Master of Science in Criminal Justice
Comprehensive Exam Study Guide
AY 2012 – 2013
The comprehensive examination assesses the candidate for the Masters of Science in Criminal Justice’s
knowledge of the principles and theories of criminal justice policies and law. The exam evaluates the
student’s ability to demonstrate that they have gained a sufficient body of knowledge to respond to
questions in an informed, coherent, and articulate manner.
The exam is comprised of four (4) or (5) sections each relating to one of the core courses in the Masters of
Science in Criminal Justice curriculum. The examination for students entering the program prior to AY
2012 – 2013 (course work began before August 2012) will include questions for CJ 6610 Principles of
Administration in Criminal Justice, CJ 6620 Current Trends in Criminal Law, CJ 6622 Seminar in the
Administration of Criminal Justice, and CJ 6624 Court Administration. Students entering or electing the AY
2012-2013 curriculum will sit for exams covering CJ 6610 Principles of Administration in Criminal Justice,
CJ 6620 Current Trends in Criminal Law, CJ 6622 Principles of Administration in Criminal Justice, CJ 6636
Criminological Theory, and CJ 6650 Survey of Research Methods in Criminal Justice.
For each section/course students will be offered two (2) questions from which to select one (1) for
response. Students will be allowed 90 minutes in which to write their response to each exam question. The
entire exam must be completed in a single seating e.g. four (4) question exams will allow four consecutive
90 minute sessions, five (5) question exams will be allowed five (5) consecutive 90 minute sessions.
Students must complete one section before being allowed to begin another section.
Exams must be administered at an approved testing site under the supervision of a human proctor.
Students will not be allowed to take personal items e.g. cell phones, backpacks, purses, etc. into the testing
room. No reference material will be available to the student during the exam. Students may not sit for the
comprehensive exams until they have earned an acceptable grade in all of the core courses in their
respective program of study. Note that all credits used to satisfy degree requirements must be less than
eight years old at the time of degree completion.
In most instances comprehensive exam essays will be written using computers at approved proctoring
sites. These machines must be locked down and contain no criminal justice related material or Internet
access. In the exceptional situation that exams are hand written, they should be written in ink.
Responses will be evaluated based on the extent to which the essay demonstrates a thorough
understanding of the material relevant to the question selected for response. How well the response
communicates a clear understanding of the issues, theories, and subject matter related to the question and
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 1 of 19
the extent to which it provides appropriate, well supported arguments and relies on references to scholarly
literature and case law. References beyond the textbook are required. The content of the answer must be
well-developed, accurate, and appropriate to the question posed. The essay must be well organized and
void of errors in grammar, spelling and sentence structure. Each essay is evaluated in totality.
Students not passing the any section of the exam will be allowed to retake that section. There is no penalty
for failing a section of the exam; however, the University places a one year limit on the successful
completion of the comprehensive examinations thus students have four opportunities to retake the exam
(once each successive term) during the calendar year from their first seating. Under no circumstances may
exams be repeated within the same term.
To schedule comprehensive exam the student must submit the comprehensive exam proctoring form found
at https://etroy.troy.edu/forms/CEProctorForm.aspx Beginning in AY 2012-2013 only web based proctoring
forms will be accepted.
Exam Preparation
To prepare for the comprehensive exams, begin with the Graduate Bulletin descriptions of the core courses
comprising the exam. Regardless of exactly what the individual instructor may have presented in the
course, the exam questions will address the subject areas identified by the course description. In addition,
the student learning outcomes for each of the core courses are identify in this document along with
additional explanations of specific knowledge with which students should be familiar. A recommended
reading list is provided for each of the courses included in comprehensive exams. Since the evaluation
criterion for the exams requires knowledge of the literature and/or case law beyond the textbook, before
attempting the exam, students should be familiar with these and other scholarly journal articles and court
cases related to the exam areas.
