The General Blog of Crime

Journal Rankings in Google

2012-04-10T01:06:00.015-04:00

[Update: journal listing updated to include policing journals: 4/17/12]

Some of you may have discovered the new features introduced in Google Scholar that allow researchers to display their research and citation counts graphically, and quite professionally (see my profile here). I've been working on a post discussing the issue of citation counts, but was distracted by the announcement that Google is now publishing their own journal rankings.

These rankings are based on the H5-Index, which is defined as:

"h5-index is the h-index for articles published in the last 5 complete years. It is the largest number h such that h articles published in 2007-2011 have at least h citations each."

(A definition only a statistician could love.)

I thought it would be interesting to create a list of relevant CJ journals. To do so, I searched for any journal title that included the words "criminal", "justice", "crime", "police" or "violence", and rank ordered them below by H5-Index:

Google Ranking	TITLE	H5-INDEX
1	Criminal Justice and Behavior	30
2	Criminology	28
3	Journal of Interpersonal Violence	26
4	Violence Against Women	25
5	British Journal of Criminology	24
6	Trauma, Violence, & Abuse	24
7	Criminology & Public Policy	22
8	Journal of Family Violence	21
9	Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency	21
10	Crime & Delinquency	20
11	Intl J of Offender Therapy and Comp Crim	20
12	Journal of Criminal Justice	20
13	Violence and Victims	20
14	Journal of Quantitative Criminology	19
15	Justice Quarterly	18
16	Social Justice Research	18
17	Theoretical Criminology	18
18	Legal and Criminological Psychology	17
19	Psychology, Crime & Law	17
20	Criminology and Criminal Justice	16
21	European Journal of Criminology	16
22	Journal of International Criminal Justice	16
23	Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice	15
24	Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology	14
25	Terrorism and Political Violence	14
26	Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice	14
27	Criminal Justice Policy Review	13
28	International Journal of Transitional Justice	13
29	Police Quarterly	13
30	Policing: AIJPSM	13
31	Policing & Society	13
32	Criminal Justice Review	12
33	Journal of Experimental Criminology	12
34	Canadian J of Crim and CJ	11
35	Crime, Law and Social Change	11
36	Crime, Media, Culture	11
37	Journal of Criminal Justice Education	11
38	Youth Justice	11
39	Police Practice & Research	11
40	Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology	10
41	Education, Citizenship and Social Justice	10
42	Journal of School Violence	10
43	Science & Justice	10
44	The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice	10
45	Contemporary Justice Review	9
46	Global Crime	9
47	International Criminal Justice Review	9
48	Criminal Justice	8
49	Critical Criminology	8
50	Journal of Financial Crime	8
51	Intl J of Police Sciences & Mgt	8
52	Crime Prevention & Community Safety	7
53	Crime, Histoire & Sociétés/Crime, History & Societies	2

So, I have a few questions for my colleagues:

1. Does this reflect your personal opinions of journal prestige?

2. Would these rankings influence where you decide to send an article for publication?

3. How do recent accusations that some journals may be "gaming the system" play into this, if at all? (Have any of you ever received a request like this from a journal editor?)

Update:

I've added the official impact factor for journals that have them. It provides significantly different information about the rankings of journals than the Google method:

Google Ranking	TITLE	H5-INDEX	Impact Factor
2	Criminology	28	2.658
6	Trauma, Violence, & Abuse	24	2.6
14	Journal of Quantitative Criminology	19	2.378
10	Crime & Delinquency	20	1.7
9	Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency	21	1.694
17	Theoretical Criminology	18	1.639
5	British Journal of Criminology	24	1.612
1	Criminal Justice and Behavior	30	1.59
3	Journal of Interpersonal Violence	26	1.354
18	Legal and Criminological Psychology	17	1.306
4	Violence Against Women	25	1.215
15	Justice Quarterly	18	1.189
21	European Journal of Criminology	16	1.159
26	Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice	14	1.132
12	Journal of Criminal Justice	20	1.076
11	Intl J of Offender Therapy and Comp Crim	20	1.071
16	Social Justice Research	18	1.042
8	Journal of Family Violence	21	0.949
29	Police Quarterly	13	0.93
43	Science & Justice	10	0.843
40	Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology	10	0.821
25	Terrorism and Political Violence	14	0.814
31	Policing & Society	13	0.714
36	Crime, Media, Culture	11	0.703
30	Policing: AIJPSM	13	0.48
20	Criminology and Criminal Justice	16	0.37
35	Crime, Law and Social Change	11	0.352

Assassination of U.S. Citizen Is Legal - Holder Announces

2012-03-06T10:19:00.000-05:00

Attorney General Eric Holder recently defended the Obama Administration's viewpoint that the assassination of U.S. citizens is legal. Numerous news outlets reports Holder defended the use of such a policy without any form of judicial oversight. Apparently water boarding non-U.S. citizens is bad, but killed U.S. citizens without any form of judicial oversight is OK. Interesting policy. I am curious where the righteous indignation is about this in the media and among the left?

Great Piece on Mass Incarceration from The New Yorker

2012-01-29T23:17:00.003-05:00

This essay from the New Yorker on mass incarceration is a must-read. Choice quote:

The scale and brutality of our prisons are the moral scandal of American life.

As astute and succinct a summary of mass incarceration as fourteen words can be.

(via The DailyDish)

This is Why We Have IRBs

2012-01-26T09:24:00.004-05:00

A colleague at another university posted this story today, about a young boy used in a psychological experiment in the 1920s:

Many of us (criminologists) have taken psychology courses, so you may be aware of the story of Little Albert, who was conditioned to fear a white rat. The researcher--John Watson--associated a loud "clang" with the rat so that the child learned to fear the rat. He also learned to fear anything generally "fuzzy" or rat-like.

