 |
|
ISSN 1556-6757 |
SJI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Volume
2, Issue 1, 2008
|
| |
| |
The Victim Satisfaction Model of the Criminal Justice System
John W. Stickels
Abstract
This article describes the various models historically used
to explain the principal purpose of the criminal justice
system and discusses their ineffectiveness in satisfactorily
reflecting current practices. These models include; Packer’s
crime control and due process models and Roach’s punitive
and restorative models as well as Beloof’s victim
participation model. The author’s new victim satisfaction
model, which purports that the primary value that influences
the course of a criminal prosecution is victim satisfaction,
is used to explain the actual functioning of the criminal
justice system, particularly in the prosecutorial phase in
Texas. This model is based on findings derived from the
author’s victim participation study, in which qualitative
research methods were used to investigate the interaction
between victims and the criminal justice system. In
conclusion, the implications of the utilization of the
victim satisfaction model on criminal justice policy are
discussed.
Full Article
Ambivalence versus Aggression: The Application of the Death
Penalty in California and Texas
Charles Powell
Abstract
Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Four prisoners were under
sentence of death in the United States at the end of 2005,
with Texas and California having by far the largest death
row populations. Despite similar racial populations, crime
rates, murder rates, and rates of sentencing to death, Texas
executes inmates at a rate many times that of California.
Franklin Zimring (1991, 1996) has argued that differences in
execution rates may best be understood as a general state of
ambivalence on the part of the executing state government,
explained either by external constraint or internal
ambivalence. This research found that both external
constraints and internal ambivalence were possible
explanations for the large numbers of offenders sentenced to
death in California. However, Zimring’s theory does not
explain the aggressiveness exhibited by the state of Texas
in executing convicted offenders. This paper explores the
history of the application of the death penalty in each
state, the administrative and judicial barriers to
execution, and the sociocultural factors that lead to
ambivalent and aggressive rates of execution.
Full Article
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