It is suggested that students create a personal study plan based on the individual course guidance provided
in this document. Preparing a detailed study strategy which addresses comprehensive knowledge of the
subject matter, analytical or critical thinking skills, and references to important criminal justice literature and
case law should prove beneficial. With proper planning and attention to these and other materials provided
in each of the courses students may expect to be properly prepared for the comprehensive exams. It is
important that students approach to all coursework in this program is mindful of the comprehensive exam
requirements.
Students are encouraged to contact their faculty advisor for additional direction early in their program.
Following the exam essays will be sent for grading by full time criminal justice faculty. Once a
determination regarding a student’s performance is made he/she will be notified. In most instances
notification may be expect by the end of the term/semester in which the exam was taken. Results may only
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 2 of 19
be provided in writing through a formal written process; therefore, making inquiries, by phone or email, will
not expedite the delivery of results. Please understand that there are a number of students taking the
exams who also want to have their results quickly.
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 3 of 19
CJ 6610 Principles of Administration
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Explain the significance of organizational structure to organizational effectiveness
Analyze the significance of organizational deviance in criminal justice agencies
Evaluate the importance of ethics to criminal justice organizational culture
Analyze personnel situations in light of standard personnel processes, including but not limited to job
design, hiring, promotion, training and disciplinary procedures.
5. Apply major personnel laws and regulations including but not limited to Civil Rights Act, Americans with
Disability Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and Whistleblower Protection Laws to situations arising in
criminal justice organizations.
6. Illustrate the role of communication in the criminal justice organizations
7. Characterize the significant roles of organizational leadership
Study Suggestions
1. Students should be familiar with the role of communication in both inter and intra organizational
success as well as the barriers to communication and the consequences of poor communications on
organizational effectiveness.
2. Understand the unique issues surrounding Recruitment /Selection/Training/ Promoting/ Evaluation/
and Discipline in criminal justice personnel management.
3. Recognize the significance of organizational structure to criminal justice agencies.
4. Explain the role of leadership in the functioning of criminal justice organizations and the effectiveness
of various leadership styles within this context.
5. Understand bureaucracy as it exists in the criminal justice organizations and the significance it plays in
the operation of criminal justice organizations.
6. Explore the ethical considerations presented in criminal justice organizations with special attention to
ethical dilemmas associated with conflicting community perspectives and legal obligations; special
opportunities for ethical/legal violations that exist in criminal justice;
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 4 of 19
CJ 6620 Current Trends in Criminal Law
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
1. Analyze the facts, issues and reasoning in U.S. Supreme Court cases in the areas of the First, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and recognize the constitutional doctrines
underlying the Court’s application of constitutional principles in specific cases.
2. Understand and interpret the evolution of criminal law and procedure generally and in specific cases
and areas in which the Supreme Court has recently issued landmark decisions including, but not
limited to, the death penalty, search and seizure, guideline sentencing, self-representation by
defendants with mental disabilities, crime victims, warrantless searches and due process of law.
3. Apply the concepts of substantive and procedural due process as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme
Court in its analysis of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
4. Describe and evaluate significant current trends in criminal law and procedure in order to predict
potential developments in the field of criminal law and procedure.
In CJ-6620 students should:
1. Analyze the facts, issues and reasoning in U.S. Supreme Court cases in the area of “search and
seizure” and recognize the constitutional doctrines underlying the U.S. Supreme Courts application of the
4th amendment.
2. Recognize and interpret the evolution of criminal law and procedure in areas in which the Supreme
Court has recently issued landmark decisions including, but not limited to the death penalty, guideline
sentencing, self-representation by defendants with mental disabilities, warrantless searches and due
process of law.
3. Analyze and apply the concepts of substantive and procedural due process as interpreted in the 5th and
14th Amendments.
4. Describe and evaluate significant current trends in criminal law and procedure in order to predict the
development of criminal law and procedure.
