Posted: February 14th, 2023

Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994 Criminal Justice System

Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994 Criminal Justice System
Choose a criminal justice based policy and support its success with theory.
50% of sources peer reviewed.
With addition of:

American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association. [ISBN: 978-1-4338-3216-1]

Cullen, F., Agnew, F., & Wilcox, P. (Eds.). (2014) Criminological Theory: Past to Present
Essential Readings (5th Edition). Oxford University Press.

Maguire, E.R. & Duffee, D. (Eds.). (2015). Criminal Justice Theory: Explaining the Nature and
Behavior of Criminal Justice (2nd Edition). Routledge.

Instructions:
Provide a brief problem statement of the issue that’s addressed in this project. (why is the policy needed)
Identify an Agency where the policy/strategy will be implemented. (where located, who is employed, what are the tasks)
Students should state the policy/strategy they intend to implement, and provide a brief description of the policy/strategy. Why would the policy work based on theory? In doing this discuss the pathway by which the intervention could result in positive change. For example, does the intervention affect a change in the perpetrator? Does the intervention keep a particular weapon away from the perpetrator, making it less likely that any violence committed would be deadly? This discussion should be based on research evidence as well as a theory of criminal justice, crime, or criminality.
Note: The policy strategy must be new to the agency or a substantial modification for a strategy already in place.
Include a brief discussion of why the policy/strategy is necessary and the goals of said policy/strategy to solve the stated problem.
Present one criminology or criminal justice theory that will be used to justify the potential success of the policy/strategy, and why this theory is adequate in explaining the potential effectiveness of program.
What are the expected advantages to the agency (and society) of the policy/strategy
What are the expected disadvantages to the agency (and society) of the policy/strategy
provide a summary discussion outlining the major arguments for the implementation of the policy/strategy.

