CJ 604: Seminar in Criminal Justice and Urban Administration
Fall 2014
Thursdays: 4:00 – 6:40 pm
LSS-246
Instructor:
Office:
Email:
Phone:
Office hours:
Joshua M. Chanin, JD, Ph.D
PSFA 159
jchanin@mail.sdsu.edu
(619) 594-1948
Tuesdays from 8:30-10:30 am and by appointment
Course Description and Student Objectives
In this graduate seminar, we will discuss the political, legal, and managerial principles that drive the administration
of justice policy in the United States. Focusing specifically on urban policy, we will rely on scholarly writing and
news coverage of current events to examine in some detail the actors, institutions, and complex relationships that
define the subject. As many of these concepts are illuminated by local issues, where possible we will focus on the
City and County of San Diego. Student objectives for this course are severalfold:
 Synthetic analysis: The course is designed to expose students to various issues that define our subject
matter. Students should leave the course with a thorough understanding of each week’s topic and an
ability to discuss in depth the individual assigned readings. Perhaps more important that developing
substantive knowledge, however, students should strive to develop the ability to incorporate isolated
concepts and ideas into a larger vision of the course and its several themes.
 Critical analysis: Students should also aim to leave the course having strengthened their ability to think
critically (and articulate in a nuanced way) about complex policy issues.
 Oral and written responses: Students are encouraged to emphasize growth in their ability to
communicate clearly and concisely – and with confidence – their own positions on course topics. Of
course, this involved reacting to the viewpoints of colleagues.
 The research process: For many, this course is a building block to a degree (and perhaps a career) that
emphasizes social science research. Students are encouraged to consume course readings and
assignments with an eye toward a deeper understanding of the research process, principles of research
design and execution, and, in particular, their own research interests.
Course Material
Robert E. England, John Pelissero, and David R. Morgan, Managing Urban America, 7th Ed, Washington, D.C.: CQ
Press (2012). ISBN: 978-1-60871-672-2
James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia, Eds., Crime and Public Policy, New York: Oxford (2011). ISBN: 978-0195399356
Franklin E. Zimring, Gordon Hawkins, and Sam Kamin, Punishment and Democracy, New York: Oxford (2003). ISBN:
978-0195171174
Additional materials available via Blackboard.
1
Assignments and Grading
Graded materials for this course will consist of:
1.
Attendance and Class Participation
15% of final grade
Class participation is a key component of this course. This class is built around open and informed
dialogue. Though I will not take attendance, you are expected to attend each class session and come
prepared to discuss the topic of the day. I will evaluate the quality and quantity of your comments, your
leadership in conversation, and your civility in talking with other students. See Appendix 1 for grading
rubric.
2.
Reading Response Papers
25% of final grade
Throughout the term, each student is required to complete 2 short response papers. The papers should
each be between 5 and 7 pages long, double-spaced. When you submit the 2 papers is entirely up to you,
with two exceptions: Week 1 and the two weeks you are assigned to lead the class discussion. The goals
of this assignment are twofold: First, to get you in the habit of writing about complex ideas in a concise,
clear way. Second, and perhaps more importantly, to give you the opportunity to engage critically with
the ideas presented. The reading responses should not be summaries of each assigned reading; instead
they should offer a thoughtful critique of the week’s reading and a synthesis of the ideas presented.
Excellent work will incorporate themes and ideas from previous course readings and discussion topics.
The responses will be scored out of 30 points. Please see Appendix 2 for details.
3.
Leading Class Discussion
20% of final grade
Beginning in Week 2 (Feb. 6), students will be asked to lead discussion on several of the articles assigned.
Your goal here should be to engage your classmates in a critical, thought-provoking examination of the
assigned reading. This includes at minimum a discussion of the study’s theoretical frame, method used,
