Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Nelken, D. (2009). Comparative criminal justice: Beyond ethnocentrism and relativism. European Journal of Criminology, 6(4), 291-311.

How can the study of comparative criminal justice avoid the opposite dangers of ethnocentrism and relativism? The problem is examined taking as an example Cavadino and Dignan’s recent analysis of differences in prison rates. The case is made that more attention needs to be given to understanding how different criminal justice systems actually produce prison rates as well as to interpreting the ideas and values that animate those inside and outside the system.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. How can the study of comparative criminal justice avoid the opposite dangers of ethnocentrism and relativism?
2. Why do the authors argue that more attention needs to be given to understanding how other criminal justice systems produce prison rates?
3. What might we learn from examining how other nation’s policy makers respond to problems in their own prison systems?

***

Schneider, J. L. (2006). Professional codes of ethics: Their role and implications for international research. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22(2), 173-192. 

International criminological research is growing both in terms of prominence and occurrence. Boundaries for conducting research are expanding well beyond our respective national borders. Foreign nationals or visiting fellows—who venture outside their home countries to compare or contrast existing crime trends, events, policies, or practices— are faced with a myriad of challenges. One methodological challenge is to conduct research within ethical constructs. However, the issue becomes “To which country’s code of practice or ethical standards does the international researcher adhere?” The purpose of this article is to explore the issue of doing ethical international research with the aim of offering pragmatic suggestions on how to proceed with international studies that can withstand ethical scrutiny.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. How does a researcher know which ethical constructs they must conduct their research within?
2. How do U.S. ethical standards differ from other nation’s standards?
3. What suggestions do the authors provide on doing international research that will withstand ethical scrutiny?

***

Haag, A. M. (2006). Ethical dilemmas faced by correctional psychologists in Canada. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(1), 93-109. 

There are numerous ethical issues that correctional psychologists in Canada face on a regular basis. This article analyzes the following ethical issues as they relate to the adult correctional context in Canada: (a) who is the client, (b) confidentiality, (c) protection of psychological records, (d) informed consent, (e) assessment, (f) corroboration, (g) refusal of services, (h) nondiscrimination, (i) competence, (j) knowledge of legal structure, (k) accuracy and honesty, (l) misuses of psychological information, and (m) multiple relationships. This article is organized around three of the four principles of the Canadian Psychological Association’s ethics guide.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. What are some of the ethical issues that are unique to the correctional environment?
2. Which three of the four principles of the Canadian Psychological Association’s ethics guide is this article arranged around?  Why is this distinction important?
3. What ethical issues might be unique to a correctional psychologist compared to a police officer on the street?

***

Weisburd, D. (2003). Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice. Evaluation Review 27(3), 336-354.

In considering the ethical dilemmas associated with randomized experiments, scholars ordinarily focus on the ways in which randomization of treatments or interventions violates accepted norms of conduct of social science research more generally or evaluation of crime and justice questions more specifically. The weight of ethical judgment is thus put on experimental research to justify meeting ethical standards. In this article, it is argued that just the opposite should be true, and that in fact there is a moral imperative for the conduct of randomized experiments in crime and justice. That imperative develops from our professional obligation to provide valid answers to questions about the effectiveness of treatments, practices, and programs. It is supported by a statistical argument that makes randomized experiments the preferred method for ruling out alternative causes of the outcomes observed. Common objections to experimentation are reviewed and found overall to relate more to the failure to institutionalize experimentation than to any inherent limitations in the experimental method and its application in crime and justice settings. It is argued that the failure of crime and justice practitioners, funders, and evaluators to develop a comprehensive infrastructure for experimental evaluation represents a serious violation of professional standards.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. From an ethical standpoint, how is isolating the effects of treatment one of the evaluator’s most important obligations to society?
2. Discuss one of the concerns given by Clarke and Cornish (1972) in their critique of experimentation.
3. Why do we need ethical practices when evaluating interventions in crime and justice isuses?