The study suggestions below contain questions about a number of areas of criminal law and procedure that
may be tested in the comprehensive exam for CJ-6620. In order to prepare for the exam students should
expand upon the material provided here, not only preparing answers to specific questions but also
conducting research in the various areas of criminal law and procedure that are the basis for the questions.
The exam will test the student’s knowledge of the subject matter, his/her analytical and critical thinking
skills, and his/her ability to reference and discuss relevant criminal justice literature, the course textbook,
the material found in the CJ-6620 Suggested Reading List, major U.S. Supreme Court cases and other
academic sources.
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 5 of 19
Study Suggestions

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued many decisions addressing the law and procedure related to
“search and seizure” as provided by the Fourth Amendment. What are the three ways the Fourth
Amendment has been interpreted by the Court? Which of these interpretations of the Fourth
Amendment is most recent and most controversial? What are the major differences between the
application of the Warrant Approach and the Reasonableness Approach and why does the Court’s
choice of approach sometimes change the outcome of the case? Why is the Special Needs Doctrine
said by the Supreme Court to be for use in situations beyond the normal needs of law enforcement?
What is the “balancing test” used by the Supreme Court in deciding cases based on the Special Needs
Doctrine? When are Warrants required as the basis for searches and arrests? How has the law on
searches pursuant to arrest been changed by the 2009 decision in Arizona v. Gant?

Criminal sentencing in the American criminal justice system has recently been addressed by the
Supreme Court in several different contexts. What theories or “justifications for punishment” have been
recognized and/or endorsed by academic researchers and/or the Supreme Court? What recent
changes in that law governing the death penalty have occurred and what trends may be discerned in
the Court’s latest decisions addressing the death penalty for juveniles and defendants with mental
disabilities? Explain “guideline sentencing” and what changes have recently been brought about in this
area of the law (specifically by the cases of Blakely v. Washington and U.S. v. Booker)?

Why and how have “Victim Impact Statements” (VIS) been developed? What Supreme Court cases
have set out the law and procedure for the use of VIS? What are the arguments for and against the
use of VIS? Should the use of VIS in court be expanded? Why or why not?

How has the law on the ideal of “Due Process” been developed by the United States Supreme Court.
What is the meaning. History and importance of Due process? What Supreme Court Justices were
most influential in developing the law on Due process? In light of the Supreme Court’s decisions on
Due Process, is there a constitutional “right to privacy” for citizens of the United States? What parts of
the U.S. Constitution are said to provide a basis for the “right to privacy” and why are they said to
provide this basis? Describe and provide examples of the kinds of rights protected by the “right of
privacy” and the kinds of rights that are not protected.

Explain the history and importance of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel in criminal law and
procedure. Why did it take the Supreme Court so long to require that all criminal defendants be
provided with an attorney in criminal cases? What major problem has developed in the application of
the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel with respect to defendants with mental disabilities and how has
this problem been addressed by the Court?

To what extent does the U.S. Supreme Court follow its own case law (“stare decisis”) in the field of
criminal law and procedure? What conflicting values have been claimed by various Supreme Court
Justices in following and/or departing from precedent cases? Identify and explain specific areas of the
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 6 of 19
law and cases where the Supreme Court has failed to abide by the rule of “stare decisis” and the
specific justifications the Court provides for not following precedent in some cases.
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 7 of 19
CJ 6622 Seminar in the Administration of Justice
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
1. Interpret the strategies used by the police, the courts and the correctional system in various crime
control efforts.
2. Explain the dynamic growth of the criminal justice system, and how crime prevention became an
industry.
3. Analyze the success and failure of various methods of control crime
4. Critique the evidence presented from scholarly studies regarding the effectiveness of various crime
control policies.
Study Suggestions




Identify and discuss crime control strategies (adult and juveniles) that have been successful and
unsuccessful.
Identify and discuss community, schools, law enforcement, courts, and legislature roles in crime
control.
Identify and evaluate alternative to incarceration and diversion programs.