analysis offered, and conclusions drawn. I will grade you on your ability to stimulate conversation and to
promote a deep understanding of the literature in addition to key course themes. The presentation
schedule will be posted on Blackboard after our first meeting. See Appendix 3 for assignment specifics
and Appendix 4 for the grading rubric.
4.
Final Paper
40% of final grade
This assignment asks you to write a 20-page literature review exploring one of the key thematic issues
addressed in our course. The topic is largely up to you. At the end of our meeting on October 11, each of
you will be asked to give a 1-2 minute update on your paper topic. See Appendix 4 for the grading rubric.
Grading Scale
93-100 = A
80-82 = B67-69 = D+
90-92 = A77-79 = C+
63-66 = D
87-89 = B+
73-76 = C
60-62 = D-
83-86 = B
70-72 = CBelow 60 = F
2
Protocol
Emergencies: Attendance at all classes is expected. I will do my best to accommodate any student who must miss
class due to an emergency or otherwise pressing conflict. If you have a legitimate emergency, please email, call, or
text me before class. This is especially important if an emergency prevents you from leading the class discussion.
That said, I will not reschedule assignments, etc. for students with non-emergency conflicts (such as work, family
gatherings, vacations, etc.). Should you be forced to miss your presentation date, please expect to provide me with
documentation substantiating your conflict/emergency.
Professor contact: I will do my best to respond to all reasonable emails, but cannot respond to last minute, late
night requests. I will not likely not conduct ‘virtual office hours’ nor discuss class materials in detail over email.
Please try to see me during scheduled office hours or make an appointment.
Plagiarism and cheating: Please (please!) do not plagiarize or cheat. If I catch you doing so, you will fail the
assignment and I will report the incident to the Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities. By this point in your
academic careers, there should be no ambiguity as to what constitutes either cheating or plagiarism. If you have
any questions, please refer to SDSU’s definition of plagiarism (available here:
(http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/htc/plagiarism.pdf) and see me to discuss in further detail.
Course Schedule
I reserve the right to alter the course reading schedule and content to fit evolving circumstances in the class.
August 28: Week 1 – Introduction, etc.
 England, Pelissero, and Morgan, “Chapter 1: Managing American Cities in the 21st Century”
 Wilson, “Crime and Public Policy” in Wilson and Petersilia, Crime and Public Policy (2011)
 Stuntz, The Collapse of American Criminal Justice – Chaps 1 and 10 (2011)
 Canon and Johnson, Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact (1999)
 Creswell, “Chapter 2: Review of the Literature” (2014)
September 4: Week 2 – Crime in Metropolitan U.S.
 Zimring, The Great American Crime Decline – Ch. 1 and 2 (2007)
 Rosenfeld, “Changing Crime Rates” in Wilson and Petersilia, Crime and Public Policy (2011)
 **Levitt, “Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s” (2004)
 Dewan, “The Real Murder Mystery? It’s the Low Crime Rate” (2009)
 Wilson, “Crime and the Great Recession” (2011)
 Williams, “Violent Crime in U.S. Rises for First Time Since 2006” (2013)
September 11: Week 3 – Policing and Criminal Justice across the Country and in San Diego
 Weisburd and Eck, “What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?” (2004)
 **Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer, “Did Ceasefire, Compstat, and Excile Reduce Homicide? (2005)
 **Braga and Bond, “Policing Crime and Disorder Hot Spots: A Randomized Control Trial” (2008)
 SANDAG, “Thirty Years of Crime in the San Diego Region” (2012)
3
 San Diego Police Department Five Year Plan (2012)
 Kyle, “San Diego Police's New Identity” (2011)
September 18: Week 4 – Race and Ethnicity
 **Alexander, The New Jim Crow – Ch. 1 and 3 (2010)
 MacDonald, Are Cops Racist? – Ch. 1 and 2 (2003)
 **Drakulich, “Strangers, Neighbors, and Race” (2012)
 Lamberth, “Driving While Black” (1998)
 Case Study: Stop-and-Frisk Policing
o “Does ‘Stop and Frisk’ Reduce Crime?” The New York Times: Room for Debate (2012)
o **Rudovsky and Rosenthal, On the Constitutionality of Stop-and-Frisk (2013)
o MacDonald – Courts vs. Cops (2013)
September 25: Week 5 – Federalism and the Law
 England, Pelissero, Morgan, “Chapter 2: Cities and the System of Intergovernmental Relations” (2011)