Write about the federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994

Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994 Criminal Justice System
The US criminal justice system has consistently and progressively developed legal and law enforcement policies to address current and future issues in the course of meeting their different goals and objectives. The society and criminal justice environment are dynamic, and thus the federal government keeps developing policies in criminal justice to counter arising undesirable experiences or advance legal and law enforcement goals. Consequently, policies are developed through consultation and passing through different government levels and agencies to ensure that they meet their objectives in the criminal justice system while meeting the common good. The criminal justice policies make it possible to enhance social control, conformity and compliance by the members of society and professionals in the field of criminal justice. Workers and other relevant parties adhere to criminal justice policies to execute their different duties. Different criminal justice policies on juvenile justice, national security, terrorism, drug legislation, new federal immigration laws, intimate partner violence school safety and prison overcrowding policies to ensure that the objective of the criminal justice system (restoration, rehabilitation, deterrence, retribution and incapacitation) is attained. In this regard, the paper will exhaustively address the federal violent crime control and law enforcement of the 1994 criminal justice policy. The policy will be evaluated and assessed from a criminal based theory to evaluate its success and ability to meet criminal justice objectives. The policy will be evaluated to determine its impact and effect on criminal justice agencies such as the police (Pritchard, 2009). This approach enables the establishment of the fact that if the policy can meet its intended goals in the criminal justice system. Additionally, there is a need for evaluating the advantages and disadvantages the policy will impact the different agencies where it will be applied as well as the arguments for the application of the policy. The federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994 as a criminal justice policy must be effectively evaluated and assessed to ascertain its importance and applicability in different criminal justice agencies.
Policy problem statement
Criminal justice policies arise intending to solve arising social and legal problems affecting the criminal justice system. Issues and problems may arise due to new developments in society, or they have been in the society, and there is a need to change the status quo (Mishra, 2014). In this regard, the bill was introduced to deal and control increased and recurring crimes in society. The policy was developed for six years to have an appropriate and flexible for underlying issue in controlling crime by law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system.
In this regard, before the policy was put in place, the criminal justice system and the law enforcement agencies were underfunded, thus making it impossible for them to execute their crime control functions. Underfunding law enforcement and criminal justice agencies mean that they lack the necessary resources, equipment and tools to deal with crime, thus increasing the crime levels (Levitt, 2004). In this regard, to control and effectively handle crime in law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, there is a need for sufficient funding.
The US criminal justice and law enforcement departments were under-staffed compared to the population and levels of crime. The number of personnel in law enforcement and criminal justice needs to be directly proportional to the population and crime (Levitt, 2004). For instance, the federal police number was low, making it possible to offer their law and order roles and responsibilities to the Americans.
Increased immigration into the US increased the crime levels arising from the aliens, and thus the law did not have provisions to deal with legal; and social problems caused by aliens. The economic boom in America increased the number of aliens seeking different opportunities, such as job opportunities (Levitt, 2004). Law enforcement and criminal justice found it hard to deal with aliens involved in crimes and infringement of other laws.
The criminal justice system lacks effective control over the manufacturing and handling of weapons, leading to increased crimes using the weapons (Levitt, 2004). The uncontrolled manufacture and access of weapons increase crime levels, thus overwhelming law enforcement and criminal justice system agencies. Thus, there was a need to control arms and weapons proliferation in American society. The policy would make it possible to control firearm licensing, domest5ic abusers and firearms.
The death penalty covered a few crimes such as murder, and thus the increased grave crimes needed to be punished under the death penalty. The death penalty effectively controls crimes through deterrence for fear of consequences (Ellen and O’ReganO’Regan, 2010). In this regard, more crimes such as the killing of the federal police, drug trafficking, terrorism, driveway shooting and carjacking experiences resulting in death needed to be punished through the death penalty. The expansion of the federal death penalty for over sixty offenses would make it possible to control crime.
The US law did not have provisions to address crimes arising from new forms of trade arising due to trade and globalization (Ellen and O’ReganO’Regan, 2010). In this case, there had been a surge in crimes related to telemarketing and new insurance services. In this, there was a need to categorize new crimes, thus expanding the federal jurisdiction. This approach ensures that crimes were covered and controlled
Additionally, there was a need to use stiffer penalties on different crimes to control criminals and people from committing them through the aspect of deterrence. Stiffer penalties entail increased fines and harsh punishments for crimes (McCarty, Ren and Zhao, 2012). America had experienced an increase in crime that persisted, and their people involved in reoffending even after punishments; thus, there was a need to instill stiffer punishment in criminal justice systems to control the crimes. For instance, the crimes that needed stiffer punishments included gang crimes (drug trafficking and violent crimes), immigration crimes (alien smuggling, and illegal reentry after deportation), sexual violence crimes, and repeated sex offends.
Agency where the policy will be implemented
The federal violent crime control and law enforcement policies need to be employed in courts of law across the US to ensure that they take appropriate and reasonable control and handle different forms of crimes. The United States has courts in different levels and forms, and the adoption of the policy will enhance a large scale application, thus effectively controlling and handling crimes (Kemp, 2007). In this regard, the United States has courts of law at federal, state and local levels across the nation. Additionally, different types of courts include the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, Bankrupt Appellate Panels, District Courts, and article I Courts Policy description that need to incorporate the policy in their operations. The fact that the courts are spread across the nation and handling different aspects and issues covered under the policy makes it possible to incorporate the policy in decision making and offering different rulings.
As an agency in the criminal justice system, the court employs different personnel involved in making decisions and giving rulings on different legal matters brought in the court. There are different staff in the courts such as judges for the supreme courts, courts of appeals and district courts, jurors, magistrates, law clerks, legal clerks’ court stenographers, and reporters of decisions. The different court staff has different roles and responsibilities in handling crimes, suspects and convicted parties (Choper, 2013). The different parties need to use the criminal justice policy in the course of making decisions or taking other legal related activities to ensure that crimes are effectively controlled. In regard to the roles of the different parties, the judge listens to court cases and makes decisions and rulings based on the policy guidelines to ensure the crimes are effectively controlled. The jury listens to the conflicting parties in a court case and decides who to believe or not, thus enabling them to decide who is guilty or not. In the course of listening, the juror notes the aspects addressed in the policy; thus, they recommend the appropriate ruling for the guilty party to control the crimes committed. The legal counsel on the plaintiff side needs to present the rules of evidence, conduct direct examinations, conduct cross-examination, and evaluate the suspect credibility and character concerning the policy to enable the judges to make relevant decisions to control crimes. The court clerk needs to note the aspects covered in the policy to assist the judges and other parties in making decisions directed towards the control of crimes and criminals. Additionally, the witnesses in the court need to employ the policy by raising the issues related to policy guidelines to ensure that the suspects are convicted, and the judge makes relevant decisions to promote the control of crimes.
Additionally, the court system across the United States will make it possible for other law enforcement and criminal justice system agencies to incorporate the policy in their operations in dealing with crime. The court system is effective in dispensing guidelines related to policy adherence since the decisions and deliberation on the policy are dependent on the court. In this regard, society follows the court in the implementation of the policy, thus guiding them in the policy adherence to ensure they abide by it.

