eras, finding that present-day Gladue reports articulate an Indigenous history and critique of colonialism as the root cause of Indigenous criminalization, whereas DIA reports prior to 1970 generally characterized this criminalization as a “failure to assimilate.” Part three focuses on the structural reproduction of power relations by exploring historical continuities in judicial and executive-branch consideration of Indigenous circumstances, suggesting that the Gladue–Ipeelee principle reinscribes a colonial “mercy” framework of diminished responsibility. The author discusses how the principle operates in the shadow of Indigenous over-incarceration as a form of state “recognition” and a technique of governance to encourage Indigenous participation in the settler justice system and suggests that the Gladue–Ipeelee principle produces a governing effect that reinforces settler-state authority by recirculating colonial practices and discourses of settler superiority.

The purpose of this paper is to compare views of the community, views of the organization head, and perceptions of organizational justice between deputies working in sheriff’s offices and officers working in municipal police departments.

This study used surveys of 2,012 sworn deputies representing 19 full-service county sheriff’s offices and 10,590 sworn officers representing 70 municipal police departments. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare the three dependent variables between sheriff’s offices and municipal police departments.

Deputies in sheriff’s offices expressed more positive views of the community and organization head, and more favorable perceptions of organizational justice than officers in municipal police departments. Regression analyses indicated that views of the organization head and perceptions of organizational justice remained significantly more positive in sheriff’s offices than municipal departments, even after controlling for agency size and concentrated disadvantage.

The sample of agencies should not be considered as a representative of all sheriff’s offices and municipal police departments in the USA. The number and scope of agency-level variables included in the regression models were limited.

The results suggest the importance of ensuring more equitable systems of rewards and organization heads taking steps to communicate more effectively with sworn personnel, especially in municipal departments.

By its focus on sheriff’s offices, the study broadens knowledge of law enforcement agencies and sworn personnel, which is usually based on studies of municipal police departments and officers.

The purpose of this paper is to review the “state of the art” in research on police legitimacy. The authors consider two bodies of theory and empirical research on police legitimacy: one rooted in social psychology and concerned with individual attitudes, and the other based on organizational institutionalism. The authors contrast the theories, discuss the methods with which propositions have been examined, and take stock of the empirical evidence. The authors then turn to a direct comparison of the theories and their predictions.

Critical review and comparison of two bodies of literature.

Police legitimacy is a phenomenon that can be properly understood only when it is addressed at both individual and organizational levels. A large body of social psychological research on police legitimacy has been conducted at the individual level, though it has dwelled mainly on attitudes, and the empirical evidence on the relationships of attitudes to behavior is weak. A much smaller body of research on organizational legitimacy in policing has accumulated, and it appears to have promise for advancing our understanding of police legitimacy.

The understanding of police legitimacy can be deepened by the juxtaposition of these two bodies of theory and research.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 and its amendment – the Trade and Competitive Act of 1988 – are unique not only in the history of the accounting and auditing profession, but also in international law. The Acts raised awareness of the need for efficient and adequate internal control systems to prevent illegal acts such as the bribery of foreign officials, political parties and governments to secure or maintain contracts overseas. Its uniqueness is also due to the fact that the USA is the first country to pioneer such a legislation that impacted foreign trade, international law and codes of ethics. The research traces the history of the FCPA before and after its enactment, the role played by the various branches of the United States Government – Congress, Department of Justice, Securities Exchange commission (SEC), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the contributions made by professional associations such as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICFA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the American Bar Association (ABA); and, finally, the role played by various international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). A cultural, ethical and legalistic background will give a better understanding of the FCPA as wll as the rationale for its controversy.

The rapidly increasing number of older adults cycling through local criminal justice systems (jails, probation, and parole) suggests a need for greater collaboration among a diverse group of local stakeholders including professionals from healthcare delivery, public health, and criminal justice and directly affected individuals, their families, and advocates. The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework that local communities can use to understand and begin to address the needs of criminal justice-involved older adults.

The framework included solicit input from community stakeholders to identify pressing challenges facing criminal justice-involved older adults, conduct needs assessments of criminal justice-involved older adults and professionals working with them; implement quick-response interventions based on needs assessments; share findings with community stakeholders and generate public feedback; engage interdisciplinary group to develop an action plan to optimize services.

A five-step framework for creating an interdisciplinary community response is an effective approach to action planning and broad stakeholder engagement on behalf of older adults cycling through the criminal justice system.

This study proposes the Criminal Justice Involved Older Adults in Need of Treatment Initiative Framework for establishing an interdisciplinary community response to the growing population of medically and socially vulnerable criminal justice-involved older adults.

Despite the existence of minimum age laws for juvenile justice jurisdiction in 18 US states, California has no explicit law that protects children (i.e. youth less than 12 years old) from being processed in the juvenile justice system. In the absence of a minimum age law, California lags behind other states and international practice and standards. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In this policy brief, academics across the University of California campuses examine current evidence, theory, and policy related to the minimum age of juvenile justice jurisdiction.

Existing evidence suggests that children lack the cognitive maturity to comprehend or benefit from formal juvenile justice processing, and diverting children from the system altogether is likely to be more beneficial for the child and for public safety.

Based on current evidence and theory, the authors argue that minimum age legislation that protects children from contact with the juvenile justice system and treats them as children in need of services and support, rather than as delinquents or criminals, is an important policy goal for California and for other national and international jurisdictions lacking a minimum age law.

California has no law specifying a minimum age for juvenile justice jurisdiction, meaning that young children of any age can be processed in the juvenile justice system. This policy brief provides a rationale for a minimum age law in California and other states and jurisdictions without one.