 Case Study: Medical Marijuana in CA and Beyond
o Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
o Pickerill and Chen, “Medical Marijuana Policy and the Virtues of Federalism” (2008)
o **Kepple and Freisthler, “Exploring the Ecological Association between Crime and Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries” (2012)
o Freed, “California’s Medical Marijuana Morass” (2011)
o Frontline: The Pot Republic – linked via BB (2011)
o NY Times, After 5 Months of Sales, Colorado Sees Downside of a Legal High (2014)
o Scott, “Have States Finally Figured Out How to Regulate Medical Marijuana?” (2012)
o Market Size and Demand for Marijuana in Colorado (2014)
Oct 2: Week 6 – Neighborhoods, Housing, and Crime
 **Kirk and Laub, “Neighborhood Change and Crime in the Modern Metropolis” (2010)
 Skogan, “Fear of Crime and Neighborhood Change” (1986)
 Taylor and Gottfredson, “Environmental Design, Crime, and Prevention” (1986)
 **Griffiths and Tita, “Homicide In and Around Public Housing: Is Public Housing a Hotbed, a Magnet, or a
Generator of Violence for the Surrounding Community?” (2009)
 Rosin, “American Murder Mystery” (2008)
October 9: Week 7 – NO CLASS
October 16: Week 8 – Social Capital, Community, and Crime
[Paper Topics DUE]
 Sampson, “The Community,” in Wilson and Petersilia, Crime and Public Policy (2011)
 Rosenfeld et al., “Social Capital and Homicide” (2001)
 Machin, Vujic, and Vujic, “The Crime Reducing Effects of Education” (2010)
 Fung, Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy – Ch. 1 (2003)
 **Kubrin et al, “Does Fringe Banking Exacerbate Neighborhood Crime Rates?” (2011)
 “On street lights in San Diego” (2013)
4
October 23: Week 8 – The Politics of Crime: Direct Democracy
 **Zimring, Hawkins, and Kamin, Punishment and Democracy – Ch. 1, 2, and 10 (2001)
 Matsusaka, “Direct Democracy Works” (2005)
 Case Study: Three Strikes in California
o Kelly and Datta, “Does Three Strikes Really Deter?” (2009)
o Bazelon, “Arguing Three Strikes” (2010)
o Reynolds, “The Hidden Impact of Three Strikes” (2011)
o Progress Report: Three Strikes Reform (Prop 36) (2013)
October 30: Week 10 – The Politics of Crime: Legislative Policy
 Simon, Governing Through Crime – Ch. 1 and 3 (2007)
 Schneider and Ingram, “Social Construction of Target Populations” (1993)
 Case Study: Sex Offender Laws
o Bouregard and Lieb, “Sex Offenders and Sex Offender Policy,” in Wilson and Petersilia, Crime and
Public Policy (2011)
o Meloy et al., “The Sponsors of Sex Offender Bills Speak Up” (2013)
o Mancini et al., “Sex Offender Residence Restriction Laws: Parental Perceptions and Public Policy”
(2010)
o **Hipp et al., “Are Sex Offenders Moving into Social Disorganization?” (2010)
o Santa Cruz, “O.C. Sex Offender Law Picks Up Support but Few Convictions” (2012)
o “Act 3: Throw the Book at Them,” This American Life – linked via BB (2010)
November 6: Week 11 – Justice Policy in Pursuit of Efficiency and Economy
 England, Pelissero, and Morgan, “Chapter 7: Urban Service Delivery” (2011)
 **Moore and Braga, “Measuring and Improving Police Performance: The Lessons of Compstat and its
Progeny” (2003)
 Baker and Goldstein, “Police Tactic: Keeping Crime Reports Off the Books” (2011)
 TafollaYoung, “The Privatization of California Correctional Facilities: A Population-Based Approach” (2007)
 Gaes, “The Current Status of Prison Privatization Research” (2012)
 Schlosser, “The Prison-Industrial Complex” (1998)
November 13: Week 12 – Justice Policy in Pursuit of Other Values
 Charbonneau and Riccucci, “Beyond the Usual Suspects” (2008)
 **Kennedy, Don’t Shoot – Chapters 1 and 10 (2011)
 **Bayley, “Law Enforcement and the Rule of Law: Is There a Tradeoffs?” (2002)
 Tyler, “Legitimacy in Corrections” (2010)
 Case Study: Washington, D.C.’s Neighborhood Safety Zone Initiative
o Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Policy FAQ (2008)
o Newspaper Coverage of the Issue (2008)
November 20: Week 13 – NO CLASS (ASC Meeting)
November 27: Week 14 – NO CLASS (Thanksgiving)
December 4: Week 15 – Final papers due to me by 5:00 pm.
5
Appendix 1: Class Participation Grading Rubric
Class participation is a central component of this course. Much of what we do relies on informed discussion and
an active, friendly dialogue. Participation is also a significant piece of your final grade (15%). As such, I hope this
makes clear what my expectations are in terms of your role in class.
“A” Level Participation




