Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice Ethics


Edited by: Bruce A. Arrigo

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Reader's Guide
  • Entries A-Z
  • Subject Index
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
    • [0-9]
    • A
    • B
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • H
    • I
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • P
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • T
    • U
    • V
    • W
    • X
    • Y
    • Z

      • Loading...
    • Copyright

      View Copyright Page

      List of Articles

      Reader's Guide

      About the Editor

      Bruce A. Arrigo, Ph.D., is professor of criminology, law, and society and professor of public policy within the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, he holds additional faculty appointments in the Psychology Department and in the Public Policy Program. In the College of Health and Human Services, he holds a faculty appointment in the Department of Public Health Sciences. Professor Arrigo is also a faculty associate in the Center for Professional and Applied Ethics—a teaching, research, and service unit of the philosophy department, a senior member of the University Honors College, and a faculty affiliate of Wake Forest University's Bioethics, Health, and Society Program.

      Arrigo is an award-winning researcher and scholar, who has authored or coauthored, and edited or coedited more than 30 books and edited volumes as well as more than 175 scholarly papers. His scholarship examines human justice and social welfare issues at the intersection of law, mental health, and society; theory, culture, and society; and deviance, violence, and society. His recent collaborative works in these areas include The Terrorist Identity (2007), Revolution in Penology: Rethinking the Society of Captives (2009), and The Ethics of Total Confinement: A Critique of Madness, Citizenship, and Social Justice (2011). Recent textbooks and reference works include Ethics, Crime and Criminal Justice, second edition (2012), Introduction to Forensic Psychology, third edition (2012), and The Routledge Handbook of International Crime and Justice Studies (2014). Arrigo is also the founding and current editor-in-chief of the Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice.

      Arrigo is an elected Fellow of both the American Psychological Association (Psychology and Law, Div. 41) and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. He is also a past recipient of the Bruce Smith, Sr., Award (for distinguished contributions in crime and justice teaching and scholarship), sponsored by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences; the First Citizens Bank Scholars Medal; and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Division on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. Arrigo has served as a consultant to the Correctional Service of Canada, the National Institute of Justice, the National Science Foundation, and Savant Learning Systems. These consultancies have emphasized progressive social policy and practice, evidenced-based research and programming, and citizenship-oriented education and training.

      List of Contributors

      • John F. Acevedo

        University of Chicago

      • Francisco J. Alatorre

        New Mexico State University

      • Ryan Alexander

        Washburn University

      • Andrew Alexandra

        University of Melbourne

      • R. Bruce Anderson

        Florida Southern College

      • Audrey L. Anton

        Western Kentucky University

      • Thomas K. Arnold

        University of Cincinnati

      • Willie Ashley

        Albany State University

      • Elaheh Ashtari

        Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department

      • Kathleen Auerhahn

        Temple University

      • Alysha Baker

        University of British Columbia

      • Cynthia L. Banks

        Northern Arizona University

      • Michael A. Barker

        Indiana University of Pennsylvania

      • Carla J. Barrett

        John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

      • Lorana Bartels

        University of Canberra

      • Shannon M. Barton-Bellessa

        Indiana State University

      • Marcia Baruch

        Comprehensive Psychological and Forensic Services

      • Terry Beitzel

        James Madison University

      • Heather Y. Bersot

        University of North Carolina, Charlotte

      • Robert Bing

        University of Texas–Arlington

      • James M. Binnall

        University of California, Irvine

      • Astrid Birgden

        Deakin University

      • Pamela Black

        University of British Columbia

      • Ashley G. Blackburn

        University of Houston–Downtown

      • Paul Boaheng

        Fayetteville State University

      • Robert M. Bohm

        University of Central Florida

      • Michael J. Bolton

        Marymount University

      • J. Michael Botts

        Belmont Abbey College

      • Tina Fernandes Botts

        University of North Carolina, Charlotte

      • James A. Brecher

        Nova Southeastern University

      • Clairissa D. Breen

        Cazenovia College

      • Avi Brisman

        Eastern Kentucky University

      • Alan D. Brown

        Mount Saint Vincent University

      • Ben Brown

        University of Texas, Brownsville

      • Marguerite Bryan

        Nova Southeastern University

      • Robin Bryant

        Canterbury Christ Church University

      • William Burger

        Longwood University

      • Tod W. Burke

        Radford University

      • Naomi Burstyner

        Monash University

      • Michael D. Bush

        Northern Kentucky University

      • Rachel A. Campbell

        Syracuse University

      • Ana Campos-Holland

        Connecticut College

      • Andrea Cantora

        University of Baltimore

      • Robert A. Carey

        Chicago School of Professional Psychology

      • James W. Carter II

        College of Mount St. Joseph

      • John Robert Cencich

        California University of Pennsylvania

      • John Martyn Chamberlain

        Loughborough University

      • Karen K. Clark

        San Diego State University

      • Isaac Claywell

        Lindsey Wilson College

      • Rochelle E. Cobbs

        Mississippi Valley State University

      • Peter A. Collins

        Seattle University

      • Jonathon A. Cooper

        Indiana University of Pennsylvania

      • Charisse Coston

        University of North Carolina at Charlotte

      • Michele W. Covington

        University of South Carolina, Upstate

      • Thomas Crofts

        University of Sydney

      • Kimberly Anne Crosby

        University of British Columbia Okanagan

      • Patricia Dahl

        Washburn University

      • Nicola Davis Bivens

        Johnson C. Smith University

      • Marika Dawkins

        University of Texas-Pan American

      • Ed Day

        Canterbury Christ Church University

      • Martin V. Day

        Princeton University

      • Carla De Ycaza

        New York University

      • Mathieu Deflem

        University of South Carolina

      • Kimberly D. Dodson

        Western Illinois University, Quad Cities

      • Diana S. Dolliver

        University of Alabama

      • Matthew Dolliver

        Northeastern University

      • Brandon C. Dulisse

        University of Cincinnati

      • M. George Eichenberg

        Tarleton State University

      • O. Oko Elechi

        Prairie View A&M University

      • Steven J. Ellwanger

        California State University, Bakersfield

      • Amitai Etzioni

        George Washington University

      • Noelle E. Fearn

        Saint Louis University

      • Frank V. Ferdik

        University of South Carolina

      • Elaine Fishwick

        Sydney University

      • Thomas Fleming

        Wilfrid Laurier University

      • Steven C. Flowers

        Indiana State University

      • Helen Forbes-Mewett

        Monash University

      • Kelly Frailing

        Texas A&M International University

      • Shadavia France

        Chicago School of Professional Psychology

      • Franco Freilone

        University of Turin

      • Laurence Armand French

        University of New Hampshire

      • Kimberly Gallo

        California State University, San Bernardino

      • Kassandra Galvez

        Florida Southern College

      • Dustin Bradley Garlitz

        University of South Florida

      • Jennifer Garnett

        University of Auckland

      • Kimberley Garth-James

        Independent Scholar

      • Tony Gaskew

        University of Pittsburgh at Bradford

      • Matthew Geras

        Florida Southern College

      • Camille Gibson

        Prairie View A&M University

      • Mike Giordano

        Lindsey Wilson College

      • Patrica Goforth

        University of California, Irvine

      • James W. Golden

        University of Arkansas at Little Rock

      • Kristie K. Gordon

        University of Alabama

      • Jennifer L. Gossett

        Indiana University of Pennsylvania

      • Lauryn P. Gouldin

        Syracuse University College of Law

      • Paul Gowder, Jr.

        University of Iowa

      • Carolyn Greene

        Athabasca University

      • Georgen Guerrero

        University of the Incarnate Word

      • Laura Hackett

        Florida Southern College

      • Richard Anthony Spurgeon Hall

        Fayetteville State University

      • Wendy C. Hamblet

        North Carolina A&T State University

      • Rex Hammond

        Indiana State University

      • Shannon Hankhouse

        Tarleton State University

      • Paula Hannaford-Agor

        National Center for State Courts

      • Kina Harding

        Arizona State University

      • Clive Harfield

        Griffith University

      • Steven Harris

        Lindsey Wilson College

      • Paul M. Hawkins

        Indiana University of Pennsylvania

      • Francis Frederick Hawley

        Western Carolina University

      • John M. Hazy

        Youngstown State University

      • Marcus Hedahl

        U.S. Naval Academy

      • Jacqueline B. Helfgott

        Seattle University

      • Nicole Hendrix

        Radford University

      • Stuart Henry

        San Diego State University

      • Vincent E. Henry

        Long Island University

      • Enrique Hernandez

        California State University, Long Beach

      • Wendy L. Hicks

        Loyola University New Orleans

      • Megan Alice Hiles

        University of British Columbia Okanagan

      • Mark Israel

        University of Western Australia

      • Jordan F. Isaacs

        Indiana State University

      • Cristie O'Cain

        University of Alabama

      • Jonathan Jacobs

        Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics

      • J. Veronica James

        Indiana University of Pennsylvania

      • Helen Jones

        Higher Education Academy

      • Lynn C. Jones

        Northern Arizona University

      • Jerry W. Joplin

        Guilford College

      • Kayla Kane

        Univeristy of Central Florida

      • Kevin Karpiak

        Eastern Michigan University

      • Larry Karson

        University of Houston–Downtown

      • Sheri Jenkins Keenan

        University of Southern Indiana

      • Douglas Kellner

        University of California, Los Angeles

      • Paula Kenny

        Institute of Technology, Sligo

      • Emran Wasim Khan

        Clayton State University

      • Bitna Kim

        Indiana University of Pennsylvania

      • John Kleinig

        John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

      • Hans-Herbert Kögler

        University of North Florida

      • Janine Kremling

        California State University, San Bernardino

      • Elizabeth A. Kus

        Chicago School of Professional Psychology

      • Ryan M. Labrecquw

        University of Cincinnati

      • Jennifer Langille

        University of British Columbia

      • Mark M. Lanier

        University of Alabama

      • Jorja M. Leap

        University of California, Los Angeles

      • Paul Leighton

        Eastern Michigan University

      • Liam Leonard

        West Virginia University

      • Matthew C. Leone

        University of Nevada

      • Angela C. Leone

        Northwestern University

      • Richard L. Lippke

        Indiana University

      • Matthew W. Logan

        University of Cincinnati

      • Robert J. Louden

        Georgian Court University

      • Kyle Lucas

        Troy University

      • Karol M. Lucken

        University of Central Florida

      • Charles E. MacLean

        Indiana Institute of Technology

      • Amy Magnus

        University of Nevada, Las Vegas

      • Kristoph Marczinkowski

        Florida Southern College

      • Marinella Marmo

        Flinders University

      • Joseph Edward Marquez

        Alliant International University

      • Karin D. Martin

        John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

      • Adam Matz

        Indiana University of Pennsylvania

      • Alyce McGovern

        University of New South Wales

      • Casey McGowan

        Lindsey Wilson College

      • M. Dyan McGuire

        Saint Louis University

      • Kelly McHugh

        Florida Southern College

      • Cassandra McKeown

        University of South Dakota

      • Heather McLernon

        California State University, Long Beach

      • Kelly R. Meduna

        Seattle University

      • Rosie Meek

        Teesside University

      • Daniel Mello


      • Seumas Miller

        Charles Sturt University

      • Kevin I. Minor

        Eastern Kentucky University

      • Marcos L. Misis

        Northern Kentucky University

      • David R. Montague

        University of Arkansas at Little Rock

      • Heather May Morgan

        University of Aberdeen

      • Cristina Mosso

        University of Turin

      • Andrea J. Nichols

        Washington University, St. Louis

      • Gareth Norris

        Aberystwyth University

      • Patrick K. O'Brien

        University of Wisconsin Whitewater

      • Eugene O'Donnell

        John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

      • Katharine O'Reilly

        King's College London

      • Patricia O'Reilly

        Wilfrid Laurier University

      • James C. Oleson

        University of Auckland

      • David Orrick

        Norwich University

      • Joseph Osei

        Fayetteville State University

      • Stephen S. Owen

        Radford University

      • Nicole R. Paladino

        University of Arkansas at Little Rock

      • Jason Paris

        California State University, San Bernardino

      • Justin Paulette

        Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs

      • Dina Perrone

        Cal State-Long Beach

      • Lacey Peters

        University of British Columbia

      • Anthony Petrosino


      • Mark Pettigrew

        University of Manchester

      • Daniel W. Phillips III

        Lindsey Wilson College

      • Joseph R. Pitts

        Temple University

      • Judith Platania

        Roger Williams University

      • Alexander D. Pollard-Lipkis

        University of Colorado at Boulder

      • Jane E. Poore

        Seattle University

      • Weston Pope

        Lindsey Wilson College

      • Carlos Posadas

        New Mexico State University

      • William R. Pruitt

        Elmira College

      • Mark Ralkowski

        George Washington University

      • Kira Ramirez

        Florida Southern College

      • Blake M. Randol

        University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

      • Gregory Rich

        Fayetteville State University

      • Stephen C. Richards

        University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

      • Kelly Richards

        Queensland University of Technology

      • Travis Rieder

        Georgetown University

      • Jennifer J. Roberts

        Indiana University of Pennsylvania

      • Lee E. Ross

        University of Central Florida

      • Jeffery James Roth

        Indiana University of Pennsylvania

      • Michael D. Royster

        Prairie View A&M University

      • Jeffrey P. Rush

        Troy University

      • Joseph B. Sanborn, Jr.

