Experimental Criminology and the Free-Rider Dilemma

Koehler, Johann; Smith, T. C.

doi:10.1093/bjc/azaa057

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Maybe the sheer scale of this crisis justifies prisoner participation in Covid‐19 vaccine trials, even knowing all the unmitigable risks. In fact, both the JAMA and the NEJM commentaries highlight the availability, in prisons, of large populations with “high exposure risk” and concentrated “transmission rates … higher … than elsewhere.” 14 In other words, “concentrating rigorous experimental interventions on an acutely impacted sample” might lead to identifying more effective interventions faster—a seemingly desirable outcome for researchers, prisoners, and nonprisoners alike 15 …”

Section: Unnatural Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does a Public Health Crisis Justify More Research with Incarcerated People?

Reiter¹

2021

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Covid‐19 has infected thousands and killed hundreds in prisons, jails, and immigration detention facilities across the United States. Responding to this crisis, leading medical researchers have called for expanding opportunities for people in prison to participate in vaccine trials. These calls, like current regulations, focus on individualized risk assessments around consent, coercion, and harm, while ignoring the unnaturalness of deprivation conditions in U.S. prisons. We need new frameworks of analysis that refocus on structural, rather than individual, risk assessments. Integrating structural perspectives—including skepticism of claims of scarcity, avoidance of representational distortions, and attention to institutional agency—into our existing, overly individualistic frameworks might permit the design of more ethical research projects involving people who are incarcerated. Still, the unnatural deprivations of incarceration might be so great that research subjects might need to be removed from prison entirely in order to ethically participate in research.

show abstract

Section: Unnatural Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does a Public Health Crisis Justify More Research with Incarcerated People?

Reiter¹

2021

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This experiment was transformational in terms of policing policy in relation to domestic abuse in the United States and elsewhere (Goodmark, 2015). And as Koehler and Smith (2021, p. 210) state, ‘Within a few short years, Minneapolis had been refashioned into criminology’s bridgehead for an Experimenting Society’ despite the evidenced unintended consequences of this kind of work (see McCord, 2003 and in relation to domestic abuse see Goodmark, 2018; Walklate and Fitz-Gibbon, 2018). Yet the spirit of experimentation and its associated natural scientific aspirations in engaging with and informing policy remains.…”

Section: The Pandemic As An Externality: Criminology As Social Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criminological futures and gendered violence(s): Lessons from the global pandemic for criminology

Walklate

2021

Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to foreground the gendered crime consequences of the global pandemic and to raise questions emanating from them for the future(s) of criminology. The paper reviews some of the criminological response to the pandemic offered during 2020. The global pandemic was constituted by some as providing the opportunity for a natural experiment in which criminological theories and concepts could be tested in real time and by others as an opportunity to further raise the profile of crimes more hidden from view, particularly domestic abuse. For the former, domestic abuse is constituted as an exception to what might be learned from this experimental moment. For the latter, gendered violence(s) are central to making sense of this moment as ongoing, mundane and ordinary features of (women’s) everyday lives. This paper makes the case that the evidence relating to the gendered consequences of Covid-19, renders it no longer possible for the discipline to regard feminist informed work (largely found within the latter view above) as the stranger, outside of, or an exception to, the discipline’s central concerns. It is suggested that the future(s) of criminology lie in rendering that stranger’s voice, focusing as it does on the continuities of men’s gendered violence(s) in all spheres of life, as the discipline’s central problematic.

show abstract

Whistleblowing Decisions by Police Officers

Tankebe,

Fulzele

2024

Law Soc. Inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Police organizations are moral battlefields. Blowing the whistle on misconduct is one domain of moral contestation. Yet whistleblowing by police officers is important to ensure accountability, prevent threats to the rule of law, and avoid police capture by organized crime. In this study, we draw on a survey of 975 police officers in Himachal Pradesh, India, to investigate whistleblowing decisions and to account for these decisions. We found that officers imagined themselves blowing the whistle on the planting of evidence on criminal suspects but less so when colleagues used violence against suspects. Perceptions of organizational justice, the strength of bonds between officers, perceived audience legitimacy, and police effectiveness influenced the whistleblowing decisions of the officers.

show abstract

Experimental Criminology and the Free-Rider Dilemma

Cited by 3 publications

References 50 publications

Does a Public Health Crisis Justify More Research with Incarcerated People?

Does a Public Health Crisis Justify More Research with Incarcerated People?

Criminological futures and gendered violence(s): Lessons from the global pandemic for criminology

Whistleblowing Decisions by Police Officers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About