Apply routine activities to crime control strategies.
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 8 of 19
CJ 6624 Court Administration
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
1. Discuss and distinguish the structure and jurisdiction of federal, state and local courts within the
American court systems.
2. Evaluate and discuss the impact of court reform efforts, and the role of legal and professional
organization toward reforms.
3. Analyze the relationships between courts and other aspects of the criminal justice system.
4. Discuss the technical and administrative aspects of court management, and the roles of the primary
actors in courtroom processes.
5. Evaluate and analyze the role of the constitutional amendments to court operations.
Study Suggestions
 Explain the criminal justice process and its keys member (courtroom workgroup and victims) in the
context of sentencing philosophies and decision-making.
 Discuss the conflict between judicial review and activism
 Understand the indigent defense system, it’s various forms and the advantages and pitfalls of these
systems
 Evaluate the various forms of diversion applied in the court system with particular attention given to
therapeutic jurisprudence.
 Explain the role of plea bargaining in the court process. Discuss the role of the various actors in the
plea bargaining process and benefit accruing to each of the various agencies and actors.
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 9 of 19
CJ 6636 Criminological Theory
Student Learning Outcomes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Interpret the theoretical paradigm affecting criminology and criminal justice.
Identify and evaluate the major theories of crime
Compare and contrast the Classical and Positivist Schools of Criminology
Describe the emerging trends in criminological thinking
Identify and differentiate the contributions of major theorists to criminology and criminal justice
Study Suggestions
 Identify and discuss the dominant aspects of major criminological perspectives
 Identify the major contributors to criminological perspectives and their contributions
 Associate theories with the dominant schools of criminological thought and identify the attributes of the
theory which connect them
 Apply theoretical explanations to explain criminal justice policy decisions and/or the development of law
CJ 6650 Survey of Research Methods in Criminal Justice
Student Learning Outcomes
1. Identify and distinguish research methodologies that are appropriate applications that are appropriate
within criminal justice settings.
2. Demonstrate an understanding of ethical principles associated with criminal justice research.
3. Execute an array of research functions (research design, survey development, interviewing, sampling
procedures, data collection and data analysis).
4. Evaluate the veracity of criminal justice and social science literature.
5. Apply procedures appropriate for reporting research findings.
Study Suggestions
 Demonstrate ability to conceptualize, operationalize and measure variables in a criminal justice
research project
 Be familiar with the ethical considerations that relate to criminal justice research and the associated
special populations
 Compare and contrast various research methods and the advantages and disadvantages of each in
criminal justice settings
 Understand and explain the limitations found in criminal justice research related to special populations.
 Understand the role and function of the Institutional Review Board
 Explain the major research methodologies, the situations and types of data with which each is
appropriately applied and
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 10 of 19
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 11 of 19
Recommended Reading List
CJ 6610
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND LEADERSHIP
Dias, C. F. Dias & Vaughn, M.S. (2006). Bureaucracy, managerial disorganization, and administrative
breakdown in criminal justice agencies. Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 34 (5) 543-555.
Wright, K. (1999). Leadership Is the Key to Ethical Practice in Criminal Justice Agencies. Criminal Justice
Ethics, 18(2), 2. Retrieved from EBSCO.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N.L. & I Allen, R. I. (2006). CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOB
STRESS: The Impact of Organizational Structure[dagger]. American Journal of Criminal Justice.
Vol. 30(2), pg. 227-IV. (Document ID: 1167641161). USE Proquest database
Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2003).Learning organizations in the public sector? A
study of police agencies employing information and technology to advance
knowledge. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 30-43.
GENDER AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Jurik, N. C. (1985) An Officer and a Lady: Organizational Barriers to Women Working as Correctional
Officers in Men's Prisons, Social Problems, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 375-388
Burke, M.. 1994. Homosexuality as deviance: the case of the gay police officer. British Journal of
Criminology Vol. 34.n2 (Spring 1994) p192-203. Available through the AcademicOne File database
Thompson, R. A. & Nored, L. S. (2002). Law enforcement employment discrimination based on sexual
orientation: A selective review of case law. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 26(2), 203-217.