        University of Central Florida

      • Judah Schept

        Eastern Kentucky University

      • Robert A. Schug

        California State University, Long Beach

      • Paul R. Schupp

        Niagara University

      • Courtney A. Schuster

        Syracuse University

      • Myrinda L. Schweitzer

        University of Cincinnati

      • Jason D. Scott

        Rochester Institute of Technology

      • Julie E. Selman-Ayetey

        University of Cape Coast

      • Jeffrey Shantz

        Kwantlen Polytechnic University

      • David Shapiro

        John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

      • Matthew J. Sheridan

        Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

      • Roger A. Shiner

        University of British Columbia–Okanagan

      • Stacey L. Shipley

        North Texas State Hospital

      • Charlene Shroulote

        New Mexico State University

      • Edward W. Sieh

        Lasell College

      • William Simkulet

        Prince William Sound Community College

      • Andrew Skotnicki

        Manhattan College

      • Hayden Patrick Smith

        University of South Carolina

      • Paula H. Smith

        University of Cincinnati

      • Tania Sourdin

        Monash University

      • Cheryl G. Swanson

        University of West Florida

      • Megan G. Swindal

        University of Alabama

      • Tom Tanner

        California State University, San Bernardino

      • Caitlin J. Taylor

        La Salle University

      • Victoria Terranova

        Texas State University

      • Karen J. Terry

        John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

      • Jennifer L. Tilley

        Eastern Kentucky University

      • Pietro Toggia

        Kutztown University of Pennsylvania

      • Emily I. Troshynski

        University of Nevada, Las Vegas

      • Breanne Trotter

        Seattle University

      • Gerald Turkel

        University of Delaware

      • Brent E. Turvey

        Oklahoma City University

      • Susan J. Tyburski

        University of Denver

      • Zachary P. Ulrich

        Pepperdine University

      • Adrian M. Viens

        Ruhr-University Bochum

      • Lindsey Vigesaa

        St. Cloud State University

      • Robert F. Vodde

        Fairleigh Dickinson University

      • Brenda Vose

        University of North Florida

      • Patricia B. Wagner

        Youngstown State University

      • Anthony Walsh

        Boise State University

      • Jennifer E. Walsh

        Azusa Pacific University

      • Zachary Walsh

        University of British Columbia

      • Debra Warner

        Chicago School of Professional Psychology

      • Michael Wearing

        University of New South Wales

      • Patrick R. Webb

        University of Phoenix

      • Leanne Weber

        Monash University

      • Stan C. Weeber

        McNeese State University

      • Elvira M. White-Lewis

        Texas A&M University–Commerce

      • Christopher R. Williams

        Bradley University

      • Dianne Williams

        Independent Scholar

      • Marian R. Williams

        Appalachian State University

      • Dominic Wood

        Canterbury Christ Church University

      • Robert M. Worley

        Texas A&M University, Central Texas

      • Delmar P. Wright

        Saint Leo University

      • Rhonda Louise Wrzenski

        Indiana University, Southeast

      • Georgia Zara

        University of Turin

      • Nancy Zarse

        Chicago School of Professional Psychology

      • Glenn A. Zuern

        Albany State University


      The study of ethics as a field of scholarly inquiry in the Western world dates back to the Greco-Roman Age of Antiquity. Its evolving history represents a rich source for comprehending the moral complexities of things such as intention, choice, and action. In particular, the field's relevance for the advancement of law and justice reaches back in time to pre-Socratics such as Pythagoras and Heraclitus. Its resilience extends forward in time to classical philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, to Hellenistic philosophers such as Euclid and Archimedes, to early Roman and Christian philosophers such as Seneca and Augustine, and to medieval philosophers such as Saint Anselm and Saint Thomas Aquinas.

      Moreover, this deep and abiding regard for moral philosophical reasoning and contemplation helped usher in the Age of Reason and the ascendancy of empiricism; the Industrial Revolution and the conspicuous growth of monopoly capitalism; and the Digital Age of information consumption, including the mass marketing of illusion and spectacle as well as the ubiquitous presence of liquid identities and hyperreal transactions. During each epoch and within each intellectual transition, the domain of ethics has constituted an insightful, practical, and essential framework from within which to investigate time-honored and contentious themes such as law and the collective good, crimes against the state, justice for a diverse citizenry, and punishment for those wrongdoers whose injurious behavior offends the polity or harms the public.

      Interestingly, the role of ethics within the contemporary criminal justice system is equally prescient. Philosophical commentary and speculation encompass the activities of municipal, state, federal, and international agencies that police, track, and apprehend individual assailants and group dissidents; that adjudicate, divert, regulate, and mediate criminal conflicts and disputes; and that correct, treat, and restore victims, offenders, and the communities to which both are tethered. In addition, amid a climate of mounting fear and suspicion concerning the status of personal and communal safety, ethical observation and conjecture increasingly represent an assessment of technology's legitimate (as opposed to ideological) role in a representative democracy, in which freedom of expression, the right to privacy, and due process under the law appear perilously at odds with the risk society.

      This is a society that inventively relies on surveillance apparatuses; productively utilizes mechanisms of restraint, compliance, and inspection; and tactically deploys and implants electronic monitoring devices that domesticate the subject through a microphysics of power. Moreover, this combined instrumentation effectively neutralizes, disciplines, or eliminates perceived national or foreign threats of various forecasted types and sundry would-be forms, creating new categories of identity construction (e.g., cyberstalker, cyberterrorist, and cyberbully) and, correspondingly, new forms of social control. This is the ultramodern (beyond postmodern) landscape of criminal justice ethics in which the creeping criminalization of everyday life—as an artifact of culture—transforms satellite intelligence and related computer-based knowledge systems into the industries of virtual law and order, the businesses of Internet crime and cybersecurity, and the markets of telemetric justice. Such is the order of things within criminology's global 21st century village. The consequent patterns of this ordering contribute to and normalize new forms of symbolic, material, and corporeal violence that nurture, among other phenomena, fabrications and disembodiments of the self. This is the self as fragmented and fetishized, depersonalized and derealized, by way of machinist rehabilitation (e.g., within offender therapy and treatment), actuarial politics (within predictive policing), and panoptic biopower (e.g., within problem-solving courts).

      Organization and Subject Categories

      The dynamic confluence of these forces—from the intellectual history of ethics to its professional practice elaborations within the criminal justice arena; from the risk society that governs through crime to its communicative codes, digital inscriptions, and moral technologies of the self—forms the contours of the SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice Ethics, volumes 1 and 2. Organizationally, these forces can be further subdivided into eight thematic categories (subject areas) of ethical import. These categories roughly consist of (1) the history of and the historical figures who helped fashion ethical thought in the study of crime, law, justice, and punishment; (2) key philosophical concepts in the development of crime, law, justice, and punishment; (3) the ethics of policing and the administration of law enforcement; (4) law, ethics, and the administration of justice; (5) moral philosophical issues in offender therapy, treatment, institutional, and community-based corrections, and societal reentry; (6) criminal justice cases and policy controversies in law and in society; (7) technology, science, and culture; and (8) crime, politics, and social justice. Each of these subject areas is composed of several entries. In order to better illustrate the reach and to further clarify the breadth of the Sage Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice Ethics, the remaining portions of this introduction draw attention to selected entries contained within each category.

      History and Philosophy

      The history of criminal justice ethics is best expressed through the writings of its key philosophical and cultural luminaries. This intellectual history is both diverse and robust. Indeed, seminal concerns such as the function of law, the nature of justice, and the legitimacy of punishment have dominated ethical debate and have directed moral speculation for millennia. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the course of this contemplation reflects an unsettled and disquieted landscape. This is a topography in which, among other things, the horizon of duties and rights, interests and equities, and virtues and vices both populate and produce a veritable souk of competing and, at times, conflicting ideals. In order to account for the richness of this philosophical and cultural terrain, entries on historical figures emphasize where and how conceptualizations of the state and about citizenship, postulates on power and about privilege, and critiques of reasoning and about reality chart the evolution of criminal justice ethics in theory and in practice.

      Essential Concepts

      One way to vitalize this intellectual history is to feature key terms or ideas that function as the field's lexicon of essential concepts. These concepts, always already socially constructed and valued based, represent the working tools of criminal justice ethics. Consider the following: To what extent and under which conditions do individuals make free choices? How can this freedom be constrained, and how do these controls diminish or undo one's (criminal) responsibility? What role does science play in promoting dignity, human rights, or social justice? What is the source of the law's legitimate authority, and how is politics linked to the legal order? When and on whose terms does ideology masquerade as institutional morality? Can empathy and forgiveness advance the aims of ethical inquiry? If so, how is their deployment relevant, useful, or effective when it comes to defining deviance, adjudicating crime, or monitoring delinquency? The essential concepts of criminal justice ethics probe and prod the moral philosophical landscape. They (these tools) stand outside or above the choices made and actions taken by street-level professionals. Collectively, then, they (these tools) provide insightful guidance on the proper and humane administration of justice.


      The history and philosophy of criminal justice ethics—as well as the field's essential concepts—establish an important backdrop against which official system participants (arguably) reach informed judgments. With respect to the organization of law enforcement, these judgments can result in the exercise of discretion; the profiling of suspects or offender groups; the routinization of stop-and-frisk practices; the implementation of undercover (including sting) operations; the strategic reliance on nonlethal weapons; and, on occasion, even the use of force. These decisions and activities—steeped in the culture, values, and silent “blue wall” of law enforcement—may be sourced in individual, institutional, or noble cause corruption; may be the product of deceptive interrogation practices or effective community-oriented and solution-focused problem solving; may foment strained police–citizen interactions or fuel public suspicion, distrust, outrage, and vigilantism; and may even lead to violent behavior, including suicide by cop. The encyclopedia entries on police ethics examine these and related contentious issues from the local, state, and federal levels of inquiry and analysis.


      The relationship between criminal law and ethics has always been somewhat uneven, uneasy, and, in some instances, altogether inadequate. As such, many of the entries contained in this subject area examine several important facets of this enduring imperfection. Consider the following example: In order for a case to proceed to court, a defendant must be competent (i.e., mentally fit) to stand trial. Stated differently, if the accused does not understand the criminal charges and if the accused is unable to offer assistance when called upon in his or her own defense, then as a matter of jurisprudence, the case will not be heard. However, competence to stand trial is not to be confused with criminal intent. The latter issue (intent) retrospectively questions one's mental state at the time the alleged wrongdoing occurred; the former issue (competence) presently questions one's psychological fitness prior to conducting the trial. In both instances, the rights of the defendant trump the interests of the victim, leaving the public to ponder not only the legitimacy of the criminal law but the ethical grounding that supports it. Additional entries in this thematic category explore the moral philosophical limits of legal conundrums such as the insanity defense and guilty but mentally ill verdicts, jury selection and nullification, the reliability of eyewitness and expert testimony, the harm principle and the application of neuroscience in the criminal law, juveniles in adult court, double jeopardy, just desert, sex offender registries, community supervision, and sexually violent predator (SVP) statutes.


      Entries in the subject area of correctional ethics emphasize the efficacy of institutional and community responses to offender treatment, recovery, and societal reentry. These responses are intimately linked to several assumptions—expressed or implied—about the underlying moral philosophy that justifies the exercise of state-sanctioned punishment. This is punishment administered within prisons and jails, prescribed in maximum-security forensic hospitals and other custodial settings, or exacted through victim–offender mediation and reconciliation programs. In this respect, then, system goals, staff needs, offender interests, and societal demands must be weighed and balanced.

      Consider the following examples: Under what conditions is reliance on mechanical, physical, or electronic restraining devices necessary for the management of offenders, for the routine maintenance of correctional and treatment facilities, and for the protection and safety of custodial staff as well as other inmates and patients? Why are constitutional rights abridged for convicts as well as ex-incarcerates, and how is this curtailment relevant for understanding the status of prison gangs and inmate sexuality, the circumstances of institutional violence (including riots), or the cycle of recidivism and career criminality? What collectivist values and legal aims do solitary confinement, death row, and capital punishment endorse, and how are these practices, values, and aims relevant for understanding the nature of mental illness in prisons, jails, or other detention units? Ethically charged concerns such as these draw attention to the theory and practice of punishment—from its consequentialist, deontological, and liberal justifications to its deterrent, incapacitation, retributive, rehabilitative, and restorative forms and functions.

      Cases and Controversies

      Featured in this subject category are several significant legal cases and policy controversies that currently overshadow civic consciousness or dominate contemporary public discourse. Collectively, these topical issues and concerns suggest a fractured and fear-focused sensibility regarding several core crime and justice controversies. These are thorny dilemmas whose moral footing challenges and scrutinizes conventional wisdom about the nature of social progress, the need for human flourishing, and the conditions that make both of these dynamics greater expressions of embodied citizenship for, by, and about one and all.

      Which ethical principles support U.S. policy with respect to illicit drug use, including marijuana legalization, gun safety legislation and the Second Amendment, immigration and a pathway to citizenship, hate speech and civil rights, or governmentality through specialized courts? How is corporate personhood (i.e., Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010) a legal interest that advances a public good? How can moral reasoning be used to justify one's participation in so-called victimless crimes such as gambling, prostitution, or pornography? What ethical lessons follow with respect to law making and policy setting in the wake of national tragedies (e.g., public shootings in schools, at theaters, and by municipal buildings), militarized abuses of power (e.g., Abu Ghraib), or natural disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina)? Thus, the cases and controversies examined in the SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice Ethics are designed to compel the reader to rethink the role, function, and character of law in society and in their lives.

      Technology, Science, and Culture

      Entries representing this thematic category of the encyclopedia include discussion on a wide array of new computer-based and digital technologies. These technologies consist of emergent and experimental forms of information-generating instrumentation in which monitoring and inspection, tracking and apprehension, and disciplining and domestication are its principal administrative sequelae or corrective aims. The utilization of this technology in the law enforcement field, for example, now involves security activities such as drone strike engineering, crime mapping, Compstat programming, and police–citizen social networking. Moreover, the deployment of this instrumentation in the legal arena now entails surveillance practices such as closed-circuit television (CCTV) viewing and courtroom-based media reporting, digital evidence gathering and computer-assisted recording, forensic-based lab (DNA) accountability and jury decision making, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and expert witness testifying.

      A key component to the development of these and other entries in this subject area is the critical view that the conditions of society at its center always tell the citizenry a great deal about the nature of behavior at society's fringes. As such, the remit of the crime and justice topics found here consider how science and technology inventively and productively—as well as ubiquitously and obtrusively—contribute to a risk-conscious culture in which perceived criminality and potential hazard give rise to moral panic (e.g., governance through crime). Indeed, this is a culture that spawns increasingly curious if not questionable forms of human social relating, including cyberpornography and Internet pedophilia, sexting laws and sanctions, and biometric identification system computing and thermal imaging.

      Crime, Politics, and Social Justice

      From a critical criminological perspective, the politics of crime and delinquency is typically understood to be an outgrowth of reifying and legitimizing state-supported and system-sustaining economic interests, social values, and cultural norms. In other words, how the law is interpreted, which harms are defined as criminal, and on whose terms justice is administered are all based on circumscribed (and therefore problematic) judgments. This is because they (these judgments) frequently advance only status quo dynamics. These dynamics structurally maintain power imbalances (e.g., see entries on class, justice, and ethics; gender, justice, and ethics; race, justice, and ethics; and sustainability, justice, and ethics). These inequalities effectively marginalize, alienate, and exploit.

      Thus, as critical criminologists of various intellectual persuasions have cautioned, the criminal justice apparatus—including its attendant subsystems—may very well impede prospects for human (as well as nonhuman animal) rights, may undermine the pursuit of happiness (including its peace-making, nonviolent, and polyvocal manifestations), and may limit or deny social justice (because of patriarchy, profit, or power accumulation). To further clarify this claim, entries contained in this subject category reexamine a number of ethically freighted constructs. Examples include freedom and determinism, the reasonable person standard, the logic of equivalencies, and due process under the law. At issue are the material circumstances and manufactured contexts that render crime in the streets an exemplar of civilization's discontent, and crime in the suites a hidden prejudice that silences inconvenient truths.