Regular attendance. All assigned readings completed.
Comments reflective of a deep and thorough understanding of the reading and the concepts. Ability to
connect over-arching themes, previous material/topics, etc.
In terms of quantity, high-level participation equates to several comments per class period. In other words,
our seminar should be a conversation with many participants. Speaking simply to rack up participation
points is both frowned upon and easily identified. Quality must accompany quantity.
In addition to quality and quantity, leadership is a big part of high-level participation. The more you can
engage your classmates in conversation, move the discussion into new and relevant areas, and contribute
to broadening the classroom learning, the higher your participation grade will be.
Sub-Par Participation

Several things can negatively affect your participation grade, including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Rude or disrespectful treatment of colleagues or instructor.
Web surfing. There is a huge (and easily identifiable) difference between taking notes on your
laptop and updating your Facebook status, reading news, etc. The former will not count against
you; the latter surely will.
Texting. Use of phones should be reserved for breaks, lunch, etc.
Lack of preparation. If called upon, you should be able to discuss the issues.
Grade Transparency, etc.


Class participation is hard to grade and somewhat subjective. If you would like to discuss your
participation with me at any point during the term, please let me know. Please DO NOT wait until the last
minute (and especially after the final grades have been submitted) to inquire.
I also recognize that some people are more comfortable talking in class than others. If you feel like being
an active participant is something you might struggle with, please come and see me after class to discuss.
6
Appendix 2: Reading Response Papers
“A” Level Papers: 26-30 points



As with oral participation, “A” level written work demonstrates that the student has read all of the
assigned material carefully, thought about the substantive issues deeply, and made a considerable effort
to link each of the readings into a coherent discussion of higher-level themes.
“A” level papers offer thoughtful analysis of the readings, including views on weaknesses, logical gaps,
issues omitted or overlooked, etc. in the assigned material.
“A” level work also demonstrates the ability to connect the weekly reading to earlier material, broader
course themes, and material addressed in previous coursework. “B” Level Papers: 20-25 points



“B” level papers give some attention to the above, but do a less than complete job demonstrating that the
author has engaged fully with the reading and the concepts addressed.
Such scores are given if the student discusses the assigned readings in a thorough manner, but offers little
in the way of insight or critical analysis. The student makes some effort to address course themes, but
does not do so carefully or thoroughly.
Students who receive “B” level scores are considered to have done average work. In short, these papers
show that the student has done the work, but has not satisfied fully masters level academic output. “C”
Level and Below Papers: 0-19 points
“C” level work is considered below average. Students who receive scores of 19 or below have likely neglected
some of the assigned readings; discussed the reading superficially; paid little or no attention to the relationship
between the assigned reading and course themes; and/or failed to engage critically with the ideas and concepts
addressed.
I expect that these scores will be rare. Should you receive a “C” level grade, please come and see me.
7
Appendix 3: Class presentation/discussion leadership
Purpose
The primary purposes of the class presentations are to give you an opportunity to conduct a critical review of some
of the literature and to facilitate class discussion.
Structure of Presentation
Both your oral presentation and your write-up should attempt to accomplish the following:

Summarize the significant points of the article/chapter that you are reviewing, including the theoretical
frame, method, conclusions drawn, etc. Work off of the assumption that your colleagues have read the
article (i.e., keep this as short as possible).

Critique the reading. What are its principle contributions? What are the problems with the logic,
argumentation, or method used? Does the author omit anything important? What questions were
unanswered or treated superficially?

Implications for policy: How is the article/case relevant to questions about policy processes or policy
substance? Does it have important lessons for policy makers?

Implications for management: What lessons and/or implications does this work hold for local government
practitioners? Do current management practices need to be changed? What specific contributions does it
make to our knowledge about the practice of urban management?