Now, 90 years later, new information has come to light about the plight of Little Albert. According to two researchers looking into this case, he was not the "normal" child presented by the researcher. Rather, he had a neurological condition that likely exaggerated his response to the stimulus (the rat). It is highly likely the researcher knew this.

There are also serious concerns about the mother's role in the experiment. Specifically:

But there may have been less humanitarian reasons for choosing Merritte ["Little Albert"]. The authors write about the baby’s mother, Arvilla, who was a wet nurse at the hospital. Because wet nurses were of low social status, and because she worked for the institution itself, she may have felt unable to turn down a request for her baby to be used in Watson’s experiment. “Voluntary consent, as we understand the term today, was not possible to give or to withhold,” they write. Presumably, most parents, if given a choice, would not allow their babies to participate in an experiment in which researchers terrify them. But Arvilla found herself in a bind. She was dependent on her employer both for her job and for the medical care of her sick baby.

And THIS is why we have informed consent and follow IRB regulations.

Additional Sources for Instructors:

Beck, H.P., Levinson, S. & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64, 605-614.

Fridlund, A.J., Beck, H.P., Goldie, W.D. & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology (online 1/23/12).

Judge Forces Abortion on Mentally Ill Woman

2012-01-18T09:15:00.000-05:00

An interesting abortion story is emerging in Boston about a probate court judge who forced an abortion on a mentally ill woman. As part of his orders, the judge allowed her legal guardians (parents) to coerce or even lie to the woman to get her to the hospital and sedated. His orders then permitted a forced abortion and sterilization - both of which she clearly did not want. Today's Boston Herald provides a nice overview of the story. Not your typical abortion story but it raises some really interesting issues.

The Ongoing PSU Scandal: Perpetrators, Bystanders, and Rescuers

2011-11-25T20:35:00.004-05:00

I have taught classes on genocide at MSU for the past three years. One of these courses (“The Criminology of Genocide”) satisfies a general education requirement in social science, and I try very hard to impart to the students how studying the process of genocide can help them to understand the world around them.

As part of this effort, a substantial portion of all of my genocide courses focus on the behaviors of three groups of people:

Perpetrators: individuals who commit crimes during genocide, whether they play the role of a leader (in class we call these the “big bads”: Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) or those who commit murder, rape, theft, or a multitude of other small crimes during genocides.

Bystanders: individuals who do nothing. They standby and watch events unfold around them but do not become engaged in the violence—neither do they take action to stop or speak out against violence.

Rescuers: Those people who take extraordinary action to help those victimized in genocide. Many famous individuals are members of this group, including Paul Rusesabagina (“Hotel Rwanda”), Oscar Schindler (“Schindler’s List”) and Corrie ten Boom (while not well-known in the U.S., Corrie and her family helped dozens of Dutch Jews escape the Nazis).

While it’s quite easy to identify perpetrators and rescuers, there aren’t many names listed as famous “bystanders”. This certainly makes sense—we remember individuals for their actions (both good and bad), not their inactions.

It’s important to note that failure to act to stop a crime is itself criminal in some states. These types of laws were famously portrayed in the final episode of the sitcom Seinfeld, in which the main characters are incarcerated for failing to stop a robbery (and in fact, laughing about the weight of the victim).

When the Penn State scandal broke earlier this month, I spent time talking to my students about the alleged perpetrators, bystanders, and rescuers in this case. Based on the grand jury testimony, there appears to be one “big bad” perpetrator: Jerry Sandusky, accused of sexually molesting and raping at least eight young boys during his tenure at Penn State (with more victims apparently coming forward, one of whom is a family member).

What about the bystanders? Are they (and should they be) criminally liable? According to their lawyers, they met their due diligence by reporting the issue to supervisors, but who was legally mandated to call the police or child protective services?

As far as I can tell, there were no rescuers in this case. No one had the best interest of the child victims in mind, as far as we’ve heard so far.

Of course, while it is easy to point fingers after the fact, scholars have long recognized that it is easier to be a bystander than a rescuer. Our social norms of non-interference and conformity keep most of us from being rescuers. For example, Paul Rusesabagina put himself and his family at enormous risk by hiding Tutsi refugees in his hotel—how many of us would take that action, realistically? How many of us would risk our own lives—our CHILDREN’S lives—to help strangers? In a sense, it’s abnormal behavior.

However, while we may hesitate to do the right thing in the spur of the moment, we must realize that it’s never too late to call and report suspected criminal activity to the police.

If there is any positive aspect to the Penn State fiasco, perhaps people in similar roles who might otherwise act as bystanders take action and rescue those in need.

Gendered Subtext to the Penn State Scandal?

2011-11-11T17:07:00.006-05:00

The Penn State scandal is as sickening as they come, and understandably has inspired much anger and disgust.

I don't want to insert any more controversy into this situation than already exists, but...I have been thinking a lot about one aspect of this story and wanted to pose my ideas here. Lately I have been contemplating whether the actions of the PSU coaching staff and administrators would have differed had the victims in this case been girls rather than boys.