      The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice Ethics presents the enduring debates and dissects the emerging practices that populate the landscape of crime, law, justice, and punishment at its moral philosophical core. Admittedly, no single reference work of this sort can address all key controversies, cases, or questions; however, if artfully done, it can make a decided contribution. To this extent, then, any omissions—intended or otherwise—are the sole product of the editor's prerogative and judgment. As such, the encyclopedia can only be interpreted as both a point of initiation as well as departure. The journey commences when each person lives the examined life of which Socrates spoke. The introspection that ensues is the portal that makes peace with crime and that restores justice to society. The journey advances when each person embodies those true words of which Paulo Freire wrote. This expedition reveals the pathway that unleashes human potential and that vitalizes social change. In the final analysis, the encyclopedia's efforts to initiate and depart are only the spirited promises of a better, more complete life (in liberty and in the pursuit of happiness) for all citizens. The philosophical contours of this latent existence warrant recognition and, where possible, require reconfiguration. Ultimately, readers must decide whether these volumes successfully move in the direction of realizing these ethically perplexing, although more fully egalitarian, objectives.

      Bruce A.Arrigo, Editor


      1860b.c.e.: In ancient Sumer, law codes define punishments for violations of expected social behavior; most punishments are corporal, such as flogging and beating.

      477b.c.e.: In an early act of genocide, the citizens of Athens kill the entire male population of Melos and sell the women and children of that island into slavery.

      1215c.e.: In England, the Magna Carta forces King John to recognize certain rights of freemen, including freedom of movement and the right to be judged according to the law and by their peers.

      1351: The English Parliament passes a law against treason; the definition of treason includes threatening or attempting to overthrow the king, providing aid to an enemy, and having sexual relations with the queen.

      1595: The Amsterdam House of Corrections, the world's first correctional institution housing only juveniles, opens with the philosophy of rehabilitating rather than punishing minors who commit crimes.

      1608: Captain George Kendall becomes the first person administered capital punishment in the American colonies for treason (he was accused of spying for Spain).

      1628: In England, the Petition of Right clarifies and expands the principles of due process stated in the Magna Carta, including protections against arbitrary actions by the government.

      1679: In England, the Habeas Corpus Act extends the right of habeas corpus to most criminal acts and prohibits the movement of prisoners from one jail to another in an attempt to avoid a writ of habeas corpus.

      1764: Cesare Beccaria publishes the work Essays on Crime and Punishment, stating that criminals are rational and act according to their free will and that certain and swift punishment would deter crime.

      1777: John Howard publishes The State of the Prisons, detailing the brutal conditions existing in many local jails in England; this book helps spur reform efforts.

      1785: Massachusetts creates the first institution devoted to confining convicts, converting a fortress on Castle Island in Boston to something like an English workhouse, with prisoners required to work at hard labor.

      1786: Pennsylvania adopts the Wheelbarrow Law, requiring convicts to work in the streets during the day and be housed in a jail at night; while working, they were dressed in unattractive clothing and were chained to a cannonball. This was done to shame them and to create a deterrent effect to other citizens that observed them.

      1787: In Pennsylvania, a group of prominent citizens, including Benjamin Franklin and the Anglican bishop William White, form the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons.

      1790: In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Walnut Street Jail opens; it sorts prisoners into four classes (confinement, misdemeanor, probationary, and repeat offender) and emphasizes the importance of spiritual guidance and reflection on one's past behavior.

      1791: In the United States, Pennsylvania becomes the first state to distinguish among different types of murder and outlaws the death penalty except for first-degree murder.

      1794: In the United States, a mob protests the 1791 Whiskey Excise Tax, attacking a federal marshal serving summonses to delinquent producers, an action known as the Whiskey Rebellion; only two men are convicted for taking part in this action, and they are pardoned in 1795.

      1804: France enacts the Code Napoléon, a civil code based on inquisitorial rather than adversarial principles that has influenced many legal systems in Latin America and Europe.

      1816: In England, a group of women Quakers led by Elizabeth Fry begin working to improve the lives of women held in London's Newgate Prison; among other things, they create a school for the prisoners' children and train the prisoners in useful work and basic literacy.

      1817: New York becomes the first U.S. state to allow prisoners to earn time off their sentences in return for good behavior.

      1821: In the United States, Connecticut becomes the first state to pass a law restricting abortion; by 1840, 10 more U.S. states have passed such laws.

      1821–36: Eastern State Penitentiary is constructed in Pennsylvania, incorporating the Philadelphia system of reforming inmates; this included keeping inmates isolated in their cells for most of the day and allowing them to practice trades within their cells.

      1822: Rachel Perijo becomes the first female corrections officer in the United States when she is appointed head matron of female offenders in a Baltimore penitentiary.

      1824: In the United States, the first home for delinquent boys, the New York House of Refuge, opens with the intention of reforming and rehabilitating juveniles rather than punishing them.

      1828–32: During the Black War in Tasmania, European colonists kill large numbers of Aboriginal people, an action now described by some as genocide.

      1835: New York becomes the first U.S. state to stop conducting public executions.

      1839: In the United States, the nation's first prison created exclusively for women opens, the Mount Pleasant Female Prison.

      1843: The M'Naghten Rule is established as a test to determine if a person with cognitive impairment can claim the insanity defense, and it becomes adopted throughout the United States, where it serves as the primary criterion in this matter until the mid-20th century.

      1844: In Mt. Pleasant, New York, Eliza W. Farnham is appointed matron of the female unit of Sing Sing Prison and introduces a number of reforms including education, improved living conditions, and the use of positive incentives as well as punishment to control behavior.

      1853: England ends its practice of sentencing convicted criminals to transportation to the United States or Australia, as Parliament passes the Penal Servitude Act.

      1856: In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the U.S. Supreme Court declares that freed slaves are not citizens of either the United States or of any state and are not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

      1856: In the United States, the first separate institution for delinquent girls, the State Industrial School for Girls, opens in Lancaster, Massachusetts.

      1863: In Italy, Cesare Lombroso publishes a pamphlet outlining the biological positivist theory of crime, stating that some people have mental and physical traits that predispose them to becoming criminals.

      1863: The U.S. Congress passes the Habeas Corpus Act, allowing the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus (guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution) during times of war.

      1865: In the United States, the Ku Klux Klan is founded as an instrument of social control to use violence and intimidation to limit the freedom and actions of freed slaves, northern sympathizers, and others with whom they disagreed.

      1870: In Dillard v. the State of Georgia, the Georgia Supreme Court states that a speaker's intent is key in determining if a declaration is obscene or not, and also that community standards are relevant in determining obscenity or its lack.

      1871: In the United States, the Virginia Supreme Court rules, in Ruffin v. Commonwealth, that an inmate is entitled to only the rights that the state chooses to grant him or her.

      1879: In State v. Oliver, the North Carolina Supreme Court rules that a man cannot be prosecuted for violence against his wife unless he caused permanent damage to her or the violence was cruel in nature.

      1889: New York becomes the first U.S. state to abolish hanging and uses electrocution as a means of execution; the first execution, that of convicted murderer William Kemmler in 1890, does not go well, as several attempts are necessary before he dies, and his skin reportedly caught fire during the execution process.

      1899: In the United States, the first juvenile justice court begins operation in Chicago; the court emphasizes treating each juvenile as an individual and stresses rehabilitation rather than retribution as a goal.

      1908: Canada passes the Juvenile Delinquents Act, emphasizing reform and rehabilitation of youthful offenders rather than punishment.

      1909: In the United States, President Theodore Roosevelt convenes the Shanghai Opium Commission, which leads to the passage of the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act.

      1910: The electric chair is discussed as a humane method of execution in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

      1913: In Pennsylvania, the Muncy Act prohibits judges from giving female defendants a lower-than-maximum sentence on the theory that women are more able to be reformed by longer confinements; the result was that women often received longer sentences than men for similar crimes.

      1913: Wisconsin passes the Huber Act, becoming the first U.S. state to allow work release for prisoners convicted of misdemeanors; by 1975, all states and Washington, D.C., had similar programs.

      1914: The U.S. Congress passes the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, a federal law imposing taxes on the importation, distribution, and sale of opiates and cocaine; this act was partly motivated by the evidence of the harms of opium in the Philippines.

      1915–23: In the Ottoman Empire, an estimated 1 to 1.5 million Armenians are killed through a variety of means (starvation, mass executions, slave labor, etc.) as a result of Young Turk government policies aimed at eliminating Armenians from the empire.

      1918: Indonesia adopts a criminal code including penalties for some political activities, such as criticizing the government.

      1919: The U.S. Congress passes the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, banning production, transport, or sale of alcoholic beverages, and the Volstead Act (the National Prohibition Act), which specified methods of enforcement; the Eighteenth Amendment took effect on January 17, 1920.

      1919: In the United States, the Dyer Act makes it a crime to transport stolen motor vehicles across state lines and allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate such crimes.

      1922: In the United States, passage of the Jones-Miller Act increases restrictions and penalties for coca and opiate trafficking.

      1923: In Frye v. United States, a case immediately concerned with the admissibility of polygraph (lie detector) evidence in court, a standard for admitting scientific or expert testimony is articulated: The method or technique involved in the evidence must be generally accepted by the scientific community.

      1925: The U.S. Supreme Court, in Jones v. United States, overrules the conviction of Charles Lindner, a physician who had prescribed opiates to addicts.

      1927: Frederic Thrasher publishes The Gang: A Study of 1,212 Gangs in Chicago, reporting that youth gangs usually arose out of spontaneous association and often went out of existence unless conflict with other gangs was present, in which case gang members were affirmed in their ties with each other.

      1928: In Olmstead v. United States, the Supreme Court rules that wiretapping is not a privacy violation because the defendant's property is not entered; Justice Louis Brandeis dissents on the case.

      1931: Nevada legalizes gambling and remains the only U.S. state to allow it until New Jersey allows casinos to open in 1978 in Atlantic City.

      1932: In the United States, the final version of the Uniform State Narcotics Act is created. Congress encouraged states to adopt the act in order to make it easier to control and prevent the illegal trade in narcotics.

      1932: In the United States, well-known aviator Charles Lindbergh's child is kidnapped, a case that makes national news; in response, the federal government passes the “Lindbergh law,” a statute that makes kidnapping and transporting a victim across state lines a federal offense.

      1933: In the United States, passage of the Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution, repealing the Eighteenth Amendment and ending Prohibition.

      1935: In the United States, two recovering alcoholics, Bill Wilson (Bill W.) and Dr. Robert Smith (Dr. Bob), founded Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), based on Oxford Group principles that they adopted into the famous 12 Steps; in 1939, AA published its guidebook for recovery, Alcoholics Anonymous (the Big Book).

      1935: In the United States, “Ma” Barker (Donnie Clark Barker) is killed in an FBI raid and immortalized as the leader of a gang including her sons, although there is no evidence that she participated in any of the gang's crimes; she is believed to be the model for the role of James Cagney's mother in the 1949 film White Heat.

      1936: In Owensboro, Kentucky, Rainey Bethea becomes the last person in the United States to be executed in public.

      1937: The United States passes the Marijuana Tax Act, the first federal attempt to control marijuana distribution; the act did not ban marijuana outright but imposed a tax on it.

      1937: In Nanking, China, Japanese soldiers executed about 300,000 Chinese in an atrocity that becomes known as the Rape of Nanking.

      1938–45: About 6 million people, most of them Jewish, are killed by the German Nazi government in Europe, an event that becomes known as the Holocaust.

      1940: In Chambers v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that threats and mental torture are sufficient to disallow a confession.

      1942: President Franklin D. Roosevelt issues Executive Order 9102, ordering the removal of people of Japanese descent from the west coast states of the United States; more than 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans are removed from their homes under this order.

      1943: William Whyte publishes Street Corner Society, a sociological and ethnographic study of gang members in a poor Italian community in Boston.

      1944: In Korematsu v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the internment of Japanese Americans on the sole ground of their ethnicity is legal.

      1944: In Ashcroft v. Tennessee, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a confession can be disallowed if obtained under severe psychological pressure, even without the evidence of physical violence; the defendant in the case in question had confessed after about 36 hours of continuous interrogation.

      1944: The term genocide is coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe systematic murder, as practiced by the Nazis against the Jewish people; the term is further codified in the United Nations' 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

      1945: Allied leaders create the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, establishing a tribunal to prosecute German war criminals; about 200 people are tried under this charter in Nuremberg, Germany.

      1946: The United Nations General Assembly passes a motion declaring that genocide is classified as a war crime under international law, a position strengthened in the Geneva Convention in 1949.

      1948: The United Nations General Assembly proclaims the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes stipulations against torture and cruel and inhuman punishment.

      1949: In West Germany, the new German Basic Constitution abolishes the death penalty.

      1949: The United Nations adopts the Geneva Convention, which stipulates the expected treatment of prisoners of war and of civilians during war.

      1950: Albert Cohen publishes Delinquent Boys, The Culture of the Gang, drawing on strain theory to explain gang activity as an adaptive response to lack of opportunities to achieve the American Dream through more mainstream activities.

      1950: The World Health Organization and the American Medical Association both accept the classification of alcoholism as a disease.

      1951: In the United States, Congress enacts a common criminal code for the armed services, the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

      1955: Georgia becomes the last U.S. state to cease using prisoners on chain gangs; however, the practice is revived again in the 1990s.

      1957: In the United States, women are guaranteed the right to serve on federal juries, although discrimination against women as jurors continues in some states until prohibited by the 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision Taylor v. Lousiana.

      1959: In Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty, Oscar Lewis puts forth the theory that the poor and marginalized may develop a cultural system based on crime.

      1963: Jane Jacobs publishes The Death and Life of American Cities, based largely on her experiences in New York City; among other things, she argues in this book that mixed-use urban design creates safer cities by having many people present on the streets observing what is happening there.

      1963: In Gideon v. Wainwright, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that defendants in state felony cases must be provided with an attorney if they cannot afford to hire one themselves.

      1965: In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives and extends the concept of the right to privacy to include marital relationships.

      1966: In Pate v. Robinson, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that, if there is question about a defendant's ability to comprehend his or her own trial, a hearing must be held to examine his or her sanity.

      1967: In the United States, California becomes the first state to allow abortions to protect the mental health of the mother or if the fetus has severe deformities; by 1973, 15 more states had also liberalized their abortion laws.

