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

Journal Article Link 8.1: Jensen, E. L., Gerber, J. (1996). The Civil Forfeiture of Assets and the War on Drugs: Expanding Criminal Sanctions While Reducing Due Process Protections. Crime Delinquency, 42(3): 421-434.

The War on Drugs has resulted in some of the most extensive changes in criminal justice policy since the due process revolution of the 1960s. Asset forfeiture has been used as a criminal sanction but has been camouflaged as a civil procedure, thus in effect limiting the due process rights of those accused. The state has extended its control over citizens and has simultaneously weakened the rights of individuals to protect themselves against state intrusion. The potential for excess with a civil asset forfeiture policy absent adequate due process protections render this policy unacceptable in a society based on the rule of law.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 8.2: Garcia, A. (1987). Miranda Revisited: The Erosion of a Clear Standard. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 3(3): 19-29.

In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court erected safeguards designed to protect a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In a series of decisions issued since Miranda, however, the Court has diluted the effect of Miranda by refusing to extend its application and by creating a "public safety" exception to the Miranda safeguards. This article will examine the decisions which have eroded Miranda's impact and will assess the policy implications of the Court's restrictive interpretation of Miranda.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 8.3: Goldstein, N., Condie, L., Kalbeitzer, R., Osman, D., & Geier, J. (2003). Juvenile Offenders’ Miranda Rights Comprehension and Self-Reported Likelihood of Offering False Confessions. Assessment, 10(4), 359-369.

This study examined whether age, IQ, and history of special education predicted Miranda rights comprehension and the self-reported tendency to falsely confess to a crime among 55 delinquent boys. The Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments–II, a revised version of Grisso’s Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights, were developed for this study and are described in detail in this article. Results revealed that age, IQ, and special education were related to comprehension of Miranda rights. When Miranda comprehension, age, and IQ were simultaneously tested as predictor variables of the self-reported likelihood of false confessions, only age served as an independent predictor. Research and policy implications of this study are presented, and recommendations for use of the original and revised instruments are reviewed.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?