SAGE Journal Articles

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

Best, D., & Eves, K. (2005). Why are there no lessons learned from road traffic incidents involving the police? Criminal Justice, 5(1), 37–53.

Abstract: An analysis of 64 investigations of pursuits undertaken by the police between 1998 and 2001, resulting in 71 deaths, highlighted a number of concerns about the post-incident management of pursuits by police forces in England and Wales. The current article examines the investigations from the same set of incidents to assess what actions the police forces have taken to prevent such incidents from occurring in future. However, evidence of learning is sparse—with few officers disciplined for their actions, infrequent recommendations for policy change and little sign of systematic organizational learning. The article concludes by considering the consequences for organizational culture of this apparent learning failure and challenges the effectiveness of the current system and the willingness of police forces to change their practices in the light of such large numbers of police-related fatalities.

Questions to Consider:

  1. The National Institute of Justice has promoted the idea of sentinel event reviews—postevent investigations of organizational accidents to facilitate learning and the prevention of future incidents. As the findings by Best and Eves indicate, actual learning from investigations seldom takes place. How can departments foster a culture of learning so that reviews are viewed as an opportunity for organizational improvement, not an opportunity for finger-pointing and punishment?
     

Maguire, E. R., King, W. R., Wells, W., & Katz, C. M. (2015). Potential unintended consequences of the movement toward forensic laboratory independence. Police Quarterly, 18(3), 272–292.

Abstract: The scholarly literature identifies two types of errors of justice: errors of due process and errors of impunity. Errors of due process involve failing to protect the innocent from becoming ensnared in the criminal justice process or imposing excessive sanctions on offenders. Errors of impunity involve failing to sanction, or imposing insufficient sanctions, on culpable offenders. The great challenge in designing criminal justice systems is balancing these two types of errors. We contend that the National Research Council’s recent recommendation to remove crime laboratories from law enforcement agencies in the United States focuses too heavily on avoiding one type of error while largely ignoring the other. We believe that heeding this recommendation without appropriate caution might produce an imbalance that generates serious unintended consequences. We draw on recent studies of how crime labs and law enforcement agencies process sexual assault kits and ballistic evidence to illustrate the potential unintended consequences of separating crime labs from law enforcement agencies.

Questions to Consider:

  1. The National Research Council’s recommendation to remove forensic crime labs from the administrative control of police departments was at least partially driven by the belief that connections between the police and crime labs could bias results. Do you agree with this view? Are forensic analyses produced from a police department–affiliated lab any more or less credible than analyses produced by an independent lab?
     

White, M. D. (2000). Assessing the impact of administrative policy on use of deadly force by on- and off-duty police. Evaluation Review, 24(3), 295–318.

Abstract: Deadly force research typically does not distinguish between shootings by on-duty and off-duty police. This article uses Philadelphia police shooting data from two time periods (1970–1978 and 1987–1992) and a unique quasi-experimental design to examine the comparative effects upon on- and off-duty police shootings of an administrative policy that limited police shooting discretion but that did not address questions of police weapons carrying and access to firearms. The article draws important distinctions between when to shoot and carry administrative policies and considers their impact on deadly force by on- and off-duty police.

Questions to Consider:

  1. It is frequently said that the nature of police work (e.g., unpredictability and autonomy) creates difficulties in controlling discretion, but White’s research indicates that discretion may be effectively controlled by administrative policy. Do you think that such control is limited only to behaviors with significant consequences—in this case, the life of another—or do you think administrative policy is an important determinant of overall police behavior? Explain.