      1969: In the United States, research by the psychiatrist Robert Dupont reveals that 44 percent of prisoners entering the jail system in Washington, D.C., test positive for heroin; this discovery motivates development of alternative pathways for addicts based on treatment rather than incarceration.

      1969: California passes the Family Law Act, establishing no-fault divorce by allowing couples to claim irreconcilable differences as a reason for divorce (rather than having to prove that one partner was at fault); by 2010, all states offered no-fault divorces.

      1970: In the United States, Keith Stroup founds the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and works with Peter Bourne, an advisor to President Jimmy Carter, to reform U.S. marijuana laws.

      1970: In Carolina v. Alford, the U.S. Supreme Court establishes the so-called Alford Plea, allowing defendants to plead guilty while still maintaining their innocence.

      1971: U.S. President Richard M. Nixon delivers a speech calling drug use “public enemy number one” and calling for a “war on drugs” to combat drug use.

      1971: In the United Kingdom, the Misuse of Drugs Act establishes a distinction between those who merely use drugs and those who traffic in them.

      1971: In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a Massachusetts law prohibiting distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons, or by anyone other than a physician or pharmacist, is unconstitutional.

      1972: In the United States, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), operated by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is created to monitor and report on drug-related cases in hospital emergency departments; DAWN is still in effect and produces national and city-specific estimates for cases related to illegal drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and stimulants.

      1972–76: No executions are held in the United States following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972), which ruled that states must enact procedures to prevent the death penalty from being applied in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion.

      1973: In New York State, passage of the Rockefeller drug laws includes lengthy mandatory minimum offenses for many drug-related crimes, including simple possession of marijuana.

      1973: Aleksander Solzhenitsyn publishes The Gulag Archipelago, describing the Soviet Union's system of penal labor camps, based in part on his own experiences as a prisoner in France; it is not legally available in Russia until 1989.

      1973: The U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade overturns many state laws prohibiting abortion and restricts the state's ability to restrict women's access to abortion, particularly during the first trimester (12 weeks) of a pregnancy.

      1973: U.S. President Richard M. Nixon creates the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the first time a single federal agency was given the responsibility of coordinating all federal government efforts to combat drug abuse.

      1973: In the Netherlands, although the Dutch penal code still lists euthanasia as a crime, physicians are allowed to end a patient's life under strictly specified conditions (the patient must be in unbearable pain and in the final stages of life); further conditions are added in 1984, including that the family must consent and a second physician must be consulted.

      1974: Stanley Milgram publishes Obedience to Authority, detailing the results of a series of experiments demonstrating that ordinary people would do apparently harmful things to others if ordered to do so by an authority figure.

      1976: Canada removes capital punishment from the Canadian Criminal Code and institutes a mandatory life sentence (with a minimum of 25 years served) for first-degree murder.

      1976: In New Jersey, the first Scared Straight program begins; called the Juvenile Awareness Project, it brings juveniles into an adult prison and has a group of convicts speak to them about the realities of prison life. Although the program is widely replicated, studies have found that it is not effective in preventing juvenile delinquency.

      1978: Joan W. Moore publishes Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs, and Prison in the Barrios of Los Angeles, arguing that Chicano gangs had their origins in the exclusion of members, based on their ethnicity, from mainstream political and social life.

      1979: In San Francisco, Dan White, a member of the board of supervisors, murders Mayor George Moscone and fellow Supervisor Harvey Milk, a noted gay activist; White receives a light (seven-year) sentence based on the so-called Twinkie defense, that is, that White was not acting rationally because he was depressed; White's consumption of junk food, including Hostess Twinkies, was cited by White's defense lawyer as evidence of his depression rather than a cause for his crime.

      1979: In Duren v. Missouri, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a murder conviction on the grounds that a Missouri state law resulting in most women being taken out of the jury pool meant that the resulting jury did not adequately represent the community.

      1980: In the United States, Candace Lightner founds Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) after her daughter is killed by a drunk driver; MADD publicizes the dangers of impaired driving and advocates for sterner penalties for those who drive while impaired.

      1982: In the United States, First Lady Nancy Reagan coins the phrase “Just Say No” as a response for young people tempted by drug-using peers.

      1982: James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling publish an article in the popular magazine The Atlantic Monthly, putting forth their broken windows theory of crime; they state that visible signs of neglect, such as broken windows, can prompt further vandalism and other crime by signaling that such behavior is permissible.

      1983: In the United States, the first correctional boot camps begin operation in Georgia and Oklahoma; 10 years later, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and 25 states are operating similar programs.

      1984: In the Netherlands, a needle-exchange program is begun in Amsterdam to reduce infections among injection-drug users who would otherwise share needles; although the initial focus was on hepatitis, the emergence of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) as a health threat increased interest in similar programs around the world.

      1985: In Canada, the Young Offenders Act establishes national standards of 18 years as the age of adult criminal culpability and 12 years as the age for minimal criminal responsibility.

      1986: In the United States, college basketball star Len Bias dies from an overdose of cocaine, drawing attention to the risks of drug use; one response is passage of the federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act, also know as the Drug-Free America Act.

      1986: In Batson v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that race alone is not a sufficient reason to exclude someone from serving on a jury.

      1988: In the United States, Willie Horton becomes a nationally recognized figure during the presidential campaign; Horton committed rape and murder while on furlough from a Massachusetts prison and became a symbol for Democratic soft-on-crime policies.

      1988: John Hagedorm publishes People and Folks: Gangs, Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City, studying how changing social policies created a context in which gangs became institutionalized in poor neighborhoods.

      1990: In Canada, the Supreme Court recognizes battered woman syndrome and self-defense as possible motivations for women who kill abusive partners in the decision R. v. Lavallee, involving a woman who shot her common-law partner after he terrorized her to the point where she felt helpless to escape.

      1992: The American political scientist Andrew Hacker publishes Two Nations, Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal, arguing that white racism plays a key role in the continued gap between white and black Americans in matters such as crime, employment, and academic achievement.

      1994: In the United States, Congress passes the Violence Against Women Act, the first federal law comprehensively addressing violence against women, including sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse; this act provides funding for preventive measures as well as creation of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which began operation in 1996.

      1994: In the United States, California passes a three-strikes or habitual felon law requiring that individuals convicted of three separate violent offenses serve a minimum sentence of 25 years, with a maximum of life imprisonment; by 1995, 22 U.S. states have similar laws.

      1994: Oregon becomes the first U.S. to allow assisted suicide, with the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, which permits physicians to prescribe and administer lethal medications to patients in the last six months of life, after multiple requests and waiting periods.

      1994: In Farmer v. Brennan, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that failure to protect prisoners against assault constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; the plaintiff was a male-to-female transgender person, Dee Farmer, who was repeatedly beaten and raped when housed with the general male prison population.

      1996: In California, Proposition 215 passes; this law allows patients to grow and consume marijuana for medical purposes, provided they have the approval of a doctor.

      1996: Following a series of mass shootings, Australia passes the National Agreement on Firearms; it requires gun purchasers to obtain a permit, restricts the types of weapons available, and includes regulations about how guns must be stored.

      1996: In New York City, the Committee on Drugs and the Law of the Bar Association issues a paper calling for legalization of drugs and detailing the harms caused by current drug laws.

      1997: The United Kingdom introduces its first mandatory sentences for drug offenses in the Crime Sentences Act.

      1999: In New York City, unarmed street vendor Amadou Diallo is killed by police, who mistake him for an armed suspect and fire 41 bullets in a matter of seconds; outrage over this death prompts criticism of aggressive police crime control policies.

      2000: Publication of Actual Innocence, a book by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer, describes 65 cases of convicted felons exonerated by DNA testing, including 15 in which the defendant confessed to the crime.

      2001: In the United Kingdom, the 2001 National Treatment Outcome Study finds that about $5 in criminal justice system and victim services costs is saved for every $1.50 spent on drug treatment.

      2002: New York City begins its stop-and-frisk program, which allows police to stop, question, and search people on the street; although public officials claim the program has reduced crime in the city, opponents point out that most of the people stopped are male and black and Latino and that the practice builds distrust and hatred in those communities.

      2003: In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rights of the defendant (charged with sodomy) were violated, reasoning that citizens are protected against arbitrary government intrusion into their private lives because the right to privacy is fundamental to the concept of liberty.

      2005: In the United States, Congress passes the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Law, which adds restrictions to the sale of common over-the-counter cold remedies such as pseudoephedrine, which can be used as an ingredient to make methamphetamine in a home lab.

      2006: The United Nations forms the Advisory Committee on Genocide Prevention, consisting of experts in fields such as mediation, human rights, and conflict prevention to support the secretary general's special adviser on the prevention of genocide.

      2008: In Massachusetts, recent Irish émigré Phoebe Prince commits suicide after being bullied by her high school classmates; in response, Massachusetts passes stronger antibullying laws.

      2010: In Argentina, a court rules that stun guns (TASERs) may not be used by local police because they are considered instruments of torture.

      2010: Michelle Alexander publishes The New Jim Crow, arguing that mass incarceration of a disproportionate percentage of boys and men of color in the United States constitutes a type of discrimination similar to that experienced during the time when Jim Crow racial segregation laws were in effect.

      2011: Texas passes a bill requiring law enforcement agencies to report the number of untested rape kits held in their evidence rooms; an estimated 20,000 such kits are believed to exist in evidence rooms across the state.

      2011: Ratko Mladic, a Bosnia Serb military leader, is extradited to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity committed during the Yugoslav Wars.

      2012: Some Texas schools begin using name tags with embedded radio frequency technology that allows them to track the whereabouts of students; the primary motivation is not law enforcement but counting the number of students present in school to receive the maximum possible state funding.

      2012: In October, the Boy Scouts of America released of 1,200 files detailing child sex abuse accusations within the organization between 1965 and 1985.

      2013: In March, Texas Justice Wallace Jefferson calls for a commission to investigate wrongful convictions, noting that the state leads all others in prisoners released due to the results of DNA tests.

      2013: In April, Canadian teenager Rehtaeh Parsons commits suicide after she was sexually assaulted and photos of her assault were widely circulated on social media.

      2013: In April, Amnesty International reports that 21 countries carried out executions, with China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United States carrying out the greatest number.

      2013: In May, Efrain Rios Montt is found guilty of genocide against the Mayan people of Guatemala and sentenced to 80 years in prison; however, the verdict is overturned to 10 days.

      2013: In May, France's medical ethics council rules that assisted death should be permitted in limited cases; the decision would be made by a medical team and would apply only to terminal patients under highly specific circumstances.

      2013: In May, the National Board for Safeguarding Children, a watchdog group for the Catholic Church in Ireland, reports that fewer than one in 12 priests accused of child abuse has faced charges.

      2013: On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Windsor, strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which allowed states to refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriages and prevented spouses in same-sex marriages from receiving federal benefits that spouses in opposite-sex marriages are afforded.

      2013: In September, the Pew Research Center releases a report noting that in 2010 (the most recent data available), African American men were six times as likely as white men to be incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails. For white men, the incarceration rate was 678 per 100,000 residents, while for African American men it was 4,347 per 100,000.

      2013: In October, the Death Penalty Information Center releases a report showing that since 1976 over half of the cases leading to execution in the United States were heard in only 2 percent of U.S. counties, and all state executions since 1976 have come from cases in just 15 percent of U.S. counties.

      2014: On March 3, the high-profile case of Oscar Pistorius begins, a South African sports hero accused of murdering his girlfriend. The trial draws attention to what many call a culture of violence against women in the country, as well as the unequal operations of the justice system. For instance, while most defendants accused of murder are incarcerated while awaiting trial, Pistorius is allowed to remain in his home.

      2014: On June 11, Dr. John L. Garland files a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Montgomery, Alabama, against Alabama State University. Garland, who is white and Native American, claims that he suffered discrimination at the historically black university based on his race and sexual orientation (he is married to an Alabama State professor, Steven B. Chesbro) and that a faculty search committee discriminated against non–African American applicants.

      2014: On June 19, the five defendants in the Central Park Jogger Case, whose convictions for the 1989 rape and beating of a female jogger in New York City had already been overturned in 2002, accept a settlement of about $40 million for wrongful conviction from the city's law department.

      2014: On August 4, PBS broadcasts the premiere of 15 to Life: Kenneth's Story, a documentary film directed by Nadine Pequeneza. The film draws attention to the case of Kenneth Young, a Florida teenager who, at age 15, received four consecutive life sentences for armed robbery. Besides examining the background of Young's case, the film presents psychological research questioning the wisdom of treating adolescents as adults within the criminal justice system.

      Sarah E.Boslaugh, Kennesaw State University
    • Glossary

      • Actus reus/mens rea: In some ethical systems, two conditions that an act must meet in order to be considered evil: The act itself must be evil (actus reus), and it must be the product of an evil mind (mens rea).
      • Adversarial system of justice: The type of criminal justice system used in the United States in which a trial is conceptualized as a proceeding in which a neutral party (a judge or jury) is presented with information and arguments by the prosecution and the defense supports its perspective or version of the case.
      • Affirmative action: Policies meant to compensate for past discrimination by allowing certain groups of people to be given preference in certain circumstances; for instance, some colleges and universities grant preferences to members of particular social classes or racial and ethnic groups that have historically been underrepresented or have suffered from discrimination.
      • Age invariance theory: A theory of criminal offending that claims that the rate of criminal offending is common across industrialized countries and racial and ethnic groups: Offending increases from early adolescence to the late teenage years and then declines throughout the rest of the individual's life.
      • Alcoholics Anonymous (AA): A self-help organization founded in the United States in 1935 by two recovering alcoholics, Bill Wilson and Dr. Robert Smith; the best-known aspect of AA is its 12-step program that Wilson and Smith created based on principles of the nondenominational Christian organization, the Oxford Group.
      • Anomie/strain theory: A theory of crime that finds its origins in the inability to obtain desired goals by legitimate means; anomie results when a culture strongly values wealth, power, and so on, but the means to achieve those goals are not equally distributed.
      • Applied ethics: The branch of ethics that applies ethical principles to specific situations and issues involved in public and private life.
      • Blue wall of silence: A term describing the unwillingness of members of a police force to speak out against other members, or against the force in general, even in cases of obvious corruption or misbehavior.
      • Broken windows hypothesis: A theory of crime put forth by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in 1982 arguing that criminal activity is associated with signs of disorder, such as broken windows in a building.
      • Child-saving movement: A social movement in the late 19th- and early 20th-century United States that emphasized dealing with the root causes of juvenile delinquency and rehabilitating juvenile offenders rather than punishing them.
      • Chivalric explanation of male/female differences in outcomes: A theory by Otto Pollak that female offenders are treated more leniently than males charged with similar crimes out of a notion of chivalry that regards women as less responsible for their actions; although differences in sentencing have been noted, other explanations are also possible, including the fact that female offenders are often also victims and that female defendants often have a less serious criminal history.
      • Community corrections: A variety of methods for supervising and treating convicts and others who have come afoul of the law while allowing them to live in the community rather than in a prison or other custodial setting; examples of community corrections include halfway houses and house arrest with electronic monitoring.
      • Compassionate release: Releasing someone from prison for medical reasons before he or she has completed their sentence; typically the prisoner must be in the last months of life and must be judged to present no danger to society.
      • Comstock laws: A collective label for U.S. laws banning the dissemination of information deemed obscene, a designation that often included information on birth control and abortion; the first Comstock law was a federal law passed in 1873 with the support of U.S. Postal Inspector Anthony Comstock, and this federal law served as the model for many state laws.
      • Conflict tactics scale (CTS): A standard developed by Murray Straus to measure domestic violence; his theory was that most violence was in fact mutual in nature, with women acting as violently as men.
      • Cooper v. Pate: A 1964 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court establishing that prisoners are guaranteed the right, under the 1871 Civil Rights Act, to practice their religion while imprisoned.
      • Crime pattern theory: A theory of crime put forth by Paul and Patricia Brantingham arguing that crimes usually occur when suitable targets appear in criminals' awareness space, that is, in areas that are familiar to them such as their usual travel routes.
      • Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): A concept coined by C. Ray Jeffery aimed at reducing crime through environmental design based on his theory that criminal behavior is a product of four elements: opportunity, past conditioning, risk, and reinforcement.
      • Date rape: Also called acquaintance rape, a term used in the 1980s and later to describe sexual assaults by people who know each other, as opposed to stranger rape.
      • Demand side approach: An approach to substance abuse that focuses on reducing the demand for a harmful substance rather than trying to control its supply; education and treatment programs are examples of a demand side approach to addiction.
      • Deontological ethical system: An ethical system that judges acts as good or bad due to their inherent nature rather than because of their effects.
      • Deterrence: One of the justifications for criminal penalties, the deterrence justification argues that the knowledge that there is a high probability that sufficient punishment will follow a crime will deter many people from committing that crime.
      • Dirty Harry problem: A situation in police work in which the only apparent way to a desirable goal, such as saving a life or removing a threat to the community, is through illegal or unconstitutional means; the term refers to a 1971 film starring Clint Eastwood as a San Francisco policeman who commits numerous procedural violations in his pursuit of a serial killer.
      • Disease model: An approach to drug addiction and alcoholism that treats the addiction or abuse as a chronic disease rather than as a crime or moral weakness and that emphasizes effective treatment rather than condemnation or incarceration.
      • Diversion: An approach to crime control that emphasizes identifying certain types of criminals, for example, first offenders and those whose only offense is nonviolent, and sending them to treatment and education programs rather than to incarceration.
      • Drug court: A type of court that deals only with drug offenses in order to reduce the burden on the court system and to provide alternatives to incarceration for specific types of offenders; drug courts were instituted in the United States beginning in the 1990s and now exist in every U.S. state.
      • Due process: The principle that people accused of a crime may not be deprived of their liberty or life before certain standards are met; these include that the law be publicly available, that people be notified of their violation, that they have a fair trial and be allowed to defend themselves, and that no punishment be administered until they are found guilty.
      • Duties: Actions that a person is required to perform, according to an ethical system, in order to be considered a good person; for instance, the U.S. legal system considers it the duty of each citizen to tell the truth if called upon to testify during a trial.
      • Elite model of drug laws: A model based in part on Marxist theory that argues that laws prohibiting certain drugs are one among several ways that the powerful members of a society define those with less power as deviant or criminal; one example would be the banning of opium in the United States after it became identified with Chinese immigrants.
      • Emergency Quota Act of 1921: A U.S. federal law placing direct quotas on immigration to America based on national origin; motivations for the law included the perceived threat of radical and anarchist agitators and a possible influx of foreign laborers who would lower wages.
      • Entrapment: Inducing someone to commit a crime he or she was not otherwise predisposed to commit; if established, a person who is entrapped is not liable for an act that would otherwise be a crime.
      • Exchange/social control theory: A theory of domestic violence put forth by Richard Gelles in the 1980s arguing that violence is an option if a member of the family does not fulfill his or her role and there are insufficient controls in place.
      • Exclusionary rule: A principle in U.S. law that evidence obtained by law enforcement officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution (which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure) may not be used to prove guilt in a criminal trial.
      • Family strengthening programs: A type of program developed in the United States in the 1980s and later to prevent delinquency by providing services to families, such as classes in parenting skills, home visitations by nurses to teach caregiving skills, and strategic family therapy programs.
      • Fornication: A term referring to illicit sexual intercourse with the definition of “illicit” being specific to a society; the term derives from the Latin word for brothel.
      • Framingham Eight: A group of women sentenced to manslaughter or second-degree murder between 1986 and 1990 for killing their intimate partners; they were all serving their time in the women's prison in Framingham, Massachusetts, and sought to have their sentences (ranging from eight years to life) commuted or to be paroled on the grounds that they had been abused and should be considered victims of battered woman syndrome.
      • Freedom of Information Act of 1966 (FOIA): A U.S. federal law making it easier for individuals and organizations to get records and other information from government agencies.
      • Furman v. Georgia: A 1972 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that found that the death penalty, as currently applied in the United States, constituted cruel and unusual punishment because the penalty was applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion.
      • Gendered paradigm of offending: A theory by D. J. Steffensmeier and E. Allan that states that different patterns of offending by males and females—for instance, that males are involved in more violent offenses—are based in societal role norms and expectations.
      • Good Samaritan law: A law that protects from retribution people who make reasonable efforts to aid others in need or in peril, for instance, so that someone who helps remove a person from a wrecked car cannot later be sued for injuring them; some Good Samaritan laws also require bystanders to make a reasonable effort to help a person in need or danger.
      • Grass eaters/meat eaters: Terms used during the Knapp Commission investigations of the New York City police force in 1973; grass eaters were passively corrupt, accepting but not seeking bribes, while meat eaters were more actively corrupt, for example, by participating in shakedowns.
      • Harm reduction: An approach to substance use that emphasizes reducing negative consequences (e.g., by providing clean needles for injectable drug users and providing treatment and education) rather than prohibiting use of the substance and incarcerating offenders.
      • Hot-spot policing: A theory of policing that states that crimes cluster predictably in certain areas (hot spots) and times (burning times) and that police resources should be allocated accordingly.
      • Imperfect duties: In ethics, something that is considered good in a general sense but without the exact manner of fulfillment specified; for instance, many ethical systems value generosity toward the less fortunate without specifying exactly how much one should be expected to give or otherwise donate.
      • In re Gault: A 1967 U.S. Supreme Court verdict that established that juveniles had most of the same due process rights as adults, including the right to counsel, to be notified of the charges against them in a timely manner, and to refuse to incriminate themselves.
      • Incapacitation: Used as one of the justifications for incarcerating criminals, the incapacitation argument states that incarcerating criminals removes them from society and thus prevents them from committing further harm.
      • Innocence Project: A project begun in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld to use DNA testing to help exonerate people wrongly convicted of crimes; as of 2013, more than 300 prisoners had been freed through the work of the Innocence Project.
      • Inquisitorial system of justice: A justice system in which the court, rather than remaining impartial, becomes actively engaged in seeking the truth in a case.
      • Judicial waiver: A process in the U.S. court system that allows a judge to determine if a juvenile should be tried in adult court; specific requirements, such as the age and nature of crimes for which judicial waivers may be enacted, vary by state.
      • Just deserts model: One of the models of a criminal justice system, the just deserts model says that criminals should be punished in proportion to the seriousness of their crimes, so each criminal gets his or her just deserts.
      • Knapp Commission: A commission formed to investigate police corruption in New York City; the Knapp Commission began holding public hearings after Frank Serpico, a police officer who reported widespread corruption on the force, was shot during a drug raid in February 1971.
      • Kohlberg's stages of moral development: A theory put forth by the American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg that, as people mature, they move through different stages of moral development, and the stage of an individual can be determined by asking him or her what is the right course of action in a series of hypothetical situations; Kohlberg hypothesized six stages of moral development organized into three stages: preconventional morality, conventional morality, and postconventional morality.
      • Lex salica: A system of retributive justice in which an offender can atone for an offense through alternative means such as payment to the victim or his or her family.
      • Lex talonis: Sometimes called an eye for an eye, a system of retributive justice in which punishment is intended similar in type and quantity to the offense committed.
      • Mala in se: Acts that are judged to be evil in and of themselves, such as murder.
      • Mala prohibita: Acts that are judged to be evil because they are prohibited, such as hunting without a permit.
      • Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act: A U.S. federal law expanding the definition of hate crimes to include a victim's disability, gender, sexual orientation, and perceived sexual orientation; this law was passed in 2009, following two highly publicized murders of a gay man, Matthew Shepard, in Wyoming, and of a black man, James Byrd, Jr., in Texas.
      • Metaethics: The branch of ethics that looks at ethical systems as a whole, considering questions such as whether they are relative or universal and whether they are created by humans or exist independently of human creation.
      • Moral panic: A term devised by Stanley Cohen based on his study of the mods and rockers conflict in the United Kingdom in the 1960s; a moral panic occurs when a group of people or an incident or behavior is defined as a threat to societal values.
      • Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD): A U.S. grassroots organization founded in 1980 by Candace Lightner to publicize the potentially serious consequences of drunk driving and to argue that law enforcement authorities should enforce drunk driving laws more seriously; Lightner's daughter was killed by a drunk driver.
      • Normative ethics: The branch of ethics that describes how people should act toward each other, including their moral duties.
      • Parens patriae: The doctrine that allows the state to intervene and act on behalf of individuals unable to protect themselves, for example, children or insane persons, and to intervene to protect their interests.
      • Paternalism: Efforts to protect people from the consequences of their own behavior, such as laws requiring the use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets.
      • Person in need of supervision (PINS): A category used in the United States to describe a minor whose behavior is out of control or who refuses to attend school; a court may decide that a child who is a PINS may be placed in a foster home, returned home with supervision, placed in a group home, and so on.
      • Plessy v. Ferguson: A U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing that racial segregation was legal under the separate-but-equal doctrine; delivered in 1896, this decision referred to racial segregation on railroads but was applied to many other public accommodations, including schools and restaurants.
      • Probation: A form of correctional treatment in which a person is allowed to live in the community but is supervised by a probation officer and may be subject to certain restrictions.
      • Professional ethics: The branch of applied ethics that specifies how persons in a specific profession, such as criminal justice or the law, should act.
      • Racial profiling: Using broad criteria, such as race or age, as reasons to make an individual the focus of law enforcement activity; because, in the United States, racial profiling has resulted in disproportionate police contact by members of minority groups, some believe the practice is discriminatory, while others defend it as the best use of scarce police resources.
      • Rational choice theory: A theory of crime put forth by Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke stating that criminal offenders calculate the risks and rewards of any illicit act so that a crime that carries little risk and requires little effort while offering a high benefit is likely to occur, while one in which the risk or effort is greater than the expected benefit will probably not occur.
      • Rehabilitation: The rehabilitation model states that the purpose of the criminal justice system should be to rehabilitate prisoners to become useful members of society.
      • Restorative justice: An approach to justice that is focused less on retribution or abstract principles and more on meeting the needs of the victim and the perpetrator of a crime; often, part of restorative justice involves the perpetrator taking responsibility and making amends for his or her action.
      • Rotten apple argument: An argument used to defend an institution, such as a police force, when some individuals within the institution are found to be corrupt; the argument is that those corrupt individuals were a few rotten apples who should be removed from the institution and punished but that the institution itself is still sound.
      • Routine Activities Theory: A theory of crime put forth by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson that three elements are required for a crime to take place: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and no capable guardians present.
      • Rule of double effect: A method to determine the ethics of an action that would end in a result that would normally be avoided, for example, giving a high dose of a painkilling drug to a terminal patient who is in extreme pain knowing that the patient's death will result.
      • Scared straight: A type of juvenile delinquency prevention program that involves bringing juveniles (usually teenagers) into an adult prison and having a group of adult prisoners tell them what prison life is really like; the first scared straight program began in the Rahway State Prison in New Jersey in 1976, and similar programs have sprung up across the United States, although there is a lack of evidence supporting claims that these programs reduce delinquency.
      • Social Contract Theory: A theory put forth by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651) that individuals in a society voluntarily give up some of their freedom in order to live in peace with others; John Locke further refined this theory in his Treatise of Government (1689), stating that individuals also have a contract with their society to obey its rules and in turn to be protected from those who would violate those rules.
      • Social disorganization theory: A theory advanced in the 1940s by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay in response to their observations that low-income areas in Chicago tended to have high crime rates, without regard to the racial and ethnic composition of the area; they suggested that community structure, more than a series of individual choices, plays a dominant role in the crime rate.
      • Stanford prison experiment: A study conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo, Curtis Banks, and Craig Haney in which volunteer college students (all male) were randomly assigned to act as prisoners or guards in a prison-like situation; the experiment was halted after six days after the students began to act in manners similar to real prisoners and guards.
      • Status offense: A crime, such as truancy or underage drinking, that is only prohibited due to facts about the individual's status, such as his or her age.
      • Supererogatory: An act that is good to perform but is not a required duty, according to an ethical system; for instance, a private citizen is not required to risk his or her life to try to save someone else's life but would be commended for doing so.
      • Teleological ethical system: An system that judges an act as good or bad based on its consequences.
      • Theological system of justice: A system of justice, usually associated with a theocracy, in which the law is based on divine texts, revelation, or religion; the theological system is used in some Middle Eastern and African countries today, based on sharia, that is, Islamic law, and was also used in the Middle Ages in Europe, based on the teachings of the Catholic Church.
      • Zero tolerance: A policy that imposes automatic penalties for violating rules, for instance, for fighting or bringing a weapon to school or for using illicit drugs in any quantity.
      Sarah E.Boslaugh, Kennesaw State University

