The optical spectrograph and infrared imager system (OSIRIS) on board the Odin spacecraft is designed to retrieve altitude profiles of terrestrial atmospheric minor species by observing limb-radiance profiles. The grating optical spectrograph (OS) obtains spectra of scattered sunlight over the range 280-800 nm with a spectral resolution of approximately 1 nm. The Odin spacecraft performs a repetitive vertical limb scan to sweep the OS 1 km vertical field of view over selected altitude ranges from approximately 10 to 100 km. The terrestrial absorption features that are superimposed on the scattered solar spectrum are monitored to derive the minor species altitude profiles. The spectrograph also detects the airglow, which can be used to study the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. The other part of OSIRIS is a three-channel infrared imager (IRI) that uses linear array detectors to image the vertical limb radiance over an altitude range of approximately 100 km. The IRI observes both scattered sunlight and the airglow emissions from the oxygen infrared atmospheric band at 1.27 µm and the OH (3-1) Meinel band at 1.53 µm. A tomographic inversion technique is used with a series of these vertical images to derive the two-dimensional distribution of the emissions within the orbit plane.Résumé : Le système de spectrographie optique et d'imagerie infrarouge (OSIRIS) à bord du satellite Odin est conçu pour enregistrer les profils en altitude des éléments mineurs de l'atmosphère en observant les profils de radiance du limbe. Le spectrographe optique à réseau (OS) obtient les spectres de la lumière solaire diffusée sur le domaine entre 280-800 nm, avec une résolution spatiale approximative de 1 nm. Le satellite Odin balaye verticalement le limbe de façon répétée, de telle sorte que l'ouverture verticale de 1 km du OS parcoure les domaines voulus entre 10 et 100 km. Nous analysons les spectres solaires diffusés en superposition avec les caractéristiques terrestres d'absorption, afin de déterminer les profils en altitude des éléments mineurs de l'atmosphère. Le spectrographe détecte aussi la luminescence nocturne atmosphérique qui peut être utilisé pour étudier la mésosphère et la thermosphère. L'autre partie d'OSIRIS est un imageur infrarouge (IRI) à trois canaux qui utilise une banque linéaire de détecteurs pour imager la radiance du limbe sur un domaine d'altitude d'approximativement 100 km. L'IRI observe à la fois la lumière solaire diffusée et les émissions de luminescence nocturne atmospérique provenant de la bande infrarouge de l'oxygène atmosphérique à 1.27 µm et la bande de Meinel de l'OH (3-1) à 1.53 µm. Nous utilisons une technique d'inversion tomographique avec une série de ces images verticales pour obtenir la distribution bidimensionnelle des émissions à l'intérieur de l'orbite.[Traduit par la Rédaction] Can.

In the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, 411 London males from 397 families of origin have been followed up from age eight to age 32 by interviews, and from age 10 to age 40 in records. This paper relates convictions of these males to convictions of their biological fathers and mothers, full brothers and sisters. and wives. Overall, 601 out of 2203 birth family members were convicted (1.5 convicted persons on average out of 5.5 persons per family). While 64 per cent of the families contained at least one convicted person, only 6 per cent of the families accounted for half of all the convictions. Convictions of one family member were strongly related to convictions of every other family member. In both generations, the majority of convicted mothers mated with convicted fathers. About three-quarters of convicted fathers and convicted mothers had a convicted child. and about threequarters of families containing convicted daughters also contained convicted sons. Same-sex relationships within generations and between generations were stronger than opposite-sex relationships. Convictions of older siblings were more strongly related to convictions of the Study male than were convictions of younger siblings. Convictions of each family member were independently related to convictions of the Study male. Very little of the association between convictions of family members was attributable to co-offending. It is concluded that offending is strongly concentrated in families and tends to be transmitted from one generation to the next; however, this research does not establish the precise mechanism of transmission (genetic or environmental).There is no doubt that crime, like many other features, runs in families. Surprisingly, however, the influence of criminal parents and siblings on a child's delinquency is largely neglected in current American research and theorizing on the causes, correlates and predictors of offending. This may partly be because most American criminologists were trained as sociologists and are concerned to avoid any suggestion that offending might be genetically transmitted (although, of course, the concentration of offending in families might also be explainable by environmental transmission). It may also be partly attributable to problems of establishing who are the biological relatives of American inner-city samples (e.g. in light of the high proportion of missing biological fathers), and problems of getting access to and adequacy of criminal records (although, of course, the concentration of offending in families could also be investigated using self-reports).The most recent development has been the rediscovery that a substantial proportion of prison inmates have a parent or sibling who has also been imprisoned. In the 1991 National Prison Survey in England and Wales (Walmsley, Howard 8c White, 1992), 35per cent of inmates said that they had a family member imprisoned, and this was true

