SAGE Journal Articles

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

Journal Article 1: Drapela, L. A. (2009). Innovation in community corrections and probation officers’ fears of being sued: Implementing neighborhood-based supervision in Spokane, Washington. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 364–383.

Abstract: Probation departments are emphasizing a greater level of community interaction between officers and ordinary citizens as an integral part of effective offender supervision. This trend is due in part to the prisoner reentry correctional paradigm, which conceptualizes probation officers as relationship brokers between offenders and their employers, family members, and community stakeholders. Field probation officers are a critical part of implementing this community-oriented approach. Few scholars, however, have evaluated probation departments’ organizational capacities to implement this change in light of the legal vulnerabilities to torts faced by these officers. We use in-depth interview data from a sample of field probation officers in eastern Washington State to understand how probation officers’ concerns about being sued and their trust in the organization may affect its capacity to innovate. The theoretical and policy implications of our findings are discussed.

Journal Article 2: Worrall, J. (2001). Culpability standards in section 1983 litigation against criminal justice officials: When and why mental state matters. Crime and Delinquency, 47, 28–59.

Abstract: Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code provides a remedy in federal court for individuals who suffer constitutional rights violations at the hands of criminal justice officials. To succeed in a Section 1983 lawsuit, a plaintiff must demonstrate a constitutional violation by an official acting under color of state law. Recently, however, courts have begun to require that constitutional rights violations be committed with a certain level of culpability for a finding of liability, a development that has received little attention in the criminal justice literature. Accordingly, this article seeks to (1) sort out the important culpability issues associated with Section 1983 litigation, with particular reference to theories of liability, and (2) discuss the relevance of this inquiry for both academics and practitioners, calling attention to the problems the current multitude of culpability standards pose.