      Resource Guide

      Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press, 2010.
      Arrigo, Bruce A., Heather Y.Bersot, and Brian G.Sellers. The Ethics of Total Confinement: A Critique of Madness, Citizenship, and Social Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372212.001.0001
      Arthur, Raymond:Young Offenders and the Law: How the Law Responds to Youth Offending. New York: Routledge, 2010.
      Baker, Dennis J.The Right Not to Be Criminalized: Demarcating Criminal Law's Authority. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011.
      Ball, Hoard:At Liberty to Die: The Battle for Death With Dignity in America. New York: New York University Press, 2012.
      Bartlett, Francesca, Reid Mortensen, and KieranTranter, eds. Alternative Perspectives on Lawyers and Legal Ethics: Reimagining the Profession. New York: Routledge, 2011.
      Beck, Elizabeth, Nancy P. Kropf, and Pamela BlumeLeonard, eds. Social Work and Restorative Justice: Skills for Dialogue, Peacemaking, and Reconciliation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
      Bouza, Anthony V.Police Unbound: Corruption, Abuse, and Heroism by the Boys in Blue. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001.
      Braswell, Michael, JoycelynPollock, and ScottBraswell. Morality Stories: Dilemmas in Ethics, Crime and Justice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2007.
      Brayford, Jo, FrancisCowe, and JohnEering, eds. Sex Offenders: Punish, Help, Change or Control? Theory, Policy and Practice Observed. New York: Routledge, 2012.
      Chesney-Lind, Meda, and Randall G.Shelden. Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice.
      3rd ed.
      Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2004.
      Choo, Kyung-Seok. Gangs and Immigrant Youth. New York: LFB Scholarly, 2007.
      Collins, Peter. Gambling and the Public Interest. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.
      Davis, Angela Y.Are Prisons Obsolete?New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003.
      Decker, Scott H., ed. Policing Gangs and Youth Violence. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2003.
      Deflem, Matieu, ed. Surveillance and Governance: Crime Control and Beyond. Bingley, UK: Emerald/JAI, 2008.
      Eisner, Alan. Gates of Injustice: The Crisis in America's Prisons. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2004.
      Erez, Edna, MichaelKilchling, and Jo-AnneWemmers. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Victim Participation in Justice: International Perspectives. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2011.
      Eskidge, William N., Jr.Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America, 1861–2003. New York: Viking, 2008.
      Fabiansson, Charlotte. Pathways to Excessive Gambling: A Societal Perspective on Youth and Adult Gambling Pursuits. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010.
      Flexon, Jamie L.Racial Disparities in Capital Sentencing: Prejudice and Discrimination in the Jury Room. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly, 2012.
      Foerstel, Herbert N.The Patriot Act: A Documentary and Reference Guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008.
      Fraser, David. Law After Auschwitz: Towards a Jurisprudence of the Holocaust. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2005.
      Freeman, Michael, ed. Law and Childhood Studies: Current Legal Issues 2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
      French, Laurence. Native American Justice. Chicago: Burham, 2003.
      Futamura, Madoka. War Crimes Tribunals and Transitional Justice: The Tokyo Trial and the Nuremburg Legacy. New York: Routledge, 2008.
      Garcia, Vanessa and PatrickMcManimon. Gendered Justice: Intimate Partner Violence and the Criminal Justice System. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
      Gido, Rosemary L. and Lanette P.Dailey, eds. Women's Mental Health Issues Across the Criminal Justice System. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009.
      Gottschalk, Marie. The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
      Greenberg, Karen J., ed. The Torture Debate in America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
      Greenwald, Glenn. With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. New York: Henry Holt., 2011.
      Griffiths, John, HeleenWeyers, and MauriceAdams. Euthanasia and Law in Europe. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2008.
      Harrison, Karen and BernadetteRainey, eds. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Legal and Ethical Aspects of Sex Offender Treatment and Management. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118314876
      Heberle, Renée J. and VictoriaGrace. Theorizing Sexual Violence. New York: Routledge, 2009.
      Holmgren, Margaret Reed. Forgiveness and Retribution: Responding to Wrongdoing. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139086165
      Jackson, Emily. Debating Euthanasia. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2012.
      Jacobons, Michael. Downsizing Prisons: How to Reduce Crime and End Mass Incarceration. New York: New York University Press, 2005.
      Johnson, Robert. Hard Time: Understanding and Reforming the Prison.
      3rd ed.
      Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2002.
      Johnston, Gerry and Daniel W.Van Ness, eds. Handbook of Restorative Justice. Portland, OR: Willan, 2007.
      Joy, Peter and Kevin C.McMunigal. Do No Wrong: Ethics for Prosecutors and Defenders. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2009.
      Kleinig, John and James P.Levine, eds. Jury Ethics: Juror Conduct and Jury Dynamics. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2006.
      Kramer, Matthew H.The Ethics of Capital Punishment: A Philosophical Investigation of Evil and Its Consequences. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199642182.001.0001
      Krammer, Arnold. War Crimes, Genocide, and the Law: A Guide to the Issues. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2010.
      Kupchi, Aaron. Judging Juveniles: Prosecuting Adolescents in Adult and Juvenile Courts. New York: New York University Press, 2006.
      La Haye, Eve. War Crimes in Internal Armed Conflicts. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495151
      Letschert, Rianne and Janvan Dijk, eds. The New Faces of Victimhood: Globalization, Transnational Crimes and Victim Rights. New York: Springer, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9020-1
      Lippke, Richard L.The Ethics of Plea Bargaining. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199641468.001.0001
      Maga, Timothy P.Judgment at Tokyo: The Japanese War Crimes Trial. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2001.
      Mays, G. Larry and RickRuddell. Do the Crime, Do the Time: Juvenile Criminals and Adult Justice in the American Court System. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2012.
      McCoy, Alfred W.Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2012.
      Meloy, Michelle L. and Susan L.Miller. The Victimization of Women: Law, Policies, and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
      Merry, Sally Engle. Gender Violence: A Cultural Perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
      Moore, Leonard N.Black Rage in New Orleans: Police Brutality and African American Activism From World War II to Hurricane Katrina. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2010.
      Myers, David L.Boys Among Men: Trying and Sentencing Juveniles as Adults. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005.
      National Institute of Justice. Correctional Boot Camps: Lessons from a Decade of Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2003.
      Nussbaum, Martha C.From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
      Pallitto, Robert M., ed. Torture and State Violence in the United States: A Short Documentary History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.
      Pope, Nicole. Honor Killing in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137012661
      Provine, Doris Marie. Unequal Under the Law: Race in the War on Drugs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226684789.001.0001
      Ptacek, James, ed. Restorative Justice and Violence Against Women. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
      Raines, Julie B.Ethics in Policing: Misconduct and Integrity. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2010.
      Rice, Stephen K. and Michael D.White, eds. Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings. New York: New York University Press, 2010.
      Ryberg, Jesper. The Ethics of Proportionate Punishment: A Critical Investigation. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
      Sarat, Austin, ed. Merciful Judgments and Contemporary Society: Legal Problems, Legal Possibilities. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
      Shuy, Roger W.The Language of Sexual Misconduct Cases. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199926961.001.0001
      Smith, Cary Stacy. The Patriot Act: Issues and Controversies. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 2010.
      Solinger, Rickie, et al. Interrupted Life: Experiences of Incarcerated Women in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.
      Springer, David W. and Albert R.Roberts, eds. Handbook of Forensic Mental Gealth With Victims and Offenders: Assessment, Treatment, and Research. New York: Springer, 2007.
      St. Germain, Tonia and SusanDewey, eds. Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: International Law, Local Responses. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press, 2012.
      Stritzke, Werner G. K., et al. Terrorism and Torture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581199
      Sumner, L. W.Assisted Death: A Study in Ethics and Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199607983.001.0001
      Toch, Hans and KennethAdams. Acting Out: Maladaptive Behavior in Confinement. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10494-000
      Tonry, Michael, ed. The Future of Imprisonment. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
      Tyson, Danielle. Sex, Culpability, and the Defense of Provocation. New York: Routledge, 2013.
      Waldron, Jeremy. Torture, Terror, and TradeOffs: Philosophy for the White House. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
      Walzer, Michael. Arguing About War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004.
      Wilcock, Rachel, RayBull, and RebeccaMilne. Witness Identification in Criminal Cases: Psychology and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
      Williams, Brian, ed. Reparation and Victim-Focused Social Work. Philadelphia: J. Kingsley, 2002.
      Williams, Christopher R. and Bruce A.Arrigo. Ethics, Crime, and Criminal Justice.
      2nd ed.
      Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2012.
      Wolf, Willem-Jan van der, ed. War Crimes and International Criminal Law. The Hague, Netherlands: International Courts Association, 2010.
      Yorke, Jon, ed. The Right to Life and the Value of Life: Orientations in Law, Politics, and Ethics. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010.
      Advances in Law and Child Development
      Amnesty International
      Bulletin on Economic Crime Enforcement
      Child Advocacy and Protection
      Computer Crime and Technology in Law
      Computer Fraud and Security Bulletin
      Contemporary Justice Review
      Crime and Justice: A Review of Research
      Crime and Justice International
      Criminal Behavior and Mental Health
      Criminal Justice and Behavior
      Criminal Justice Ethics
      Criminology Review Yearbook
      Critical Criminology
      Current Issues in Criminal Justice
      Essex Human Rights Review
      Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
      Ethics and Behavior
      Global Journal on Human Rights Law
      Harvard Human Rights Journal
      Human Rights Law Journal
      Human Rights Law Review
      Human Rights Watch World Report
      Indigenous Affairs
      International Criminal Justice Review
      International Journal of Forensic Mental Health
      International Journal of Police Science and Management
      International Journal on Minority and Group Rights International Perspectives in Victimology
      Journal for Juvenile Justice Services
      Journal of Applied Philosophy
      Journal of Criminal Justice
      Journal of Experimental Criminology
      Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology
      Journal of International Criminal Justice
      Journal of Law and Social Change
      Journal of Poverty and Social Justice
      Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
      JQ: Justice Quarterly
      Justice Policy Journal
      Juvenile and Family Court Journal
      Law and Ethics of Human Rights
      Law and Policy
      Law and Policy Quarterly
      LGD: Law, Social Justice and Global Development
      Netherlands Yearbook of International Law
      Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy
      Online Journal of Ethics
      Open Ethics Journal
      Police Practice and Research
      Policing: An International Journal of Police
      Strategies and Management
      Psychiatry, Psychology and Law
      Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict and World Order
      Studies in Social Justice
      UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy
      Victims and Offenders
      Violence and Victims
      War Crimes, Genocide & Crimes Against Humanity
      Western Criminology Review
      Whittier Journal of Child and Family
      Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal
      Web Sites
      The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences http://www.acjs.org/pubs/167_664_2906.cfm
      The American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org
      American Correctional Association Code of Ethics
      Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org
      Child Abuse and Neglect (Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/focus-areas/child-abuse-neglect
      The Cox Center War Crimes Research Portal http://law.case.edu/war-crimes-research-portal
      The Death Penalty Information Center http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
      European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction: Drug Policy and Law http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/policy-and-law
      Federal Bureau of Investigation: Cyber Crime http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber
      Federal Bureau of Investigation: Hate Crimes http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes
      Human Rights Watch: Torture http://www.hrw.org/topic/torture
      The Innocence Project http://www.innocenceproject.org
      The International Center for Transitional Justice http://ictj.org/about/transitional-justice
      International Corrections and Prisons Association: Code of Ethical Conduct http://www.icpa.ca/pg_ethics.php
      John Jay College: The Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics http://johnjayresearch.org/cje
      National Conference of State Legislatures: Defining Marriage: Defense of Marriage Acts and Same-Sex Marriage Laws http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx
      National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws http://norml.org
      New York University Sport and Society Program http://nyusportsandsociety.org/tag/ncaa
      Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention http://www.ojjdp.gov
      The Prison Policy Initiative http://www.prisonpolicy.org
      Restorative Justice Online http://www.restorativejustice.org
      United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Human Trafficking http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/what-is-human-trafficking.html
      U.S. Department of Justice: Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/subjectareas/childporn.html
      U.S. Office of Justice Programs: Victim Services http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/victimservices.htm
      SarahBoslaugh, Kennesaw State University

      Appendix A: Federal Bureau of Investigation Law Enforcement Bulletin: “Focus on Ethics”

      Focus on Ethics: Rethinking Ethics in Law Enforcement
      By Brian D.Fitch Ph.D.

      “To know the good is to do the good”


      Law enforcement agencies strive to recruit, hire, and train only those who demonstrate strong moral values before they enter the academy. Yet, even departments' best efforts will not prevent instances of police misconduct from garnering attention. Such incidents undermine public trust, jeopardize important investigations, and expose agencies to considerable liability. Many departments respond to these events by adopting formal ethics training programs that focus on character development, which Aristotle referred to as virtue ethics.2 Like the Socrates quote, Aristotle's philosophy teaches that as conduct reflects officers' character and, thus, the various ways that they respond to moral dilemmas, this illustrates fundamental differences in their personal values.

      Virtue ethics relies on dispositional qualities, such as personality traits, values, or attitudes, to explain deviant behavior. For example, if officers fabricate evidence to obtain search warrants, their actions reflect their dishonest character. According to this view, character predisposes officers to act certain ways, regardless of the situation. An honest officer feels obligated to tell the truth, while a dishonest one feels inclined to steal. Similarly, a brave officer strives to act courageously, whereas a coward recoils at danger. In either case, officers possess long-term, stable dispositions, and they behave in highly predictable ways.

      Unfortunately, decades of research contradict the theory that people differ strongly in their basic character; nearly everyone holds virtuous at the abstract level, and most individuals endorse a similar set of high-level moral values.3 For example, studies have found that delinquent juveniles subscribe to the same set of conceptual values as their less troubled counterparts, despite their unruly behavior—which suggests that lofty moral values often matter much less than what is commonly believed.4

      Proponents of virtue ethics argue that certain officers misbehave because they lack character. These “bad apples” managed to “slip through the cracks” despite their unethical values. They argue that police abuse occurs in isolated incidents and involves a few immoral opportunists who were corrupt before they became officers. Unfortunately, this interpretation fails to explain how otherwise exemplary officers with no prior history of wrongdoing, many of whom are sterling role models in their families, churches, and communities, can become involved in misconduct.

      Certainly, officers' character, or virtue ethics, still are crucial to their success. However, this narrow view concentrates almost exclusively on moral values and thus ignores the situational and psychological factors that influence behavior. Mitigating the risk for officer misconduct requires a more complete understanding of human behavior and motivation. This article offers law enforcement professionals a new way to think about misconduct. This explanation emphasizes moral development, social learning, and cognitive rationalization and suggests tactics to foster a culture of ethics in any agency.

      Moral Development

      Before officers can behave ethically, they must recognize the morals at stake in the situation, understand the principles and values involved, and choose the proper course of action.5 To explain this reasoning process, psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg proposed perhaps the most influential theory of moral development. He believed that moral development proceeds along three highly predictable, invariant levels, termed preconventional, conventional, and postconventional, with each one organized into two distinct stages.6 According to Kohlberg, at each stage, people employ increasingly sophisticated explanations and problem-solving strategies to address moral dilemmas.

