Evaluating Alternatives in Criminal Justice

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
A normative policy-impact model that provides criteria for evaluating specific programs as well as for determining which goals should be given priority in criminal justice is presented. With "decision structure," "self-interest goals," and "public-interest goals" the main elements of the model, the article stresses the impact of criminal justice on various groups related to this policy area. Although a policy may be aimed primarily at groups out side government (e.g., criminals), it also will have an impact on those asked to carry it out (e.g., police). When the effects benefit the nongovernment groups (sometimes called the clientele), the policy achieves "public-interest goals. " When the beneficiaries are government officials, "self-interest goals" are being attained. One of the main themes of this paper is that the extent to which public-interest goals can be reached depends entirely on how well they serve the self-interests of those who are responsible for executing the policies in question. Thus, while the article proposes that the ultimate goal of the criminal justice system should be the "equalization of the burden of crime," it emphasizes that the means of accomplishing this goal are uncertain because traditional crime-control strategies (e.g., deterrence) have major fallacies. Moreover, even if promising strategies are discovered, the self- interests of personnel in the criminal justice system motivate them to subvert such policies. Only through conscious mani pulation of work incentives can the vested interests of many criminal justice personnel in the status quo be altered and the equalization of the costs of crime be obtained.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: