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

Journal Article #1: Wodahl, E., Ogle, R., Kadleck, C., & Gerow, K. (2013). Offender perceptions of graduated sanctions. Crime & Delinquency, 59, 1185-1210. doi:10.1177/0011128709333725

Abstract: Finding credible alternatives to revocation for offenders who violate the conditions of their community supervision has emerged as a salient issue in the corrections field. A number of jurisdictions have turned to graduated sanctions as an alternative to revocation. This study addresses one of the major gaps in the research on graduated sanctions by examining perceptions of graduated sanction severity through the administration of surveys to offenders under active supervision. Survey results revealed several important findings. First, offenders do not view jail as being substantially more punitive than community-based sanctions such as community service or electronic monitoring. Second, offenders viewed treatment-oriented sanctions as being more punitive than other graduated sanctions. Third, offender perceptions of graduated sanctions were influenced by a variety of individual characteristics such as gender, age, and education level.

Journal Article #2: Griffin, T., Pason, A., Wiecko, F., & Brace, B. (2016). Comparing criminologists’ views on crime and justice issues with those of the general public. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 1-21. doi:10.1177/0887403416638412

Abstract: We report the results of a survey of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) scholars asking their responses to the same questions posed annually to the general public in Gallup public opinion polls. We found CCJ scholars to be more likely to hold more liberal positions on these issues than the general public. The findings indicate a disconnect between popular crime and justice perspectives (and resultant crime policy formation) and the “experts” presumably best trained and informed on how to go about crime policy. We argue for a renewed discussion among CCJ scholars regarding the relevance and role of academic expertise in crime policy formation and offer suggestions for how CCJ scholars might “go public” in influencing policy decisions.