Top
| Acknowledgments | |
| Foreword | |
| Surveying Discretion by Criminal Justice Decision Makers | |
| The American Bar Foundation Survey | |
| The Survey Origins | |
| Research Methodology | |
| Major Observations of the Survey | |
| The Pilot Project Reports and the Survey Books | |
| The Impact of Ideology on Practice and Research | |
| Policy Choices | |
| Confronting the Complexity of the Policing Function | |
| Introduction | |
| The State of Knowledge Before the ABF Survey | |
| The American Bar Foundation Survey | |
| Methodology | |
| Substantive Findings | |
| Developments Since the ABF Survey | |
| The Varied Nature of the Police Function | |
| The Infinite Variety of Situations Police Are Called on to Handle | |
| The Varied Uses of Arrest | |
| The Prevalence of Discretion on Policing | |
| The Police Decision Not to Arrest | |
| The Criminal Justice System as a System | |
| Conclusion | |
| The Decision to Charge, the Decision to Convict on a Plea of Guilty, and the Impact of Sentence Structure on Prosecution Practices | |
| Introduction | |
| The Charging and Guilty Plea Decisions as Seen in the Pre-ABF Research | |
| The Charging Decision | |
| The Guilty Plea Decision | |
| Summary | |
| The Charging and Guilty Plea Decisions in the ABF Research | |
| The Charging Decision | |
| The Guilty Plea Decision | |
| Lessons Learned in the ABF Research on Charging and Guilty Plea Decisions | |
| Post-ABF Developments | |
| The Charging Decision | |
| The Guilty Plea Decision | |
| The Changing of Roles of Trial Judge, Prosecuter, Defense Counsel, and Victim in the Charging and Guilty Plea Decisions | |
| Conclusion | |
| Sentencing, Parole, and Community Supervision | |
| Introduction | |
| Pre-ABF Research and Developments | |
| Classical and Positivist Theories | |
| Implementation of Rehabilitative Theory in American Practices | |
| Ideological Framework of the Pre-ABF Research | |
| Pre-ABF Research Findings | |
| Sentencing Discretion in Pre-ABF Research | |
| Conclusions on Pre-ABF Research | |
| The American Bar Foundation Research | |
| Trial Judge Sentencing in Wisconsin as Described by the ABF Research | |
| Parole Release in Wisconsin | |
| Probation and Parole Supervision in Wisconsin | |
| Significance of the ABF Research | |
| Post-ABF Research and Developments | |
| The Experience in Wisconsin | |
| After the ABF Survey--Sentencing and Parole Release | |
| Conclusion: Discretion in Sentencing and Corrections on the National Scene | |
| Criminal Justice Responses to Domestic Violence | |
| The ABF Survey's Contribution to Domestic Violence Issues | |
| Related Developments on Domestic Violence Issues | |
| Influences on the Development of Full Enforcement Policies | |
| Research Findings on Full Enforcement | |
| The Future: From Low Visibility to High Visibility; From Adjustment to Arrest; So What? | |
| Police Rule Making and the Fourth Amendment: The Role of the Courts | |
| Police Rule Making and the Fourth Amendment | |
| Impoundments and Inventories: The Bertine "Standardized Procedure" Requirement | |
| Inspections: The Camera "Reasonable àAdministrative Standards" Requirement | |
| Stops: By "Plan" or By "Profile" | |
| Arrests: Police Limits on Force and Custody | |
| The Role of the Courts to Date | |
| Remaining Problem Areas | |
| Denouement | |
| The American Bar Foundation Survey and the Development of Criminal Justice Higher Education | |
| Criminal Justice Education | |
| Development of Educational Materials | |
| Summer Seminars for Legal and Social Science Scholars | |
| Law Student Summer Field Placements in Criminal Justice Agencies | |
| Problems with Teaching and Researching Criminal Justice in Law School Settings | |
| Creation of the State University of New York and the First School of Criminal Justice | |
| Governor Nelson Rockefeller and the State University of New York | |
| Origins of the School of Criminal Justice at Albany | |
| The Role of Eliot Lumbard | |
| Meeting the Personnel Needs of Criminal Justice Agencies | |
| Early Consultants to the Albany School | |
| The Planning Year: Creation of the Albany Model | |
| Criminal Justice Education Defined | |
| Graduate Curriculum in Criminal Justice: The Albany Model | |
| Structure of the School: Faculty and Student Criteria | |
| The Albany School After Twenty Years | |
| The Spread of Criminal Justice Higher Education | |
| The Federal Office of Manpower and Training | |
| Criminal Justice Education Proselytizers | |
| The Creation of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences | |
| Survival After the Demise of LEAA | |
| Location and Identity in Universities and Colleges | |
| Location on New and Secondary Campuses | |
| Why Survival and Growth? | |
| The American Bar Foundation Survey and Criminal Justice Education Today | |
| Major Contributions of the ABF Survey to Criminal Justice Higher Education | |
| Contrary Developments and Unanticipated Consequences in the Academic Field of Criminal Justice | |
| The Future off Criminal Justice Education | |
| Solidifying the Field | |
| Location on Prestigious Campuses | |
| New Student Populations | |
| Curriculum Standardizations | |
| Research Trends | |
| Increased Professionalism of On-Line Personnel | |
| Conclusion | |
| About the Authors | |
| Project Participants | |
| Index | |
| Table of Contents provided by Ingram. All Rights Reserved. |