Consider this: imagine if Mike McQueary had walked in on Sandusky having sex with a 10-year old girl. Do you think he would he have acted differently? I think it is possible that the answer is yes, for two reasons. First, short of incest, man-boy sexual interactions are perhaps the most taboo in our society. I wonder about the extent to which there were concerns not just about potentially outing Sandusky as a pedophile, but as a gay pedophile. Second, male-on-female assault fits our mental image of "rape" much better than male-on-male assault. In a scenario involving Sandusky engaging in penile-vaginal penetration of a young girl, it would be difficult to imagine any eyewitness interpreting that as anything other than RAPE. But I think it is possible that the fact that Sandusky was with another male overrode the obvious and far more alarming fact that he was engaging in penile-anal penetration of a child. To be clear, I am not in any way, shape, or form excusing or defending McQueary's inaction. Instead, I am proposing that the concept of Sandusky "fooling around" with young boys may have been easier for people to dismiss or downplay (in the context of gay stereotypes and assumptions, and therefore outside the context of sexual assault) than the concept of him "fooling around" with young girls. Putting these two observations together, I can't help but think that there is a gendered element to this story that is not being discussed. I may be way off base, but I don't think so.

Either way, I have tried to find at least something positive in this sordid, appalling situation by discussing it in my classes and using it to teach students about the great complexity in how we perceive and report "crime" -- particularly acts of this nature.

An Open Letter to Penn State "Protesters"

2011-11-10T20:59:00.009-05:00

Dear Penn State Students,

On Wednesday night, November 9th, many of you protested/rioted because your football coach was fired before he could end his career “with dignity” after his last home game. You probably think this signals to the world how much you love your school and support your athletic program. Or, maybe you aren’t caring much about what others think.

Either way, let me give you an outsider’s perspective on how your actions are being interpreted by others.

Your social protest makes it appear that you care more about your football program that the young children who were raped at the hands of a sexual predator. While you may not think that Coach Paterno is guilty of anything (having done his legal due diligence), there are several facts you may want to consider before lodging another protest:

According to the Grand Jury testimony, a graduate assistant--current assistant coach Mike McQueary--walked into the Penn State locker room in 2003 to find Jerry Sandusky anally raping a 10-year-old boy. Do you understand what that means? He was sodomizing a fifth grader.

Think back to what you were doing when you were 10. In fact, if you are currently a freshman in college, you were 10 years old in 2003. You were probably in 5^th grade, enjoying being one of the older kids in elementary school, looking forward to recess with your friends, hoping that maybe your mom would let you watch SpongeBob after school. Now imagine being that kid, and being raped by a middle-aged man. Are you having second thoughts about your actions yet?

Now, after McQueary saw Sandusky anally raping a young boy (I want to say it again, so you don’t forget), he walked out. The next day (yes, he waited until THE NEXT DAY), McQueary told Coach Paterno a watered-down version about Sandusky “fondling” a young boy, and Paterno passed the story along to the Athletic Director, Tim Curley.

Two weeks later, Sandusky had to turn in his keys to the locker room.

Let me say that again…

TWO WEEKS after he raped a 10-year-old boy, Sandusky was punished by having to turn in his keys to the locker room.

No arrest. No jail time. Continued access to young victims.

Your “protest” tells the world that you condone sexual violence against children. Failing to act when a child is victimized is almost as bad as committing the act in the first place. Almost.

You believe that Coach Paterno should be allowed to coach one last game “out of respect”, even though he had knowledge that an assistant coach was sexually assaulting young boys and never even told the police. Your coach might have met his legal obligations, but he failed the more important moral obligation of being a decent human being.

Coach Paterno and Mike McQueary should be hanging their heads in shame. They should be crying themselves to sleep, and thanking the good Lord above that Sandusky never preyed on their children (or grandchildren).

Perhaps someday, Penn State rioters, you will be older and wiser. Not likely, but maybe. Perhaps someday you will have children of your own, and know what many of us are feeling right now—the anger and frustration that an innocent child was harmed beyond belief and potentially scarred for life (physically and mentally) due to the actions of a selfish, amoral rapist.

The horrible truth is that Coach Paterno allowed this to occur on his watch. He knowingly allowed a sexual predator to remain on his coaching staff and have contact with children. And (say it with me), he never called the police.

Your protest over the “disgrace” of Joe Paterno signifies that your moral compass is just as broken as his is. I suggest you start protesting the true miscarriage of justice—the rape of young children, rather than the end of a football legacy.

Very sincerely,

Christina DeJong

Associate Professor

School of Criminal Justice

Michigan State University

P.S. Just so you have no doubt about what to do if you see a child being sexually assaulted:

1. Try to stop it if you can.

2. If you can’t stop it yourself, yell and scream to get the attention of others.

3. Call the police. Immediately.

UPDATE: Here's another piece on this issue focused on the survivor viewpoint.

New Loan Program Encourages Irresponsibility

2011-10-27T09:01:00.000-04:00

President Barack Obama recently (October 26, 2011) announced a new federal initiative to make college more affordable. Under the President’s proposed plan, student loan payments would be capped at 10 percent of discretionary income and students would be responsible for payments for a maximum of 20 years. Any remaining debt after 20 years would be “forgiven” by the loan holder. Under his plan, that is us, the American taxpayer. The White House has argued that such a program will make college more affordable and provide those with loans some financial relief all the while resulting in additional costs to the American taxpayer. This is one of those, as it seems, no brainers that all should be able to rally behind.

