SAGE Journal Articles

Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Boots, D. P., Bihari, J., & Elliott, E. (2009). The state of the castle: An overview of recent trends in state castle doctrine legislation and public policy. Criminal Justice Review, 34(4), 515-535. doi:10.1177/0734016809332095

Abstract: Second Amendment issues regarding the right to bear arms in the home have come into focus recently with the U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Despite strong antigun sentiment in the wake of high-profile shootings, sweeping new castle doctrine legislation has passed in 23 states in the last 4 years. These laws effectively expand individuals’ right to defend their home and possessions with lethal force without the necessity to retreat. To date, there is little criminological research that examines the evolution of the modern castle doctrine legislation in the United States. The present article addresses this gap in the literature by offering a historical perspective on the legal etiology of the castle doctrine relating to self-defense and then analyzes existing and pending castle doctrine legislation through December 2008. A discussion of the legal and criminological implications of these statutes on public policy is offered.


Journal Article 2: Brasch, W. M. (2005). Fool’s gold in the Nation’s data-mining programs. Social Science Computer Review, 23(4), 401-428. doi:10.1177/0894439305278869

Abstract: Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the government has a wide range of options to use in what has been labeled as the “War Against Terror.” Among those options is the use of data-mining programs. More than 50 federal departments and agencies are now using about 200 data-mining programs, many developed or expanded following 9/11. The federal government claims it uses the databases to help identify and track terrorists, that the programs are necessary and critical to that purpose. However, there are significant and substantial issues about invasion of privacy, violation of the constitutional rights, accuracy, and even the value and effectiveness of such programs.