What questions should we consider? How strong are the arguments made by the authors? What, if any,
key assumptions underlie the author(s)’ position? What conditions or circumstances not examined in the
piece should be considered before accepting the lessons for policy makers and practitioners?
Please note that these presentations are intended to facilitate discussion. As such, please keep your presentation
brief. You should not exceed ten to twelve minutes, max.
Sometimes students spend too much time summarizing the work. You should assume that your colleagues have
done the reading and your summary should serve as a quick reference for your more detailed critique and
discussion of implications. Your presentation should emphasize what you think about the author(s)’ work rather
than what the author said.
8
Appendix 4: Article Presentation Grading Rubric
Criteria (Points)
Exemplary (3)
Comprehensive,
accurate content
review
 Each assigned
article/chapter was
presented thoroughly
and accurately
Critical analysis and
engagement
 Thoughtful, critical
analysis of the assigned
reading offered by
presenters or discovered
through a class activity.
 Discussion advanced
understanding of
theoretical and practical
value of text.
 Class was actively
engaged, willing, and
able to participate in the
discussion.
 Key tensions in reading
were identified and
addressed with insight.
Implications drawn,
tied to broader
themes of course
Above Average (2)
Acceptable (1)
 All content discussed,
but done so
haphazardly; some key
points either missed or
glossed over
unnecessarily.
 Analysis advanced key
ideas, but did so
sporadically or
inconsistently
 Questions with some
depth were posed, but
the discussion was
either halting or less
engaged.
 Tensions in literature
identified, but not
thoroughly addressed
or synthesized in a
helpful manner.
 Either some material was
not covered, or was
covered inaccurately or
superficially.
 Implications explored
were realistic and
thoughtful. Made
insightful connections
between assigned
material, key theoretical
concepts, broader course
themes, as well as with
practical and communitybased issues.
 Some effort made to
identify implications of
text, but incomplete
job done to tease out
their importance to
theory or practice.
 Some connections
drawn between
reading and concepts
of curriculum,
instruction, or the
community.
 Presentation/discussion
largely failed to identify key
implications and little or no
effort made to link findings
with broader
themes/concepts.
Reflection on useful
knowledge gained
from reading is
shared
 Highly thoughtful,
reflective summary of
knowledge gained: What
does this stuff mean and
why is it important?
 Student offers some
reflection on
knowledge gained, but
failed to fully engage
with material
 Student offers limited
insight or reflection on
knowledge gained
Creativity,
Interactivity
 Discussion was
interactive, creative and
fun! If applicable,
both/all group members
participate equally.
 Discussion was
engaging, but left us
wanting more or
exhausted. Presenters
may not share equally
in leadership.
 Discussion was neither
engaging nor creative.
Presenters do not share
equally in leadership.
Your final grade
Your
Score
 Analysis added little to
overall understanding of
the reading and/or where it
‘fit’ into the big picture of
our course.
 Questions posed were
largely superficial or lacking
in sufficient analytical
depth.
 Class discussion was hard to
generate; students less
interested or able to
engage with material.
Out of 15
9
10
Appendix 4: Final Paper Grading Rubric
Administrative Requirements:
Footnotes, endnotes, or parenthetical references will satisfy the citation requirements. I don’t have a preference
for which citation method you use, as long as you follow a standard format (APA, Chicago, Bluebook, etc) and are
consistent in its use. When paraphrasing an author's work, a student MUST give credit to the author paraphrased.
You MUST indicate any word for word use with quotation marks and a citation. A quote used without quotation
marks is tantamount to plagiarism, even if the author is cited. Papers should be typed, 12-point font, doublespaced, with 1-inch margins.
Grading
Your grade will be determined using the following criteria.
Topic



Does the chosen topic present a controversial issue, with a current debate among scholars and other
experts?
Does the topic provide fertile ground for an interesting, lively, relevant discussion?
Is the topic germane to our course discussion?
Research
 Does the student present a thorough review of the issue, describing all sides of the issue?
 Is the student’s review of the literature comprehensive? Does it provide a full, accurate description of the
matter?
 To what extent does the student incorporate a level of insight, understanding, and knowledge of the
subject?
 Has the student identified ongoing tensions in the existing literature?
 Has the student identified unanswered questions and assessed the value of such issues, both in terms of
future research and ongoing policy development?
Reference Material
 Does the student rely on the most relevant, highest quality literature?
 Is the literature review current?
 Are there references to or use of inappropriate source material?
Organizational Structure, Language, Etc.
 To what extent is the paper organized in way that is easy to read and understand?
 Has the student successfully organized the material in terms of substance? Are the main themes in the
literature identified and grouped together so as to facilitate broad understanding?
 Has the student spell-checked, proofread, and revised his/her work? Does this look and feel like a
polished piece of writing?
 How well does the student write? Are the ideas conveyed clearly?
11