Who, however, are the real “winners” with such a national policy? There is little doubt that reducing monthly payments for student loans and limited the liability period to 20 years will result in a net savings for many. The value of rewarding those who take on more debate than they can afford may be open for debate, but this relief is really merely a secondary “benefit.” The real winners are private universities and colleges, their presidents, and their boards of trustees. There have been rumblings for years in private universities that the costs are simply getting too high. That the consequences of student loan payments will simply make private universities far too inaccessible for far too many, a fear that may cause a day of reckoning within those institutions to make tough choices about what is really important. President Obama’s recent announcement provides a tremendous relief for all of this institutional soul searching. The President, for example, has promised that the federal government will, in essence, underwrite the costs of private universities. I am sure there are university presidents all over the country now taking huge sighs of relief.

If I am a high school senior who now has a choice to go to a private institution, student loan will now drop down on my list concerns. In the end, who really cares if one assumes $25,000, $50,000, $100,000, or even $200,000 in loans? One’s financial liabilities are fixed under this plan. Arguably such a plan penalizes those who opt for a more “affordable” institution as those who take on more student loans clearly benefit more from this program. Two graduates, one with $25,000 and the other with $100,000 in loans who graduate making similar salaries will essentially be on the hook for similar maximum monthly payments.

Had the President really wanted to make meaningful change to the student loan system, a few more modest changes might be advisable. First, expand the use of subsidized student loans that do not accrue interest while a student is in school. As someone who spent more than a few years combined in both my undergraduate and graduate programs, I was shocked and dismayed to see the impact of interest to my total student loans when they were consolidated. Second, cap interest rates in a way that both generates income for the American taxpayer for their generous support but also communicates to students and their families that education is important to the American people. Finally, consider creating a “federal max” for student loans that will force students and their families to make tough decisions about the value of education.

It is dangerous to communicate to younger adults that they should not be concerned about what financial obligations they commit to; that the government will simply “bail you out” if you borrow irresponsibly. Bail outs breed irresponsibility, at the corporate or individual level. This program will do nothing to reduce the costs of higher education. That is something the marketplace needs to figure out. Someone should explain to the President that there is a real “cost” to forgiving student loans, a cost that gets paid by taxpayers. Good or bad, this cost is real and must be acknowledged. As one of the chumps who is 10 years into a 30 year student loan repayment schedule, back to work to pay off those loans. Like many Americans, however, I am thankful someone took a chance on my education.

A Question for Kay Bailey Hutchison

2011-10-22T13:50:00.003-04:00

A bipartisan congressional review of the criminal justice system is unconstitutional, but feeding Texas inmates only twice a day on weekends to cut costs is not?

Senate GOP Commits Felonious Partisanship

2011-10-21T22:13:00.010-04:00

Senate Republicans yesterday blocked a proposal that would authorize a comprehensive, bipartisan evaluation of the U.S. criminal justice system. The proposal was sponsored by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) -- one of few members of Congress to demonstrate an informed understanding of the criminal justice system. From Politico:

Invoking “states rights” and the Constitution, Senate Republicans Thursday torpedoed an ambitious plan to create a national blue ribbon bipartisan commission to do a top-to-bottom review of the U.S. criminal justice system and report back potential reforms in 18 months.
The 57-43 roll call – three short of the 60 supermajority needed – dramatized again how politically divided the chamber has become.

Over two years ago, we discussed on this very blog whether a congressional panel could actually accomplish meaningful policy change, or whether it would be little more than political theatre. At that time I conceded that while a National Criminal Justice Commission might turn out to be toothless, "the major benefit of Webb's bill is that it takes the politically risky step of publicly criticizing criminal justice and correctional policy... Recognition that our system is terribly broken ought to transcend political/ideological affiliation." Indeed, one of the experts who spoke at the 2008 ASC panel on politics and crime, Dr. Charles Wellford, also emphasized the need for a new National Crime Commission.

Therefore, the Republican sabotage of Webb's bill on purely partisan grounds is, in my view, far worse an outcome than the creation of a panel that results in little substantive change. Why? Because of the message it sends. Yesterday the Senate GOP told the American public in no uncertain terms that a systematic review of the U.S. criminal justice system is not important. The cynicism of this position is surpassed only by its shortsightedness. (And I can think of 2.3 million people who might disagree.)

There are three points I'd like to make in response to this news.

First, according to Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), a congressional review of the criminal justice system is "not a priority in these tight budget times." An elected official could scarcely utter a more foolish statement. It is precisely because of the tight budget times that a critical evaluation of the justice system is imperative. Every day we waste our money on ineffectual crime policy. We spend and spend and spend -- just as we have faithfully done for the last three decades -- even as the incarcerated population swells and the crime problem continues apace. So rather than upholding their fiduciary duty to the American public and critically evaluating whether we are spending wisely on crime policy, Senate Republicans ducked under the cover of states' rights and abdicated their financial responsibility. If they were financial advisers this stunt would get them fired. As politicians, it will no doubt get them reelected.

Second, we must interrogate the perpetual casting of criminal justice reform as a politically untenable position. We have discussed here many times how politically risky it is for elected officials to question crime policy, lest they be labeled "soft on crime." While this principle applies to all politicians, it is particularly true for conservatives who historically have supported "get tough" crime strategies. Yet calls for evidence-based policy reform aimed at reducing crime and alleviating mass incarceration are hardly limited to the far-left electorate. Todd Clear has said it. Jeremy Travis has said it. John Laub has said it. So why is the reform position so consistently politicized and resisted? Is the fear of appearing "soft on crime" really so threatening that politicians are content to sacrifice being Smart on Crime? Apparently so.