      At the simplest level of reasoning, the preconventional, external consequences guide individuals' sense of right and wrong—punishment in stage one and self-interest in stage two. At this point, they possess no internalized values or rules to guide behavior.

      As people progress to the conventional level, they determine right and wrong based on social expectations (stage three) and the desire to maintain social order by following laws and showing respect for authority (stage four). They determine moral reasoning through conformity to social rules, norms, and expectations.

      Finally, at the postconventional level, people judge morality based on the desire to protect the basic liberties of all members of society. In stage five, individuals only uphold legal principles that promote fairness, justice, and equity; by stage six, they follow self-selected ethical and moral principles that encourage respect for human life, equality, and human dignity. If these internal principles conflict with societal laws, the self-chosen principles reign supreme.

      While officers' stages of moral development obviously impact their on-the-job behavior, most adults determine proper behavior, as well as the moral implications of those actions, after they observe other group members. This especially rings true in unfamiliar or ambiguous circumstances, which often describes the situation of newly assigned officers.

      In the 1960s, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram demonstrated how external factors influence moral judgment in a series of experiments on obedience.7 The experiment involved teams of three people: an experimenter, a “learner,” and a teacher (the only actual subject of the experiment). The experimenter instructed the teacher to quiz the learner, a confederate of the researcher, on a list of word pairs. Each time the learner answered incorrectly, the teacher administered shocks from what they thought was an electroshock generator. The learner, located in another room and hidden from view, pretended to express increasing discomfort, even banging on the walls and reminding the teacher of a “preexisting heart condition.” As the shocks approached 135 volts, many of the teachers began to question the experiment. Almost invariably, the subjects (teachers) looked to the experimenter for ethical guidance. When the experimenter instructed the teachers to persist, the majority of subjects delivered shocks to the maximum level of 450 volts despite the learner's desperate pleas.

      Milgram's findings were unsettling, to say the least. However, a set of follow-up experiments designed to test a second person's influence on participants' behavior yielded very different results. When the second “teacher” (another confederate of Milgram) declined to administer shocks past 210 volts, the majority of experimental subjects also refused. This result implies that the mere presence of a second person sufficed to motivate the subjects to “vote their conscience” (i.e., to follow their best judgment and stop the experiment).

      Despite the forecast of a group of psychiatrists who predicted that only 1 percent of subjects would administer the maximum shock of 450 volts, 2/3 of subjects (65 percent) in the original set of trials delivered the maximum shock. During the follow-up experiments, however, when a second teacher refused to proceed past 210 volts, only 10 percent of the subjects continued to the maximum level of 450 volts. Milgram concluded that the presence of an authority figure (experimenter) significantly influenced the teachers' decisions to continue the shocks in the first set of experiments; however, the mere presence of another conscientious observer overcame those effects.

      Milgram's findings provide strong evidence for the theory that most people look to others for moral guidance, especially in unfamiliar situations. For law enforcement leaders, the lesson is clear—with ethics, most officers need to be led. Additionally, the formal and informal leaders who provide this guidance play a critical role in officers' moral development and conduct.

      Social Learning

      Most officers enter law enforcement with minimal experience in the field or in handling the moral dilemmas that officers typically encounter. They learn how to perform their jobs, as well as recognize the organizational norms, values, and culture, from their peers and supervisors. While supervisors provide direct, formal reinforcement, officers' peers offer friendship and informal rewards that, in many cases, hold greater influence than official recognition from the agency. Also, police often spend considerable time socializing with other officers, both on and off the job. This sense of community drives officers to adopt the behaviors, values, and attitudes of the group in order to gain acceptance.

      Because behavior results from consequences, law enforcement officers learn about acceptable and unacceptable practices through a consistent, timely, and meaningful system of reward and punishment. Officers likely will repeat behaviors that lead to reinforcing outcomes, while they rarely will duplicate behaviors that lead to punishment—an occurrence referred to as the Law of Effect.8 If officers receive positive reinforcement after they perform certain actions, even illegal ones, they likely will behave similarly in the future despite organizational policies or prohibitions.

      Officers observe how other group members receive recognition, both formally by the organization and informally by their peers, to learn what constitutes appropriate behavior in a process known as vicarious learning.9 Psychologists discovered that the most effective vicarious learning models possess specific attributes.

      • Competence: Most police officers take great pride in the ability to perform their duties with minimal supervision, even in demanding circumstances. Therefore, they model the behavior of the most competent and experienced officers.
      • Status: Typically, officers respect those with impressive organizational status. In law enforcement, though, an individual may hold status not within the larger agency, but only among an informal group or specialized unit. Informal peer leaders shape the behavior of less experienced officers who aspire to a similarly prominent position.
      • Power: Those who can reward or punish an officer's performance, either formally or informally, tend to wield the most influence. Like recognition, power can be either formal or informal, and sometimes those with unofficial power hold significantly more sway than official organizational policies or formal supervision.

      These informal power networks can exacerbate unethical behavior by transmitting a set of shared values, beliefs, and norms that depart from agency policy. Research finds that officers engage in certain forms of conduct to secure and maintain peer-group approval.10 If officers remain unsure about the legality or morality of a particular behavior, they look to the peer group for assurance, just as Milgram's subjects relied on the experimenter for ethical guidance. When officers engage in immoral conduct, they often justify their actions through the values and beliefs of the peer group.

      Cognitive Rationalizations

      Regardless of external influences, most individuals first convince themselves of the morality of their actions. Unethical officers might employ cognitive rationalizations, mental and linguistic strategies that sanitize or neutralize deviant behavior, to make their actions appear socially acceptable. Interestingly, research on white-collar crime indicates that corrupt individuals do not view themselves as such, and they explain their behaviors as part of normal, acceptable business practices. Similar studies of law enforcement found that police officers define misconduct in very narrow terms, while citizens define it more broadly. Officers may employ specific strategies to nullify their negative feelings or regrets about misconduct.11

      • Denial of victim: With this strategy, officers argue that the violated party deserved to be victimized. For example, an officer who steals cash from a suspected drug dealer during a search argues that the dealer holds no entitlement to the money because he earned it illegitimately.
      • Denial of responsibility: Police convince themselves that they acted improperly because no other options existed. The circumstances may involve peer pressure, an unethical supervisor, or an environment where “everyone else was doing it.” These officers view themselves as victims with no real choice but to participate in the misconduct.
      • Denial of injury: In this form of rationalization, guilty parties convince themselves that their actions did not harm anybody and, thus, were not really corrupt. For example, officers might feel tempted to justify stealing profits from a drug dealer when the dealer did not rightfully earn the money, and it would be difficult to identify an aggrieved party. Police neutralize this behavior by comparing their actions to the crimes of the drug dealer.
      • Social weighting: When relying on this form of explanation, corrupt police make selective social comparisons to justify their unethical conduct. For instance, officers who falsify a police report to convict a robbery suspect might minimize their participation in the misconduct and vilify a coworker who “lies all the time on reports.”
      • Moral justification: At times, people claim that they must break certain rules to achieve a more important goal. For example, officers may violate strict search and seizure laws to arrest a pedophile because, given the high stakes of the crime, they believe that the ends justify the means. Officers with this attitude feel that if the laws prevent them from effectively executing their job, then they must bend the rules or make an exception to arrest a dangerous felon. Unlike other rationalizations, moral justification not only excuses deviant conduct but can actually glorify such acts in the name of justice. Officers often convince themselves that their jobs demand such actions for the “greater good.”

      In law enforcement, officers can invoke these rationalizations either prospectively (before the corrupt act) to forestall guilt and resistance or retrospectively (after the misconduct) to erase any regrets. Law enforcement leaders must remain alert to the presence of rationalization in their agency's culture because rationalization alters the definition of unethical conduct to make immoral behavior seem socially acceptable.

      Culture of Ethics

      Law enforcement leaders must create a culture of ethics within their agency. First, the organization must ascribe to a mission statement and a clear set of operating values that represent more than hollow promises, but, rather, establish standards for employees' behavior at all levels and illustrate that ethics play a crucial role in an officer's success in the agency.12 If managers neglect ethics or, even worse, behave poorly themselves, this demonstrates to officers that neither the agency nor its leaders care about proper conduct. Strong moral behavior at all levels sends officers a clear, consistent message that the agency will not tolerate inappropriate behavior. Next, supervisors should work diligently to reward appropriate conduct and correct inappropriate behavior.13 Because informal leaders significantly impact officers' attitudes and behaviors, formal managers must confront ethical problems immediately and penalize immoral conduct quickly and appropriately. For an effective culture of ethics, officers must observe that ethical officers advance their careers and immoral ones receive punishment.

      Often, supervisors struggle to accept that members of their agency behave unethically. Even when they openly acknowledge wrongdoing, senior management can blame the misconduct on rogue officers and argue that they misrepresent the larger agency. Law enforcement leaders must accept the possibility of pervasive unethical conduct and quickly address such incidents.

      Finally, law enforcement agencies should frequently discuss ethics in the workplace.14 Like physical fitness, ethical fitness requires constant practice. Case studies provide an effective tool for this continual reinforcement; they allow officers to test their moral reasoning skills, discuss their views, and share their experiences in a safe environment.

      Supervisors who facilitate case studies should select relevant, real-world examples that challenge officers to think critically. The facilitator should not recite a lengthy, theoretical monologue on the importance of ethics, but, rather, challenge students on key issues, promote discussion, and examine the consequences of different actions. Depending on the topic, the facilitator can showcase video documentaries, news stories, or fictional examples. Ultimately, an honest exchange of information and ideas stimulates moral development and proper ethical conduct.


      Law enforcement officers must safeguard the public's trust to perform their jobs effectively. Because ethical conduct greatly impacts public trust, law enforcement agencies must closely examine their policies, reward systems, and training to ensure that their agency fosters a culture of firm ethical values. Instead of expecting that officers already possess a firmly engrained set of values (good or bad) when they enter the police force, managers must remember that all officers have the potential to act virtuously; but, when the work environment allows misbehavior either implicitly or explicitly, the potential for abuse skyrockets. Theognis of Megara, another ancient Greek philosopher, said, “Fairly examined, truly understood, no man is wholly bad, nor wholly good.”15 Police officers are not exempt from this idea. Effective law enforcement leaders bring out the best in their staff by ensuring that officers not only understand the right thing to do but actually do it.


      1 Steven M. Cahn. Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000).

      2 George Bragues. “Seek the Good Life, Not Money: The Aristotelian Approach to Business Ethics,” Journal of Business Ethics 67 (2006): 341–57.

      3 Lee D. Ross and Richard E. Nisbett, The Person and the Situation: Perspectives in Social Psychology (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1991).

      4 Alexander H. Jordan and Benoit Monin, “From Sucker to Saint: Moralization in Response to Self-Threat,” Psychological Science 8 (2008): 809-15.

      5 Rushworth M. Kidder, How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living (New York, NY: Harper, 1995).

      6 William Crain, Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications, 4th ed. (New York, NY: Prentice Hall, 2000).

      7 Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1975).

      8 John R. Anderson, Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000).

      9 Albert Bandura, “Social Cognitive Theory,” in Annals of Child Development. Vol. 6: Six Theories of Child Development, ed. R. Vasta (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1989), 1-60.

      10 Allison T. Chappell and Alex R. Piquero, “Applying Social Learning Theory to Police Misconduct,” Deviant Behavior 25 (2004): 89-108.

      11 Blake E. Ashforth and Vikas Anand, “The Normalization of Corruption in Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior, ed. R.M. Kramer and B.M. Staw 25 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2003), 1–52.

      12 Gary R. Weaver, “Ethics and Employees: Making the Connection,” Academy of Management Executive 18 (2004): 121–125.

      13 James C. Wimbush and Jon M. Shepard, “Toward an Understanding of Ethical Climate: Its Relationship to Ethical Behavior and Supervisory Influence,” Journal of Business Ethics 13 (1994): 637–647.

      14 Brian Fitch, “Principle-Based Decision Making,” Law and Order 56 (2008): 64–70.

      15 J. Banks, trans., The Works Of Hesiod, Callimachus and Theognis (London, UK: Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007): 457.

      Source: The F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin, http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/october-2011/focus-on-ethics (Accessed June 2014).

      Appendix B: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Capital Punishment, 2012 – Statistical Tables”

      Capital Punishment, 2010 – Statistical Tables
      Tracy L.Snell, BJS Statistician

      At yearend 2010, 36 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons held 3,158 inmates under sentence of death, 15 fewer inmates than at yearend 2009. This represents the tenth consecutive year that the number of inmates under sentence of death has decreased.

      Four States (California, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania) held more than half of all inmates on death row as of December 31, 2010. The Federal Bureau of Prisons held 58 inmates on death row.

      Of those under sentence of death at yearend, 55% were white and 42% were black. The 388 Hispanic inmates under sentence of death accounted for 14% of inmates with a known ethnicity. Ninety-eight percent of inmates under sentence of death were male, and 2% were female. The race and gender of those under sentence of death has remained relatively unchanged since 2000.

      During 2010, 119 inmates were removed from under sentence: 46 were executed, 20 died by means other than execution, and 53 were removed as a result of sentences or convictions overturned or commutations of sentences. A total of 104 inmates were received under sentence of death during 2010, representing the smallest number of admissions since 1973 when 44 persons were admitted.

      During 2010, 22 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons received 104 prisoners under sentence of death. Admissions in California (24), Florida (14), Arizona (9), and Texas (8) accounted for 53% of those sentenced to death in 2010.

      Twelve states executed 46 inmates during 2010, 6 fewer inmates than in 2009. The inmates executed in 2010 had been under sentence of death an average of 14 years and 10 months, which was 9 months longer than those executed in 2009.

      Of the 7,879 people under sentence of death between 1977 and 2010, 16% had been executed, 6% died by causes other than execution, and 39% received other dispositions.*

      Figure 1 Number of persons executed in the United States, 1930–2010

      Figure 2 Number of persons under sentence of death, 1953–2010

      Four states revised capital statutes in 2010

      At yearend 2010, the death penalty was authorized by 36 states and the federal government (table 1). While New Mexico repealed the death penalty in 2009 (Laws 2009, ch. 11 § 5), the repeal was not retroactive. As of December 31, 2010, New Mexico held two men under previously imposed death sentences, and one person was awaiting sentencing with the state seeking the death penalty.

      During 2010, four states revised statutory provisions relating to the death penalty:

      South Carolina—Amended the list of aggravating factors to include murder committed while in the commission of trafficking in persons (§ 16-3-20(c)(a)(1)(c)), effective June 11, 2010.

