Judicial scrutiny of gender-based employment practices in the criminal justice system

Nolasco, Claire Angelique; Vaughn, Michael S.

doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.11.002

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, only statutes that featured substantive or positive recommendations were included. We utilize the inductive method of legal research (Acker & Irving, 1998; Nolasco & Vaughn, 2011; Rembert & Henderson, 2014).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Talk to Me: An Analysis of Statutes Regulating Police Interviews of Child Victims

Klein¹,

Dorsch²,

Hemmens³

2020

Juvenile Family Court J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children can be unreliable witnesses, and they are especially vulnerable to questionable interview practices. However, in some crimes like child sexual abuse, children may be the only person capable of providing testimonial evidence. States must balance the needs of bringing criminals who target children to justice and ensuring that due process is upheld to reduce the chances of false convictions. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has published a set best‐practices for the interviewing of children to achieve this balance. This article conducts a statutory analysis to determine if states are currently following the recommendations of the OJJDP.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Talk to Me: An Analysis of Statutes Regulating Police Interviews of Child Victims

Klein¹,

Dorsch²,

Hemmens³

2020

Juvenile Family Court J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This time period was chosen to coincide with more current training trends, internal cultural practices, customs, traditions, and policies that might be familiar to criminal justice practitioners currently working in the field. A traditional inductive case-by-case doctrinal analysis was used to identify court decisions ruling that correctional officer use of force was applied sadistically and maliciously, violating the prisoner’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment (Nolasco & Vaughn, 2011; Tapia & Vaughn, 2010).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In summary, the purpose of this study was to examine correctional officer excessive use of force through a traditional inductive case-by-case doctrinal method (commonly referred to as doctrinal legal research or legal research), which seeks to determine the legal standard on a particular issue and how that legal parameter has been developed over time and/or applied in litigation (Acker & Irving, 1998; McConville & Wing, 2007). Several studies using this research design have been published (for a more extensive review, see Nolasco & Vaughn, 2011). This mode of inquiry was selected for its ability to identify possible individual factors that may contribute to correctional officer excessive use of force.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correctional Officer Excessive Use of Force

Rembert

Henderson

2014

The Prison Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite recent research demonstrating the impact of inmate perceptions of correctional legitimacy on order maintenance, the extant literature has failed to examine the contextual reality of correctional excessive use of force claims. Utilizing legal cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S. District Courts, this article examines correctional officer excessive use of non-deadly force and identifies recurring themes in these claims. Findings highlight the common occurrence of retaliatory violence, negative attitudes, failure to listen to inmate concerns, inadequate training, and an inability to decipher reliable threat cues consistently present in correctional officer use of non-deadly force claims. Suggestions for future research and policy implications are offered.

show abstract