Third, the constitutional objections to Webb's proposal are perilously disingenuous. Senator Hutchison called the plan "an overreach of gigantic proportions." Unlike, say, the Deficit Reduction Panel? Meanwhile, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) asserted that in supporting the proposal, Congress would be "absolutely ignoring the U.S. Constitution...We have no role [to act] unless we're violating human rights or the U.S. Constitution...." I've got some unsettling news for the Senator: The United States leads the planet in incarceration, with more than one in one hundred adults currently behind bars. Sixty percent of the 2.3 million Americans serving time are Black or Latino. Many of our toughest crime policies -- including welfare, housing, and other restrictions for ex-felons, juvenile transfer to adult court, and harsh mandatory minimum sentences -- have a drastically disproportionate impact on impoverished people of color and their children. Among ex-felons, Black men are disenfranchised at a rate seven times higher than the national average. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 17 White offenders have been executed for killing a Black victim, while 255 Black offenders have been executed for killing a White victim. The list goes on and on. If the persistent, pernicious race and class biases of the U.S. justice system do not constitute a human rights violation, I genuinely do not know what does.

Some will undoubtedly dismiss this condemnation of Senate Republicans as reflexive partisanship on my part, but the truth is that they deserve to be raked across the coals. To stand before the American people and claim that opposing a systematic, bipartisan evaluation of the spending behemoth that is the U.S. criminal justice system is the fiscally responsible (not to mention constitutionally-ordained) position is simply indefensible. If you're going to make such a painfully inept decision at taxpayers' expense, at least give us a decent excuse.

Photo credit.

Topeka Makes Domestic Violence Legal

2011-10-12T10:26:00.007-04:00

So, this happened:

Facing Cuts, a City Repeals Its Domestic Violence Law (NY Times)

I came across this on Facebook last night, and my first reaction was to think, "Oh, The Onion, what will you crazy kids come up with next?"

But... no. This is real life. In the City of Topeka, Kansas, it is no longer a crime to commit domestic violence. Now, some may think this isn't a big deal--after all, the City certainly still has laws against assault on the books, right? Police can still arrest someone for beating an intimate partner under those laws, yes?

Unfortunately, the answer seems to be "yes and no". While general assault laws can be used to punish intimate partner violence, laws focused on domestic violence provide far better protection for victims. And then, there's this little gem from the article:

Eighteen people have been arrested on domestic violence charges since September and released without charges because no agency is accepting new cases.

I'm not sure what disgusts me more--the removal of this law from the books, or the finger-pointing over who is to blame for for this happening. It's like a Mexican Standoff of idiots making gun shapes with their fingers.

Dear City of Topeka: YOU'RE ALL TO BLAME. Quit playing politics and get back to work to rectify this.

Percentage Change in Logistic Regression Coefficients

2011-08-31T11:56:00.017-04:00

Here's a rather dry topic for all you stats geeks out there.

This is something that has bothered me for years, yet I cannot find a citation to back me up. Hopefully, there is someone more versed in logistic regression than I who can comment.

I frequently read articles that interpret coefficients from logistic regression as percentage change. The formula typically used is:

Where:

%∆ indicates percentage change, and

e^b is the odds ratio (exp(b))

(Taken from Pampel (2000), Logistic Regression: A Primer. Sage)

So, if your findings looked like this (from Pampel, p. 35):

Table 2.1
Partial SPSS Logistic Regression Results: Variable Coefficients
Variable	B	S.E.	Wald	Df	Sig	R	Exp(B)
Education	-.2085	.0382	29.8742	1	.0000	-.2153	.8118
Age	-.0341	.0067	26.1222	1	.0000	-.2003	.9665
Marital Status	-.3746	.2112	3.1443	1	.0762	-.0436	.6876
Sex (f=1)	.0964	.2126	.2056	1	.6502	.0000	1.1012
Constant	3.3666	.6478	27.0112	1	.0000

DV: Self-reported smoking (0:no, 1:yes)

You could use the percentage change formula to conclude:

· Each additional year of education decreases the odds of smoking by 18.82%

(.8118-1)*100 = 18.82%

· Each additional year of age decreases the odds of smoking by 3.35%

· Being married decreases the odds of smoking by 32% (but not statistically significant)

· Being female increases the odds of smoking by 10% (but not statistically significant)

And this is fairly common in the literature. But here’s my question:

Odds are constrained between 0 and + infinity. So, the maximum decrease in odds can only be 100%, but the increase in odds could be infinitely large. It doesn’t make any sense to me to be able to compare these two values.

In addition, the researcher’s decision about coding greatly affects the percentage change. For example, assume a variable indicating gender is measured as M=1, F=0 and the resulting coefficient (B) is -.8 with an exp(B) of .449. We would conclude:

Being male decreases the odds of the DV occurring by 55.1%.

If we switch the coding to F=1, M=0, the resulting B becomes .8 with an exp(B) of 2.25. We would conclude:

Being female increases the odds of the DV occurring by 125%.

Either I’m missing a fundamental assumption of the distribution of odds, or this doesn’t make a lot of sense. I’ve been spending years telling my students not to do this (rather, they can just talk about the exp(b) and leave out discussion of % change), but it would be nice to have some literature to back me up. Or, have someone tell me I’m completely wrong. Any ideas?

Patch is at the White House...

2011-03-10T11:07:00.003-05:00

...speaking at the White House Conference on Bullying Prevention.

Watch the live stream and weep with pride like me!!

Culture of Poverty

2011-02-14T16:28:00.000-05:00

I wonder if any of you saw the recent article in the New York Times that reintroduces the "culture of poverty" hypothesis generally attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the 1970s. Many are quite aware of the trepidation that many have about using such a characterization. The article states:

'“Culture is back on the poverty research agenda,” the introduction declares, acknowledging that it should never have been removed. '

I wonder the thoughts of my fellow (non)bloggers about this topic. I believe it to be quite controversial. Interesting enough, I quite literally just had an editor on a book chapter ask me to remove the phrase "disadvantage" from a manuscript for similar reasons.

