Author Description

With most experts estimating that about a quarter of the crime decline can be linked to tougher sentencing policies, whilethree quarters of the decline have been attributed to other factors (such as the economy, education, and immigration). A careful review of the evaluation research indicates that community-based sanctions does not support the notion that increased surveillance and control reduces recidivism (that is, an offender's likelihood of rearrest, reconviction, and/ or re-incarceration). There are two possible explanations for these findings: (1) the underlying assumptions of classical criminologists (i.e., most people are rational, and weigh the costs and benefits of various acts in the same manner) are wrong (e.g., people commit crimes for emotional reasons, because of mental illness, and/or because they believe the criminal act is justified, given circumstances and prevailing community values); or (2) the current sentencing strategies and community corrections programs need to be even tougherand deterrence-oriented (in other words, thetheory is correct; it just has not been implemented correctly).While community corrections populations and probation rates also remain high, and continue to use multiple conditionsthat emphasize surveillance and control(through drug testing, electronic monitoring, curfews, and now social media monitoring).For example, in the name of deterrence, legislation has been passed in several statesallowing the lifetime supervision of paroled.The final group of psychological theoriesfocuses on the potential link between personality and criminality. Although there iscurrently much debate on whether personalitycharacteristics play a significant role indetermining subsequent criminal behavior, a number of prominent criminologists haveargued that "the root causes of crime arenot...social issues [high unemployment, badschools] but deeply ingrained features of thehuman personality and its early experiences.Low intelligence, an impulsive pe