The early 1990s saw a flurry of activity in criminal justice legislation on both the state and federal levels. By January of 1993, pollsters found that crime had overtaken economic issues as the country's most important problem. During this time, four criminal justice policy innovations became popular with both state and federal officials: “Truth-in-Sentencing” laws, “Three-Strikes-You're-Out” laws, “boot camps” for convicted offenders, and juvenile court transfer provisions. This study attempts to determine what factors influenced states' adoptions of these innovations. It finds that states' crime rates were positively correlated with adoption of the measures, but other objective state factors, such as sentence length, were not. Strained state resources did not deter legislatures from enacting these policies. Voter ideology and political culture had less than expected impact. The study concludes that political entrepreneurs, rather than state characteristics, were responsible for adoption.
References
1.
Arnold, D. (1990). The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders. New York: Free Press.
4.
Beckett, K. (1997). Making crime pay. London: Oxford University Press.
5.
Berk, R., Brackman H., & Lesser, S. (1977). A measure of justice: An empirical study of changes in the California Penal Code, 1955-1971. New York: Academic Press.
6.
Berry, F., & Berry, W. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations. American Political Science Review, 84, 395-415.
7.
Brace P., & Ward, D. (1999). The institutionalized legislature and the rise of the antipolitics era. In R. Weber & P. Brace (Eds.), American state and local politics. New York: Chatham House.
Clarke, J., Austin, J., & Henry, O. (1998). Three strikes and you're out. Judicature, 81, 144-149.
10.
Council of State Governments. (1994-1995). The book of the states. Lexington, KY: Author.
11.
Cowles, E. L., Castellano, T. C., & Gransky, L. A. (1995). “Boot Camp” drug treatment and aftercare interventions: An evaluation review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
12.
Cullen, F., Bynum, T., Garret, T. K., & Greene, J. (1985). Legislator ideology and criminal justice policy. In E. Fairchild & V. Webb (Eds.), The politics of crime and criminal justice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13.
Dawson, R., & Robinson, J. (1963). Inter-party competition, economic variables, and welfare policies in the American states. Journal of Politics, 2, 265-289.
14.
Ditton, P., & Wilson, D. (1999). BJS special report: Truth in sentencing in state prisons. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
15.
Elazar, D. J. (1999). Minnesota politics & government. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
16.
Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Fenno, R. F. (1973). Congressmen in committees. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies.
Gerber, E. (1996). Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 99-128.
20.
Gray, V.Hanson, R. L., & Jacob, H. (1999) Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis. Washington, DC: CQ.
21.
Greenfield, L. (1995). Prison sentences and time served for violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
22.
Heinz, J., Gettleman R., & Seeskin, M. (1969). Legislative politics and the criminal law. Northwestern University Law Review, 64, 277-356.
23.
Jones, N. (in press). Three strikes and you're out: A symbolic crime policy? In D. Hawkins, S. Myers, & R. Stone (Eds.). Crime control and social justice: The delicate balance. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
24.
Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
25.
Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
Meier, K. (1994). The politics of sin: Drugs, alcohol, and public policy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
27.
Nice, D. C. (1994). Policy innovation in state government. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
28.
Packer, H. (1968). Limits of the criminal sanction. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
29.
Roby, P. (1969). Politics and criminal law. Social Problems, 17, 83-109.
30.
Rosenthal, A. (1997). The decline of representative democracy. Washington: CQ.
31.
Squire, P. (1992). Legislative professionalism and membership diversity in state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17, 69-78.
32.
Stone, D. (1997). The policy paradox: The art of political decisionmaking. New York: Norton.
33.
Sutherland, E. (1950). The diffusion of sexual psychopath laws. American Journal of Sociology, 56, 142-148.
34.
Thomas, C. (1976). Public opinion on criminal law and legal sanctions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 67, 110-116.
35.
Torbet, P., Gable, R., Hurst, H., Montgomery, I., Szymanski, L., & Thomas, D. (1996). State responses to serious and violent juvenile crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
36.
Tweedie, J. (1994). Resources rather than needs: A state-centered model of welfare policymaking. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 651-672.
37.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1996). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
38.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998) Truth in sentencing: Availability of federal grants influenced laws in some states. Washington, DC: Author.
39.
Vago, Steven. (1997). Law & Society (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
40.
Williams, J. (1995). Competing approaches to crime problem in Illinois. Comparative State Politics, 16, 28-33.