Things That Make My Heart Hurt

2011-02-03T10:55:00.005-05:00

Thing That Makes My Heart Hurt, #1:

Jordan Brown, the 11-year old boy accused of fatally shooting his father's pregnant fiancee back in 2009, is being tried as an adult and faces the possibility of life without parole:

Prosecutors allege that Jordan Brown, now 13, shot and killed 26-year-old Kenzie Houk as she slept in her home in Lawrence County, near Pittsburgh, in February, 2009. Houk was pregnant with a nearly full-term child at the time. Brown was charged with two counts of homicide.

Pennsylvania's laws on juvenile trials are among the least accommodating in the country, with juvenile suspects in homicide cases automatically tried as adults, unless a judge decides otherwise (see note below)...
...[H]uman rights group Amnesty International said that Brown is the youngest person the international organization knows of anywhere in the world facing a life sentence without possibility of parole (emphasis added).

I find this so upsetting that it is difficult for me to articulate any coherent thoughts other than, "I'm moving to Canada."

Houk's murder is a tragic, tragic thing. Yet we stand poised to compound this tragedy by imprisoning an obviously troubled boy until the day he dies. It is unfathomable to me.

Note: if you are interested in reading the judge's decision to not remand Brown's case to juvenile court, you can do so here.

Things That Make My Heart Hurt, #2

Last week, the House GOP introduced legislation, the "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Bill," that drastically narrowed the type of rape and incest for which impregnated victims can receive federal assistance for abortion services to include only forcible acts -- until the enormous backlash prompted the bill's sponsor, New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith, to walk back the "forcible rape" exemption:

Last week, Mother Jones' Nick Baumann broke the story on Chris Smith's "No Taxpayer for Abortion" Act, which would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape. For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. But Smith's bill contained a provision that woudl [sic] limit the rape exemption to "forcible rape," ruling out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases—such as statutory rape—in which force was not involved or could not be proved. "It is absolutely outrageous," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). "I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women."

Now, Smith has retreated, excising the "forcible" rape language from the bill, reports Politico. "The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip says, referring to the ban on the federal government paying for abortions that's been in place since 1976.

The GOP effort to rewrite the meaning of rape incited a Twitter campaign of protest (using the hashtag #dearjohn). Editorial pages and columnists protested. Progressive groups initiated a crusade to kill the bill. MoveOn.org launched a petition against the bill, saying Smith's legislation would "set women's rights back by decades…As far too many women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape—a lack of consent does." EMILY's List, issued its own petition, declaring war on the bill and one of its most prominent proponents: Speaker of the House John Boehner. Its website, BoehnersAmerica.org, urged "Boehner and his cronies to stop using rape victims as political pawns." The group said, "it was known from the beginning that Boehner and his boys would fight to take away women's freedoms whenever possible."

Smith's bill did unsettle some GOPers. Differentiating between types of rape, Politico reports, befuddled Republican aides. "Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual," one GOP aide says.

The fact that Smith relented offers me little solace. Feminist scholars and activists have been working for thirty years to abolish the idea of "real rape" (you know, stranger assault by an armed, Black man against a defenseless white woman). The fact that the "forcible rape" exemption was even included in the House bill in the first place suggests that we still have work to do.

Please, someone offer me some good news to lift my spirits today!

Dating Violence - Double Standard?

2011-01-31T09:37:00.000-05:00

This post first requires a bit of a confession. Ok, here it goes....I found myself watching "Jersey Shore" the other night. Listen, I am developing a bad case of insomnia and there is not much on TV late at night. Also, being from Delaware County Pennsylvania - it reminds me of my 'hood. So, yes, I admit it - I have watched it twice now.

So, the other night I see what I now know to be "Season 3 - Episode 5" (God help me...why do I know this?). In the episode, which you can see a story about here, "Sam" punches "Ronnie" right in the face. Man, she should be a boxer - nice form, no hesitation, solid shot. This is after she spent the better part of 5 minutes clearly trying to provoke him into a confrontation. The guy (who is the size of a small gorilla) clearly did not want to engage, ignored her, etc only to get cold cocked by him. Frankly, I was shocked. I was shocked this happened, MTV aired it, she was allowed to continue to live in the house, and she has never been arrested although it aired on public television. I must admit, I have done very little systematic research into the area of DV, but I think this sort of thing happens more time than not. I continue to believe, as I believe I have argued on previous posts over the years, that there is substantially more girl-on-guy violence and/or "mutual violence" in dating relationships than popular culture would believe. We all know how this would have (and SHOULD have) gone down if this guy punched her. This would have been used as a "teachable moment" whereby he would have been arrested, MTV would have launched a few "town hall" meetings about dating violence, etc. But for this whole situation to be handled in such a cavalier way (she spent the next 5 minutes tell her mom on the phone how she punched him in the face) is astounding. I am curious about others reactions to this situation? I'm going to go see my girls on "feministing.com" to see if they have any thoughts...why do I doubt it?

Detroit Northwest Precinct Shooting

2011-01-30T14:26:00.006-05:00

On January 23rd, a man named Lamar Moore walked into the Detroit Police Department Northwest precinct and opened fire on the officers -- including the precinct commander -- seated at the desk just inside the building's front door. Four officers were injured, though thankfully none seriously so and all are expected to recover. The gunman, Moore, was killed in the shootout.