Advocates of restorative justice (RJ) hypothesize that the diversion of criminal cases to RJ conferences should be more effective in lowering the rate of reoffending than traditional prosecution in court processing because the conferences more effectively engage the psychological mechanisms of reintegrative shaming and procedural justice. This study uses longitudinal data from the drinking‐and‐driving study in the Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) to evaluate the long‐term impact of reintegrative shaming and procedural justice on support for the law and on later recidivism as assessed through the use of police records and by self‐report. Analysis first suggests that there is no direct effect of experimental condition on later recidivism. However, it further suggests that both traditional court‐based prosecution and RJ conferences increase support for the law and lower the rate of future reoffending when they engage the social psychological mechanisms of reintegrative shaming and procedural justice and thereby increase the legitimacy of the law. Hence, the results argue for the potential value of procedures such as the RJ conference but indicate that those procedures will only achieve their objectives if they are effectively designed and implemented.

Forecasts of future dangerousness are often used to inform the sentencing decisions of convicted offenders. For individuals who are sentenced to probation or paroled to community supervision, such forecasts affect the conditions under which they are to be supervised. The statistical criterion for these forecasts is commonly called recidivism, which is defined as a charge or conviction for any new offence, no matter how minor. Only rarely do such forecasts make distinctions on the basis of the seriousness of offences. Yet seriousness may be central to public concerns, and judges are increasingly required by law and sentencing guidelines to make assessments of seriousness. At the very least, information about seriousness is essential for allocating scarce resources for community supervision of convicted offenders. The paper focuses only on murderous conduct by individuals on probation or parole. Using data on a population of over 60000 cases from Philadelphia's Adult Probation and Parole Department, we forecast whether each offender will be charged with a homicide or attempted homicide within 2 years of beginning community supervision. We use a statistical learning approach that makes no assumptions about how predictors are related to the outcome. We also build in the costs of false negative and false positive charges and use half of the data to build the forecasting model, and the other half of the data to evaluate the quality of the forecasts. Forecasts that are based on this approach offer the possibility of concentrating rehabilitation, treatment and surveillance resources on a small subset of convicted offenders who may be in greatest need, and who pose the greatest risk to society. Copyright (c) 2009 Royal Statistical Society.

The growing use of restorative justice provides a major opportunity for experimental criminology and evidence-based policy. Face-to-face meetings led by police officers between crime victims and their offenders are predicted to reduce the harm to victims caused by the crime. This prediction is derived not only from the social movement for restorative justice, but also from psychological and sociological theories. Four randomized, controlled trials of this hypothesis in London and Canberra, with point estimates disaggregated by gender, tested the prediction with measures of both successful interaction (apologies received and their perceived sincerity) and the hypothesized benefits of the ritual (on forgiveness of, and reduced desire for violent revenge against, offenders, and victim selfblame for the crime). The meta-analyses of the eight point estimates suggest success (as victims define it) of restorative justice as an interaction ritual, and some benefits as a policy for reducing harm to victims.Across the world, a growing social movement advocates restorative justice for those affected by crime Yvictims and offenders alike (Braithwaite 2002). Embracing a wide range of procedures recommended for a wide range of criminal justice settings, the concept of restorative justice is associated with two major hypotheses, both of which are eminently testable ( Ruth and Reitz 2003). One is that restorative justice ( RJ ) will do better than conventional justice (CJ ) at reducing repeat offending. The other hypothesis is that RJ will do better than CJ at repairing the harm that crime causes to victims. This article provides new evidence on the second hypothesis, drawn exclusively from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) led by the two senior authors.Our evidence bears upon one specific approach to restorative justice: face-toface meetings among offenders, their victims, and their respective family and friends as Fsupporters._ All of our evidence is based on such meetings being conducted by specially trained police officers who have studied the facts of the case and arranged for all of the participants to attend the meeting. The four RCTs vary by offense type (with both violent and property crimes) and location in the criminal justice process ( pre-court diversion vs. pre-sentence), as well as by the physical location of the meetings (inside prisons or in private rooms in police stations) and by nation (Australia vs. United Kingdom). Thus we examine the Journal of Experimental Criminology (2005) 1: 367-395 # Springer 2005