(Document ID: 169335071). Available through the Criminal Justice Periodicals database
PERSONNEL LAW
Colbridge, T. D. (2000) Americans With Disabilities Act. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 69 (9), 26-30.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2000-pdfs/sep00leb.pdf
Fair Labor Standards Act, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/
Civil Rights and Criminal Justice: Primer on Sexual Harassment. Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/156663.htm
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 12 of 19
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
Micucci, A. J. & Gomme, I. M. 2005. American police and subcultural support for the use of excessive
force, Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 33 (5), pp. 487-500, DOI:
10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.06.002. USE Science Direct Database.
Worley, R., & Cheeseman, K. (2006). Guards as Embezzlers: The Consequences of “Nonshareable
Problems” in Prison Settings. Deviant Behavior, 27(2), 203-222. doi:10.1080/01639620500468592
ETHICS
Kenia, R. E. (2004). The Ethical Acceptability of Gratuities: Still Saying "Yes" After All These Years.
Criminal Justice Ethics, Vol. 23 (1), p54-63, DOI: AN 14149900.
Gershman, B. L. (2001). The prosecutor's duty to truth. The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 14(2),
309-354. DOI: 73995127. Use ABI/INFORM Global
Crank, J. Flaherty, D & Giacomazzi, A. (2007). The Noble Cause: an empirical assessment. Journal of
Criminal Justice. Vol. 35. 103 -116. Use Science Direct database.
COMMUNICATION
Heinz, John P. and Peter M. Manikas. 1992. Networks among Elites in a Local Criminal Justice System.
Law & Society Review. Vol. 26, No. 4 (1992), pp. 831-862. Use JSTOR database.
Stohr, Mary K., Hemmens, Craig, Collins, Peter A., Iannacchione, Brian, Hudson, Marianne, Johnson, Hailey.
2012. Assessing the Organizational Culture in a Jail Setting. The Prison Journal, Vol. 92: pp. 358387 Use SAGE database.
CJ 6620
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-and-seizure/fourth-amendment-usconstitution-annotated.html
CASES (Additional cases assigned as necessary):
Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Warden v. Hayden 387 U.S. 294 (1967)
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Bumper v. North Carolina 391 U.S. 543 (1968)
Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 13 of 19
South Dakota v. Opperman 428 U.S. 364 (1976)
Mincey v. Arizona 437 U.S. 385 (1978)
Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S. 213 (1983)
Michigan v. Long 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)
Oliver v. United States 466 U.S. 170 (1984)
Florida v. Meyers 466 U.S. 380 (1984)
United States v. Leon 468 U.S. 897 (1984)
Massachusetts v. Sheppard 468 U.S. 981 (1984)
California v. Greenwood 486 U.S. 35 (1988)
Florida v. Bostick 501 U.S. 429 (1991)
Ohio v. Robinette 519 U.S. 33 (1996)
Maryland v. Wilson 519 U.S. 408 (1997)
Florida v. J.L. 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
United States v. Drayton 01-631 (2000)
Fourth Amendment Warrant Approach:
U.S. v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980); Go-Bart Importing Co. v.
U.S., 282 U.S. 344
Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Approach:
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1068); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S.
752 (1969); U.S. v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 (1974)
Fourth Amendment Special Needs Doctrine:
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985); Skinner v. Railway L.E.A., 489 U.S. 602 (1989); Michigan v.
Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990); Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997)
SENTENCING
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_stages/stages-sentencing/
http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/index.cfm
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/federal-sentencing-guidelines.cfm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/readings/breyer.html
http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/s_ABACJsentencing2011.pdf
http://www.jenner.com/files/tbl_s20Publications%5CRelatedDocumentsPDFs1252%5C2265%5CHarrison%
20article.pdf
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 14 of 19
CASES
U.S. v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (19780
Koon v. U.S., 518 U.S. 81 (1996)
Blakely v Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)
U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)
Graham v. Florida, Argued November 9, 2009—Decided May 17,
No. 08–7412. 2010
SENTENCING: THE DEATH PENALTY
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
CASES
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)
Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001),:
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
Supreme Court Limitations on Sentencing Juveniles: Graham v. Florida, Decided May 17, 2010 No.
08–7412.
VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32515
Alexander, Ellen and Janice Harris Lord. (1994).Impact Statements -- A Victim's Right to Speak... A
Nation's Responsibility to Listen. National Center for Victims of Crime. Arlington, VA.
Hillenbrand, Susan and Barbara Smith. (1989). Victims' Rights Legislation: An Assessment of Its Impact on
Criminal Justice Practitioners and Victims, Executive Summary. Washington, DC: American Bar
Association.
Kennard, Karen. (1989). "The Victim's Veto: A Way to Increase Victim Impact on Criminal Case
Dispositions." California Law Review, 77(2): 417.
National Center for Victims of Crime. (1996). Statutory and Constitutional Protection of Victims' Rights:
Implementation and Impact on Crime Victims, Final Report. Arlington, VA.
National Center for Victims of Crime. (1996). The 1996 Victims' Rights Sourcebook: A Compilation and
Comparison of Victims' Rights Laws. Arlington, VA.
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 15 of 19
CASES INVOLVING VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS (Additional cases assigned as necessary):
Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987);
Gathers v. South Carolina, 490 U.S. 805 (1989);
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991).
Right to Privacy
http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/right-privacy
http://www.rbs2.com/priv2.pdf
Right to Counsel
http://www.nlada.org/About/About_HistoryDefender
Stare Decisis
http://thoughtsoncitizens.blogspot.com/2010/10/death-of-stare-decisis.html)
http://conservapedia.com/Stare_decisis
http://www.rbs2.com/overrule.pdf
http://www-polisci.tamu.edu/upload_images/14/25%20October%20481%20Stare%20Decisis.pdf
CJ 6622
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime in the Nation’s Households, 2000. Washington D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, 2002.
J. Austin. “Why Criminology is Irrelevant,” Criminology and Public Policy 2(2003):557-564.
J. Reiman, The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Prison. (6th ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.
Catherine M. Coles, and George Kelling. "Prevention Through Community Prosecution." The Public
Interest 136 (Summer 1999).
Joseph A. Colquitt, “Ad Hoc Plea Bargaining.” Tulane Law Review 75(2001):695
L. Maher and D. Dixon. “The costs of Crackdowns: Policing Cabramatta’s Heroin Market,” CurrentIssues in
Criminal Justice 13(2001): 5-22.
Police Executive Research Forum, Themes and Variations in Community Policing. Washington D.C. Police
Executive Research Forum, 1996.
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 16 of 19
Center for Court Innovation, Problem-Solving Courts. New York: Center for Court Innovation, Available at
http://www.problem-solvingcourts.org.
S. Turner and J. Petersilia, “Work Release in Washington: Effects on Recidivism and Corrections Costs,”
Prison Journal 76(1996):138-164.
T.V. Kovandzic and T.B. Marvell, “Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns and Violent Crime: Crime Control
through Gun Decontrol?,” Criminology and Public Policy 2(2003):363-396.
H.F. Fradella, “Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Arizona’s Ineffective Tool for the Social Control of Driving
Under the Influence,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 11(2000):113-135.
P.J. Cook, S.Molliconi and T.B. Cole, “Regulating Gun Markets,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
86(1995):59-92.
L. Hannon & J. DeFronzo, “Welfare and Property Crimes,” Justice Quarterly 15(1998):273-287.
D.C. Gottfredson, G.D. Gottfredson, and S.A. Weisman, “The Timing of Delinquent Behavior and Its
Implications for After-School Programs,” Criminology and Public Policy 1(2001):61-86.
