SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Abstract: As democracy advances in many regions throughout the world, it is often accompanied by increasing violence. Most cross-national analyses find that an inverted U-shaped relationship exists between homicide and democracy: homicide rates are highest in hybrid regimes and lowest in authoritarian and democratic regimes. While a fairly robust empirical result, little is known about why it exists. We identify a specific institution—due process—that cuts across regime types and effectively explains homicide. Due process generates a legitimacy that encourages individuals to use the justice system to settle disputes. A more effective criminal justice system also deters crime in the first place. Using a cross-national sample of eighty-nine countries between 2009 and 2014, we find a strong negative relationship between due process and homicide. Put simply, how states fight crime explains their success.
Abstract: Since Cesare Lombroso’s days, criminology seeks to define, explain, and categorize the various types of criminals, their behaviors, and motives. This aim has theoretical as well as policy-related implications. One of the important areas in criminological thinking focuses chiefly on recidivist offenders who perform large numbers of crimes and/or commit the most dangerous crimes in society (rape, murder, arson, and armed robbery). These criminals have been defined as “habitual offenders,” “professional criminals,” “career criminals,” and “serial offenders.” The interest in these criminals is a rational one, given the perception that they present a severe threat to society. The main challenge in this area of research is a conceptual problem that has significant effects across the field. To this day, scholars have reused and misused titles to define and explain different concepts. The aim of this article is 3-fold. First, to review the concepts of criminal career, professional crime, habitual offenses, and seriality with a critical attitude on confusing terms. Second, to propose the redefinition of concepts mentioned previously, mainly on the criminal career. Third, to propose a theoretical model to enable a better understanding of, and serve as a basis for, further research in this important area of criminology.
Abstract: Procedural justice theory increasingly guides policing reforms in the United States and abroad. Yet the primary sources of perceived police procedural justice are still unclear. Building on social schema research, we posit civilians’ perceptions of police procedural justice only partly reflect their personal and vicarious experiences with officers. We theorize perceptions of the police are anchored in a broader “relational justice schema,” composed of views about how respectful, fair, and unbiased most people are in their dealings with others. Individuals’ experiences with certain nonlegal actors and neighborhood environments should directly affect their relational justice schema and indirectly affect their evaluation of police. Nevertheless, experiences with police, especially mistreatment by officers, should also affect perceived police procedural justice and may moderate the effects of relational justice schema endorsement. We test our hypotheses in two studies with national samples. The findings strongly support a social schematic model of perceived police procedural justice.