Research Summary:In this article, we examine criminal offending by true perpetrators after innocent people are arrested and convicted for their crimes. After investigating a set of cases in which DNA was used to exonerate the innocent and to identify the guilty party, we identified 109 true perpetrators, 102 of whom committed additional crimes. We found a total of 337 additional offenses committed by the true perpetrators, including 43 homicide-related and 94 sex offenses. By extrapolating from our findings, we estimate that the wrong-person wrongful convictions that occur annually may lead to more than 41,000 additional crimes. Policy Implications:Our findings indicate that one consequence of wrongful convictions, allowing the true perpetrators of crimes to remain at liberty and commit new crimes that imperil prospective victims, represents an important threat to public safety and thereby dramatically compounds the harms caused to innocents. We stress the importance of framing wrongful conviction issues to capture these important crime control concerns and, thus, to help galvanize public opinion and promote policy reforms that will mutually benefit adherents of both crime control and due process perspectives. K E Y W O R D Scrime control, due process, exoneration, framing, innocence, miscarriage of justice, true perpetrator, wrongful conviction, wrongful liberty

This article relies on research results and the reflections of professors who have been recognized for their outstanding teaching in order to identify attributes commonly associated with exemplary college and university teaching. Those attributes include having and showing enthusiasm for one's discipline and for teaching; emphasizing active, participatory learning and critical thinking skills; setting and enforcing high academic standards; genuinely caring about students; and possessing both a command of one's subject and essential teaching skills. The article presents recollections solicited informally from several criminal justice professors about their own best teachers and uses the responses to illustrate the previously identified attributes. It concludes by discussing the inspirational nature of truly outstanding teachers and suggesting how meaningful inspirational teachers can be to their students and to higher education.

This article describes citations of social science research evidence in 200 criminal cases decided by the Supreme Court and in the briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae in these cases. It also examines the uses of social science authorities in samples of Supreme Court exclusionary rule and jury decisionmaking cases, and accompanying briefs. The correspondence between the social science references cited in the decisions and the briefs is used as one measure of the brief-writers' contributions to the Court's use of social science materials, and related contributions of the brief-writers are explored, as well. The justices appeared to locate the majority of social science references cited in their opinions witlhout assistance from the briefs, and thus also presumably attempted to evaluate the research evidence on their own. Individuals and organizations with scientific expertise rarely filed amicus briefs in these cases, which may help explain why the Court so frequently was without assistance in locating or examining research evidence. It is suggested that the appellate judiciary's informed use of social science materials would be promoted if more social scientists, and their professional organizations, participated as amici curiae in cases presenting social fact issues within their competence.A number of criminal cases recently decided by the United States Supreme Court * An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1987 meeting of the American Society of Criminology in Montreal, Quebec. My thanks go to Professor Stephen L. Wasby for his extremely helpful suggestions concerning this article, and to the reviewers and editor of Law and Human Behavior, who commented upon the article after its submission. I, of course, am solely responsible for oversights or errors that may have occurred. Requests for reprints and other correspondence should be sent to the author, School

Youth courts are an innovative quasi-legal forum in which adolescents pass judgment on their peers in cases involving relatively minor offenses. These courts hold much promise to benefit offending youth, the youthful volunteers who participate in the adjudicative process, the traditional juvenile court system, victims, and surrounding communities. Based on a survey completed of the fortytwo youth courts operating in New York State, this article describes the diverse and overlapping objectives, target populations, and operating procedures of the youth tribunals. It discusses the interrelated nature of youth court goals, subjects, and procedures, and offers general prescriptions for the more effective design and operation of youth courts.

This article examines the Supreme Court's use of social science research evidence in 28 capital punishment cases decided between 1986 and 1989. The study describes the frequency and major correlates of the justices' citation of social science authorities in the 1986–89 sequence of cases. Social science evidence figured significantly in several death penalty cases, although a majority of the justices were more eager to discredit and discount research conclusions than to use them as premises for their decisions, and prevailing case opinions generally promoted principles that had little to do with empirical evidence concerning the administration of capital punishment. Social science citation patterns in majority and dissenting opinions, and in the opinions of “liberal” and “conservative” Supreme Court justices, in significant respects parallel the Court's shifting doctrinal premises in capital punishment decisions.