Several days after the shooting incident, DPD released security video footage of the attack, which the Detroit Free Press subsequently posted. (A probably unnecessary warning: the graphic video captures the shooting death of the gunman, so view with caution.) The video also contains a recorded introduction in which DPD Chief Ralph Godbee defends the department's decision to release the footage. (For example, among other motivations was a desire to remind the public that police officers are in mortal danger even while not on patrol.)

I'm uncertain how I feel about the video release, to be honest. I'm curious to hear what others think.

P.S.: Here is a summary of Godbee's rationale for releasing the video:

In a message that opens the video, Police Chief Ralph Godbee said the department wanted to release the surveillance video to maintain a commitment to transparency, show the public heroism by the officers along with the inherent dangers that come with police work, and for the benefit of the greater body of law enforcement.

Tucson

2011-01-10T20:33:00.003-05:00

Hey colleagues and readers. Its been a bit since I last interjected myself on the esteemed blog. This won't be a long one, and I'll make an effort to come back and give a more academic and legally insightful analysis of the...and at this point I don't know what to even call it, out of disgust at trying to sum it up with catchy phrase...shootings, and the likely arc(s) of the case(s).

We in these related fields that delve in the very darkest parts of human behavior, are fascinated by it, often joke about it in a way that others people would find inhumane, but don't often have any real connection to the stories that we see. And I know alot of people after tragedies try to inject some part of themselves into it for some reason, which I often found annoying (If I would have done this or that, I would have been there). But I'm finding that maybe its a way that people process personal links, of whatever proximity, to extreme horror.

As my colleagues know, I lived in Tucson. Went to law school there. As they didn't know, I know that Safeway. And I've seen Gabby Giffords. In person. She was MY Congresswoman that I voted for during my time there. I was at the Pima County Democratic Party celebration in 2006 when she was first elected and watched her speak. My law school was walking distance to the hospital where the victims are being treated.

I only write this, not to try to interject myself into this awfulness, but out of some need to process it. Being schooled and involved both in criminology and criminal defense law, having more intellectual insight than most laypeople on why this guy did what he did and what will happen to him for the next decade of his life, oddly, doesn't keep it from hitting close to home that I have seen one of his victims in person and know personally the place where people were slain just going about their lives. I guess insight doesn't make some things easier to watch.

Odds & Ends

2010-12-08T09:48:00.002-05:00

Hello friends!

After exam week is done, I will post my write-up from ASC -- including detailed notes from the panel featuring John Laub, Laurie Robinson, and others.

For now, though, I wanted to share two quick items:

First, a student sent me this link to a video, produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center, designed to inform law enforcement agencies about the dangers of the so-called "Sovereign Citizens" movement:

Crimes committed by adherents of the so-called “sovereign citizens” movement — men and women who believe they are exempt from most laws, regulations and tax codes — continue to spread like a prairie fire.

In places as disparate as Georgia, Indiana, Nevada and Virginia, law enforcement officers are coming up against sovereigns allegedly scheming to steal houses, pry loose money from the government that isn’t theirs, and harass their enemies with crippling property liens and other forms of “paper terrorism.”

(A SPLC report on the sovereign citizens movement is here.)

I'm wondering how much our policing scholars know about this movement, and/or about the extent to which local law enforcement agencies are receiving training on this group.

Second, one of my favorite bloggers, Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic, posted this brief but striking analysis yesterday of the U.S. prison population:

There are roughly 2.3 million people in jails and prisons in America, more than any country in the world.

The United States has 756 people in jail per 100,000 people. No other country has more than 700, and only two are over 600 Russia (629) and Rwanda (604).

Of the 2.3 million people in American jails, 806,000 are black males. African-Americans--males and females--make up .6 percent of the entire world's population, but African-American males--alone--make up 8 percent of the entire world's prison population. I know there are people who think some kind of demon culture could create a world where a group that makes up roughly one in 200 citizens of the world, comprises one in 12 of its prisoners. But I kind of doubt it.

One final thought: If you released every black male in prison, our prison population would stand at 1.5 million, leaving us, still, with the second largest prison population in the world. Only China--a country with four times as many people--would have more (and barely--1.57 million). Russia would be a distant third with 890,000.

FYI for those who are interested in incarceration issues.

Happy grading/exam-giving to those of you wrapping up your semesters!

Cultural Criminology and Edgework?

2010-10-16T14:17:00.007-04:00

First, some prefatory comments:

Like an unfit mother, I have neglected this poor blog sooo much over the last twelve months! Ugh. Well, such is life in Year One of a tenure-track position. Particularly this past spring when I was teaching three classes for the first time in my life (while raising as many children!), I scarcely had time to sleep, let alone blog. I missed it terribly, though, so now that I (hopefully) have my sea legs in Year Two I plan to return to regular blogging. I've missed blogging so much!

OK, now onto the substance of my post:

I am prepping a lecture for my theory class on "feminist and radical criminologies". I can't say that I was thrilled with the book's discussion of feminist criminology (I'm using the 5th edition of Bierne & Messerschimdt's text), but I was truly puzzled by their lengthy coverage of cultural criminology. Let's put it this way: it doesn't do much for the ol' Imposter Syndrome to have never, ever heard the term "edgework" before reading it in my undergraduate theory textbook today (e.g., see here and here).

Based solely on the text's summary of cultural criminology, I have to say I'm unimpressed with the perspective. (And it appears I'm not the only one.) Take this passage, for example:

In this [cultural criminological] view mainstream criminology is irrelevant, boring, lifeless, and navel-gazing...[Proponents] complain generally about the enforced need for young academics, driven by considerations of tenure and job security, to write numerous grant applications to undertake more and more quantitative research on matters of less and less significance... (p. 217).