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)
CJ 6624
S. Andersen 2009. Anatomy of a merit selection victory. Judicature; 93(1).
J. D. Pozzulo, Julie Dempsey, Evelyn Maeder and Laura Allen. 2010. The Effects of Victim Gender,
Defendant Gender, and Defendant Age on Juror Decision Making. Criminal Justice and Behavior.
Vol. 37. DOI: 10.1177/0093854809344173
Bushway, S. D. & Piehl, A. M. 2001. Judging Judicial Discretion: Legal Factors and Racial Discrimination in
Sentencing. Law and Society Review, 35 (4), 733-764.
Engen, R. L. & Steen, S . 2000. The Power to Punish: Discretion and Sentencing Reform in the War on
Drugs. The American Journal of Sociology, 105,(5) 1357-1395.
Emmelman, D. S. 1996. Trial by Plea Bargain: Case Settlement as a Product of Recursive Decisionmaking.
Law & Society Review, 30(2), 335-360.
Haria, P. F. & Schrna, W. G. 1998, Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Judicature, 82 (1).
Johnson, B.D.. 2005. Contextual disparities in guidelines departures: Courtroom social contexts, guideline
compliance, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. CRIMINOLOGY. 43 (3) 761.
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 17 of 19
Keil, T. J. & Vito, G. F. 2006. Capriciousness or Fairness? Race and Prosecutorial Decisions to Seek the
Death Penalty in Kentucky. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 4(3).
Lurigio, A. J., Watson, A., Luchins, D. J. & Hanrahan, P. 2001. Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Action.
Judicature, 84, (4).
O’Keefe, K. 2010. Two Wrongs Make a Wrong: A Challenge to Plea Bargaining and Collateral. Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology, 100 (1).
Piehl, A. M. & Bushway, S. D. 2007. Measuring and Explaining Charge Bargaining. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology. 23, 105-123.
Spohn, C. & DeLone, M. 2000. When Does Race Matter?: An examination of the conditions under which
race effects sentence severity. Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance.
Steffensmeier, D. & Demuth, S. (2001) Ethnicity and judges' sentencing decisions: Hispanic-Black-White
comparisons. Criminology, 39 (1).
Steffensmeier, D. & Demuth, S. 2000. Ethnicity and Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts: Who is
Punished More Harshly? American Sociological Review. 65 (5)705-729.
Steffensmeier, D. & Hebert, C. 1999. Women and men policymakers: Does the judge's gender affect the
sentencing of criminal defendants? Social Forces. 77 ( 3), 1163-1196.
Staffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J. & Kramer, J. 1998. The interaction of race, gender and age in criminal
sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black and male. Criminology, 36 (4).
CJ 6636
Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Jr. (1990). CONSCIENCE, SIGNIFICANT OTHERS, AND RATIONAL
CHOICE: EXTENDING THE DETERRENCE MODEL. Law & Society Review, 24(3), 837-861.
Paternoster, R. (1989). Decisions to Participate in and Desist from Four Types of Common Delinquency:
Deterrence and the Rational Choice Perspective. Law & Society Review, Vol. 23, (1) 7-40.
De Coster, S. & K. Heimer. (2001). The relationship between law violation and depression: An interactionist
analysis. Criminology, Vol. 39 (4) 799.
ELLIS, L. & A. WALSH. (1997). GENE-BASED EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES
IN CRIMINOLOGY. CRIMINOLOGY. VOL.35 (2), 229-276.
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 18 of 19
Andy Hochstetlera,*, Heith Copesb, Matt DeLisia. (2002). Differential association in group and solo
offending. Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol.30, 559 – 566.
Akers, R. L. (1996). Is differential association/social learning cultural deviance theory? Criminology. 34 (2)
pg. 229.
Revised March 1, 2013
Page 19 of 19