      Tennessee—Added as an aggravating circumstance the intentional murder of a pregnant woman when it was known by the defendant that the victim was pregnant (Tenn. Code Ann § 39-13-204(i)(16)), effective July 1, 2010.

      Utah—Revised the minimum sentence required in capital felony cases in which the jury does not reach a unanimous decision to impose a death sentence. The minimum sentence was increased from an indeterminate sentence of 20 years to life to an indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life (Utah Code Ann § 76-3-207 and § 76-5-202), effective May 11, 2010.

      Virginia—Revised the definition of capital murder to include fire marshals, auxiliary police officers, and auxiliary deputy sheriffs among law enforcement officers killed while performing official duties (Va Code § 18.2-31(6)), effective July 1, 2010.

      Lethal injection was authorized by all states with capital statutes

      As of December 31, 2010, all 36 states with death penalty statutes authorized lethal injection as a method of execution (table 2).

      In addition to lethal injection, 16 states authorized an alternative method of execution. Nine states authorized electrocution; three states, lethal gas; three states, hanging; and two states, firing squad.

      For states that authorize multiple methods of execution, the method is generally selected by the condemned prisoner. Five of the 16 states stipulated which method must be used depending on either the date of the offense or sentencing. One state authorized hanging only if lethal injection could not be given. Five states authorized alternative methods if lethal injection is ruled to be unconstitutional: one authorized hanging, one state authorized electrocution, one authorized electrocution or firing squad, one authorized firing squad, and one authorized lethal gas.

      The method of execution of federal prisoners is lethal injection, pursuant to 28 CFR, Part 26. For offenses under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the method is that of the state in which the conviction took place (18 U.S.C. 3596).


      Capital punishment information is collected annually as part of the National Prisoner Statistics program (NPS-8). This data series is collected in two parts: data on persons under sentence of death are obtained from the department of corrections in each jurisdiction currently authorizing capital punishment, and information on the status of death penalty statutes is obtained from the Office of the Attorney General in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government. Data collection forms are available on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov.

      NPS-8 covers all persons under sentence of death at any time during the year who were held in a state or federal nonmilitary correctional facility. Included are capital offenders transferred from prison to mental hospitals and those who may have escaped from custody. Excluded are persons whose death sentences have been overturned by the court, regardless of their current incarceration status.

      The statistics reported in this report may differ from data collected by other organizations for a variety of reasons: (1) NPS-8 adds inmates to the population under sentence of death not at sentencing but at the time they are admitted to a state or federal correctional facility; (2) if inmates entered prison under a death sentence or were reported as being relieved of a death sentence in one year but the court had acted in the previous year, the counts are adjusted to reflect the dates of court decisions (See note on table 4 for the affected jurisdictions.); and (3) NPS-8 counts are always for the last day of the calendar year and will differ from counts for more recent periods.

      All data in this report have been reviewed for accuracy by the data providers in each jurisdiction prior to publication.

      2010 Statistical Tables
      • TABLE 1. Capital offenses, by state, 2010
      • TABLE 2. Method of execution, by state, 2010
      • TABLE 3. Federal capital offenses, 2010
      • TABLE 4. Prisoners under sentence of death, by region, jurisdiction, and race, 2009 and 2010
      • TABLE 5. Women under sentence of death, by region, jurisdiction, and race, 2009 and 2010
      • TABLE 6. Hispanics under sentence of death, by region and jurisdiction, 2009 and 2010
      • TABLE 7. Inmates removed from under sentence of death, by method of removal, 2010
      • TABLE 8. Average time between sentencing and execution, 1977–2010
      • TABLE 9. Number of inmates executed, by race, 1977–2010
      • TABLE 10. Executions, by state and method, 1977–2010
      • TABLE 11. Number of persons executed, by jurisdiction, 1930–2010
      • TABLE 12. Prisoners under sentence of death on December 31, 2010, by jurisdiction and year of sentencing
      • TABLE 13. Executions and other dispositions of inmates sentenced to death, by race and Hispanic origin, 1977–2010
      • TABLE 14. Prisoners sentenced to death and outcome of sentence, by year of sentencing, 1973–2010
      • TABLE 15. Number sentenced to death and number of removals, by jurisdiction and reason for removal, 1973–2010

      TABLE 1: Capital offenses, by state, 2010

      TABLE 2: Method of execution, by state, 2010

      TABLE 3: Federal capital offenses, 2010
      8 U.S.C. 1342Murder related to the smuggling of aliens.
      18 U.S.C. 32–34Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death.
      18 U.S.C. 36Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting.
      18 U.S.C. 37Murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation.
      18 U.S.C. 115(b)(3) [by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111]Retaliatory murder of a member of the immediate family of law enforcement officials.
      18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 245, 247Civil rights offenses resulting in death.
      18 U.S.C. 351 [by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111]Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice.
      18 U.S.C. 794Espionage.
      18 U.S.C. 844(d), (f), (i)Death resulting from offenses involving transportation of explosives, destruction of government property, or destruction of property related to foreign or interstate commerce.
      18 U.S.C. 924(i)Murder committed by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime.
      18 U.S.C. 930Murder committed in a federal government facility.
      18 U.S.C. 1091Genocide.
      18 U.S.C. 1111First-degree murder.
      18 U.S.C. 1114Murder of a federal judge or law enforcement official.
      18 U.S.C. 1116Murder of a foreign official.
      18 U.S.C. 1118Murder by a federal prisoner.
      18 U.S.C. 1119Murder of a U.S. national in a foreign country.
      18 U.S.C. 1120Murder by an escaped federal prisoner already sentenced to life imprisonment.
      18 U.S.C. 1121Murder of a state or local law enforcement official or other person aiding in a federal investigation; murder of a state correctional officer.
      18 U.S.C. 1201Murder during a kidnapping.
      18 U.S.C. 1203Murder during a hostage taking.
      18 U.S.C. 1503Murder of a court officer or juror.
      18 U.S.C. 1512Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a witness, victim, or informant.
      18 U.S.C. 1513Retaliatory murder of a witness, victim, or informant.
      18 U.S.C. 1716Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or resulting in death.
      18 U.S.C. 1751 [by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111]Assassination or kidnapping resulting in the death of the President or Vice President.
      18 U.S.C. 1958Murder for hire.
      18 U.S.C. 1959Murder involved in a racketeering offense.
      18 U.S.C. 1992Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death.
      18 U.S.C. 2113Bank robbery-related murder or kidnapping.
      18 U.S.C. 2119Murder related to a carjacking.
      18 U.S.C. 2245Murder related to rape or child molestation.
      18 U.S.C. 2251Murder related to sexual exploitation of children.
      18 U.S.C. 2280Murder committed during an offense against maritime navigation.
      18 U.S.C. 2281Murder committed during an offense against a maritime fixed platform.
      18 U.S.C. 2332Terrorist murder of a U.S. national in another country.
      18 U.S.C. 2332aMurder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
      18 U.S.C. 2340Murder involving torture.
      18 U.S.C. 2381Treason.
      21 U.S.C. 848(e)Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or related murder of a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer.
      49 U.S.C. 1472-1473Death resulting from aircraft hijacking.

      TABLE 4: Prisoners under sentence of death, by region, jurisdiction, and race, 2009 and 2010

      TABLE 5: Women under sentence of death, by region, jurisdiction, and race, 2009 and 2010

      TABLE 6: Hispanics under sentence of death, by region and jurisdiction, 2009 and 2010

      TABLE 7: Inmates removed from under sentence of death, by method of removal, 2010

      TABLE 8: Average time between sentencing and execution, 1977–2010
      YearNumber of inmates executedAverage elapsed time from sentence to execution for all inmates

      Note: In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated capital punishment statutes in several states (Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)), effecting a moratorium on executions. Executions resumed in 1977 when the Supreme Court found that revisions to several state statutes had effectively addressed the issues previously held unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) and its companion cases). Average time was calculated from the most recent sentencing date.
      : Not calculated. A reliable average could not be generated from fewer than 10 cases.
      Source: BJS, National Prisoner Statistics Program.

      TABLE 9: Number of inmates executed, by race, 1977–2010

      TABLE 10: Executions, by state and method, 1977–2010

      TABLE 11: Number of persons executed, by jurisdiction, 1930–2010
      JurisdictionSince 1930Since 1977
      U.S. total5,0931,234
      New York3290
      North Carolina30643
      South Carolina20442
      New Jersey740
      District of Columbia400
      West Virginia400
      Federal system363
      New Mexico91
      South Dakota21
      New Hampshire10

      Note: Statistics on executions under civil authority have been collected by the federal government annually since since 1930. These data exclude 160 executions carried out by military authorities between 1930 and 1961.
      Source: BJS, National Prisoner Statistics Program.

      TABLE 12: Prisoners under sentence of death on December 31, 2010, by jurisdiction and year of sentencing

      TABLE 13: Executions and other dispositions of inmates sentenced to death, by race and Hispanic origin, 1977–2010

      TABLE 14: Prisoners sentenced to death and the outcome of sentence, by year of sentencing, 1973–2010

      TABLE 15: Number sentenced to death and number of removals, by jurisdiction and reason for removal, 1973–2010

      *Following the U.S. Supreme Court's approval of revised statutes in some states (Gregg v. Georgia), executions of inmates resumed in 1977.

      Appendix C: International Criminal Court, “Code of Judicial Ethics”

      Code of Judicial Ethics: ICC-BD/02–01–05

      The judges of the International Criminal Court;

      Noting the solemn undertaking required by article 45 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the “Statute”) and rule 5 (1) (a) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (the “Rules”);

      Recalling the principles concerning judicial independence, impartiality and proper conduct specified in the Statute and the Rules;

      Recognising the need for guidelines of general application to contribute to judicial independence and impartiality and with a view to ensuring the legitimacy and effectiveness of the international judicial process;

      Having regard to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985) and other international and national rules and standards relating to judicial conduct;

      Mindful of the international character of the Court and the special challenges facing the judges of the Court in the performance of their responsibilities;

      Have agreed as follows:

      Article 1: Adoption of the Code

      This Code has been adopted by the judges pursuant to regulation 126 and shall be read subject to the Statute, the Rules and the Regulations of the Court.

      Article 2: Use of Terms

      In this Code of Judicial Ethics the terms “Court,” “Statute,” “Rules” and “Regulations” shall have the meaning attached to them in the Regulations of the Court.

      Article 3: Judicial Independence
      • Judges shall uphold the independence of their office and the authority of the Court and shall conduct themselves accordingly in carrying out their judicial functions.
      • Judges shall not engage in any activity which is likely to interfere with their judicial functions or to affect confidence in their independence.
      Article 4: Impartiality
      • Judges shall be impartial and ensure the appearance of impartiality in the discharge of their judicial functions.
      • Judges shall avoid any conflict of interest, or being placed in a situation which might reasonably be perceived as giving rise to a conflict of interest.
      Article 5: Integrity
      • Judges shall conduct themselves with probity and integrity in accordance with their office, thereby enhancing public confidence in the judiciary.
      • Judges shall not directly or indirectly accept any gift, advantage, privilege or reward that can reasonably be perceived as being intended to influence the performance of their judicial functions.
      Article 6: Confidentiality

      Judges shall respect the confidentiality of consultations which relate to their judicial functions and the secrecy of deliberations.

      Article 7: Diligence
      • Judges shall act diligently in the exercise of their duties and shall devote their professional activities to those duties.
      • Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance the knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for judicial office.
      • Judges shall perform all judicial duties properly and expeditiously.
      • Judges shall deliver their decisions and any other rulings without undue delay.
      Article 8: Conduct During Proceedings
      • In conducting judicial proceedings, judges shall maintain order, act in accordance with commonly accepted decorum, remain patient and courteous towards all participants and members of the public present and require them to act likewise.
      • Judges shall exercise vigilance in controlling the manner of questioning of witnesses or victims in accordance with the Rules and give special attention to the right of participants to the proceedings to equal protection and benefit of the law.
      • Judges shall avoid conduct or comments which are racist, sexist or otherwise degrading and, to the extent possible, ensure that any person participating in the proceedings refrains from such comments or conduct.
      Article 9: Public Expression and Association
      • Judges shall exercise their freedom of expression and association in a manner that is compatible with their office and that does not affect or appear to affect judicial independence or impartiality.
      • While judges are free to participate in public debate on matters pertaining to legal subjects, the judiciary or the administration of justice, they shall not comment on pending cases and shall avoid expressing views which may undermine the standing and integrity of the Court.
      Article 10: Extra-Judicial Activity
      • Judges shall not engage in any extra-judicial activity that is incompatible with their judicial function or the efficient and timely functioning of the Court, or that may affect or may reasonably appear to affect their independence or impartiality.
      • Judges shall not exercise any political function.
      Article 11: Observance of the Code
      • The principles embodied in this Code shall serve as guidelines on the essential ethical standards required of judges in the performance of their duties. They are advisory in nature and have the object of assisting judges with respect to ethical and professional issues with which they are confronted.
      • Nothing in this Code is intended in any way to limit or restrict the judicial independence of the judges.

      Photo Credits

      VOLUME 1 ©Tammy Loverdos: 173; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 159; Library of Congress: 112, 430, 512, 538; U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 219; U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency: 399 (Robert Kauffman), 447 (Liz Roll); U.S. Air Force: 296 (Paul Ridgeway); U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation: 343; Wikimedia Commons: 2, 15, 20, 34, 39, 44, 61, 85, 93 (David Shankbone), 96, 105 (Gage Skidmore), 110, 124, 141, 150, 168, 228, 252, 264, 282, 288 (Marie-Lan Nguyen), 300, 309, 357, 371, 378, 388, 412, 419, 426, 453, 457, 469, 484, 493, 505, 527, 530; U.S. Department of Defense: 7, 70 (Donna Miles), 181, 184, 204, 216, 241, 271 (Michael Johnson), 362, 406; Flickr: 25, 56, 64 (Justin Hoch), 78 (Guy Murray), 133, 196, 237 (Mahalie Stackpole); National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 31; West Vancouver Police: 232; National Archives and Records Administration: 469.

      VOLUME 2 Library of Congress: 984; U.S. White House: 710; U.S. Army: 760, 926,; U.S. Coast Guard: 921; U.S. Navy: 951; Wikimedia Commons: 543, 551, 561, 571, 576, 587, 592, 617, 620, 640, 644, 652, 658, 676, 697, 702, 729, 745, 748, 771, 776, 784, 793, 825, 831, 852, 881, 903, 933, 937, 1011, 1031; Flickr: 612, 722, 861; U.S. Department of Defense: 625 (Jerry Morrison), 912, 994; Royal African Society: 868; U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation: 813, 856; Morguefile: 968.

    Back to Top

    Copy and paste the following HTML into your website