I can't see this as anything but a big, giant (not to mention inaccurate) generalization. It's one thing to critically evaluate the tenure system, as many have done (see a recent discussion on The Daily Dish, or this recent Chronicle commentary). It is quite another to suggest that all criminologists or sociologists are (a) hampered by pursuing grant-funded research; (b) slavish devotees of quantitative analysis; and/or (c) constricted to irrelevant research interests by unbearable tenure pressures. Really, though, this is just my gut reaction as I do not know enough about the paradigm to make an informed evaluation of it. (Not that that stopped me from writing this post!)

So tell me, GBOCers: Do you see merit in the key propositions of cultural criminology? Are you familiar with "edgework," making me the lone rube of the bunch? I'm curious to hear others' thoughts, particularly in advance of my lecture on this topic next week...

Reagan's Prison Policy

2010-10-15T21:47:00.005-04:00

Here is an audio interview, with transcript, of SFGate/KALW criminal justice editor Rina Palta discussing Ronald Reagan's strategies to reduce prison overcrowding in California during his governorship. The ensuing conversation about politics and crime policy is fascinating. (Palta also discusses Rosemary Gartner's research on women prisons, too.)

Choice passage:

KERNAN: When I think about Ronald Reagan, I think of him as conservative and tough-on-crime - that sort of a politician.

PALTA: Yes, he was. In his first inauguration speech as governor, he actually referred to crime as stemming from moral depravity, which was the kind of rhetoric he would later use as president as well. And crime rates were actually on the rise when Reagan was elected as governor. So it's kind of remarkable that this happened. And I think one thing that helps this make sense is that Reagan was such an economically conservative guy. He just didn't want the government to be spending so much money on imprisoning people, and at the time he took office, it was the highest level of prison population that California had ever had before, and he didn't want that to be the case anymore. And so he ended up listening to his advisors, listening to the professionals in the prison department and getting 10,000 people cut from the prison population.

KERNAN: That seems like it would be a really tough political sell today. And yet, it doesn't seem to be something that hurt Reagan's reputation at all.

PALTA: That's true. Gartner talks about this a lot in her research. Reagan actually bragged about releasing people from prison and shrinking the prison budget, which is hard to imagine nowadays. And this was just a different time politically. There wasn't a lot of attention on crime policy. You didn't have state ballot initiatives devoted to prison and crime issues. You didn't have a public that thought it was equipped and capable of making criminal justice policy. You didn't have a strong prison guards' union that lobbied the Legislature and the governor. And at the time, the governor just had more control over the prison system overall. [Emphasis added.]

This reminds me of President Carter's remarks during his 2007 ASC keynote, when he described how several southern governors competed to see who could reduce his state's prison population the most. Oh, how times have changed.

Patch & Pap Take Over The World!

2010-10-04T13:22:00.004-04:00

Breaking my long blogging silence to share Pap & Patch's veritable media takeover! All of us here at the GBOC couldn't be prouder of them!

Thursday, September, 30, 2010
Patch speaks to NPR's Melissa Block on All Things Considered.

Monday, October 4, 2010
Pap & Patch will appear tonight on AC 360 at 10 pm EST! Read more here.

Correction: Patch will appear on Friday, not tonight. Sorry for the confusion!

Woo hoo!

Patriot Act Renewed

2010-09-16T11:35:00.003-04:00

I must have been the only person to miss this...did anyone else hear that the Patriot Act, apparently, was renewed completely unchanged in March? This, according to the Christian Science Monitor, did in fact occur. I was looking up something for a class and saw this. It seems this is pretty incredible when one considers the HOOPLA! the left made when this was passed. Could it be possible that George and Dick weren't as crazy and evil as the left thought?

Most Long Overdue Crime News Ever?

2010-07-30T09:32:00.004-04:00

CONGRESS PASSES BILL TO REDUCE DISPARITY IN CRACK, POWDER COCAINE SENTENCING DISPARITY

From WaPo:

Congress on Wednesday changed a 25-year-old law that has subjected tens of thousands of African Americans to long prison terms for crack cocaine convictions while giving far more lenient treatment to those, mainly whites, caught with the powder form of the drug.

The House, by voice vote, approved a bill reducing the disparities between mandatory crack and powder cocaine sentences, sending the measure to President Obama for his signature. During his presidential campaign, Obama said that the wide gap in sentencing "cannot be justified and should be eliminated." The Senate passed the bill in March.
The measure changes a 1986 law, enacted at a time when crack cocaine use was rampant and considered a particularly violent drug. Under the law, a person convicted of crack cocaine possession got the same mandatory prison term as someone with 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine. The new legislation reduces that ratio to about 18 to 1.

The bill also eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum for first-time possession of crack, the first time since the Nixon administration that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence. It does not apply retroactively.

This is exceedingly welcome news, even if it does mean I have to revise my cocaine unit for my drug policy class this fall!

I know that many folks are displeased that the ratio wasn't equalized at 1:1, but given the highly-charged political nature of the federal cocaine sentences, I think we should be happy that the disparity was cut by a factor of five. It's progress, no doubt.

I'm surprised not to find a lot of commentary on the legislation from around the blogosphere (save for this post from Outside the Beltway, a political science blog). I did find a related article about the War on Drugs and America's new racial caste system at The Crime Report that is worth a read.

I will update with more commentary as it becomes available.