This article reports the results of an experimental evaluation of the impact of Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP) on probationer recidivism. Participants, who were assessed at an increased likelihood of committing serious crimes and not ordered to specialized supervision, were randomly assigned to ISP (n = 447) or standard probation (n = 385). ISP probationers received more restrictive supervision and experienced more office contacts, home visitations, and drug screenings. After 12 months, there was no difference in offending. This equivalence holds across multiple types of crimes, including violent, non-violent, property, and drug offenses, as well as in a survival analysis conducted for each offense type. ISP probationers absconded from supervision, were charged with technical violations, and were incarcerated at significantly higher rates. Policy implications for these results are discussed.

As is common across the public sector, the UK police service is under pressure to do more with less, to target resources more efficiently and take steps to identify threats proactively; for example under riskassessment schemes such as 'Clare's Law' and 'Sarah's Law'. Algorithmic tools promise to improve a police force's decisionmaking and prediction abilities by making better use of data (including intelligence), both from inside and outside the force. This article uses Durham Constabulary's Harm Assessment Risk Tool (HART) as a case-study. HART is one of the first algorithmic models to be deployed by a UK police force in an operational capacity. Our article comments upon the potential benefits of such tools, explains the concept and method of HART and considers the results of the first validation of the model's use and accuracy. The article then critiques the use of algorithmic tools within policing from a societal and legal perspective, focusing in particular upon substantive common law grounds for judicial review. It considers a concept of 'experimental' proportionality to permit the use of unproven algorithms in the public sector in a controlled and time-limited way, and as part of a combination of approaches to combat algorithmic opacity, proposes 'ALGO-CARE', a guidance framework of some of the key legal and practical concerns that should be considered in relation to the use of algorithmic risk assessment tools by the police. The article concludes that for the use of algorithmic tools in a policing context to result in a 'better' outcome, that is to say, a more efficient use of police resources in a landscape of more consistent, evidence-based decision-making, then an 'experimental' proportionality approach should be developed to ensure that new solutions from 'big data' can be found for criminal justice problems traditionally arising from clouded, non-augmented decision-making. Finally, this article notes that there is a subset of decisions around which there is too great an impact upon society and upon the welfare of individuals for them to be influenced by an emerging technology; to an extent, in fact, that they should be removed from the influence of algorithmic decision-making altogether.

Objectives We conducted and measured outcomes from the Jerry Lee Program of 12 randomized trials over two decades in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK), testing an identical method of restorative justice taught by the same trainers to hundreds of police officers and others who delivered it to 2231 offenders and 1179 victims in 1995- J Exp Criminol (2015) 11:501-540 DOI 10.1007 2004. The article provides a review of the scientific progress and policy effects of the program, as described in 75 publications and papers arising from it, including previously unpublished results of our ongoing analyses. Methods After random assignment in four Australian tests diverting criminal or juvenile cases from prosecution to restorative justice conferences (RJCs), and eight UK tests of supplementing criminal or juvenile proceedings with RJCs, we followed intention-to-treat group differences between offenders for up to 18 years, and for victims up to 10 years.Results We distil and modify prior research reports into 18 updated evidence-based conclusions about the effects of RJCs on both victims and offenders. Initial reductions in repeat offending among offenders assigned to RJCs (compared to controls) were found in 10 of our 12 tests. Nine of the ten successes were for crimes with personal victims who participated in the RJCs, with clear benefits in both short-and long-term measures, including less prevalence of post-traumatic stress symptoms. Moderator effects across and within experiments showed that RJCs work best for the most frequent and serious offenders for repeat offending outcomes, with other clear moderator effects for poly-drug use and offense seriousness.Conclusions RJ conferences organized and led (most often) by specially-trained police produced substantial short-term, and some long-term, benefits for both crime victims and their offenders, across a range of offense types and stages of the criminal justice processes on two continents, but with important moderator effects. These conclusions are made possible by testing a new kind of justice on a programmatic basis that would allow prospective meta-analysis, rather than doing one experiment at a time. This finding provides evidence that funding agencies could get far more evidence for the same cost from programs of identical, but multiple, RCTs of the identical innovative methods, rather than funding one RCT at a time.