The ability of the policy working based on the theory
The federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994 policy success and operations can be explained through the utilitarian theory of punishment. The utilitarian theory of punishment ensures that criminals are effectively and sufficiently punished for their crime, thus deterring them from ever engaging in crime against (Cullen, Agnew and Wilcox, 2006). Additionally, the members of crime or potential criminals will be discouraged from engaging in certain crimes for fear of consequences or actions that have been previously taken on other offenders. The utilitarian theory should be used to ensure that there is maximum happiness in society by reducing factors that result in sadness among the larger society. It is vital to note that crime and punishment are inconsistent with societal happiness, and thus it should be kept at the minimum levels. On the contrary, there is no crime-free society. Thus, p0ersons involved in crime and violation of the law and making the largest members of the society unhappy need to be inflicted with as much punishment and pain to prevent future crimes (Robinson, 2010). High levels of punishment have consequences for both the members of the society and the offenders as it deters them from being engaged or involved in crimes, thus effectively controlling crimes. The theory states that the total good arising from the punishment inflicted on the offender must exceed the evil or crime committed. Punishment should never be unlimited as it should be offered to the extent it meets the common good by deterring future crimes.
In this regard, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994 policy under the criminal justice system effectively align with the utilitarian theory of punishment. The policies seek to increase punishments and penalties for different types and forms of crimes to ensure they can control them by deterring them from engaging. In this case, the policy seeks to address new and arising crimes and is not effectively covered under the law while heightening the level of pain and punishment in the already existing forms of crimes (De Caro, 2016). It is vital to note that the lesser the people are likely to engage in that crime, the level and harshness of punishment regarding an identified crime. Crimes with lesser punishment people consider the consequences, and they are assured that the crime benefits outweigh the consequences, and thus they can engage in crime without considering the negative impact it will have on the victims or the larger society. In the case that the punishment is harsh and painful, the potential criminals and people of the society will consider the consequences, thus deterring them from engaging in crime. This approach prevents and eliminates crime in society, thus maximizing the happiness of society. For instance, in the crime of selling and distribution of crime/drug trafficking, the previous punishment for it served jail terms or event fines, but the proceeds of the crime would outweigh the punishment. The policy introduction makes the punishment for drug trafficking equated to the death penalty, thus deterring people from engaging in the sale, distribution, or any involvement with drugs. Therefore, the policy is aligned with the utilitarian theory of punishment that maximizes happiness in society through the elimination and prevention of crimes through harsh punishment that deters criminals or people engaging in crimes in the interest of common good.
Criminology/ criminal justice theory in the policy
The operation and success of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994 can be evaluated and accessed criminal justice theories such as the deterrence theory. The criminal justice theory of deterrence ensures that strict and hard punishments are taken against the criminals or potential criminals to prevent them, or the rest of the society from engaging in related criminal activity. The intention of deterrence is to persuade people, potential offenders and re-offenders to conform to the law and avoid violating laws for the consequences are severe (Maguire and Duffee, 2015). The theory of deterrence argues that there are four types of deterrence, each based on the form of action taken to deter people and offenders from engaging in crime. In this regard, specific deterrence evaluates the impact a punishment will have on the future of a person’s behavior. General deterrence evaluates the impact a punishment inflicted on a person can prevent other members of the society from engaging in crime. Marginal deterrence evaluates, gauge and weigh the impact of different types of punishments have in preventing future crimes. The evaluation enables the responsible parties to realize the most effective punishment to be used in deterring specific crimes. Additionally, partial deterrence entails cases where the threat of penalty has deterrent effects when someone engages in a crime (Paternoster, 2010). For instance, a criminal just robbing a victim and not causing harm on them has different punishments compared to the case the criminal engages in both crimes. In such a case, the crime of robbing and hurting is made very stiffer as compared to the crime of just robing. This approach deters criminals from going to the extreme ends in the course of committing crimes. Researchers argue that general deterrence theory enhances the risk of apprehension and punishment, thus deterring people from participating in crimes. The rate of recidivism is significantly reduced through the adoption of stiff penalties and punishments.
In the case of the federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994, the policy makes punishment for different crimes to have increased certainty, swiftness and severity that makes people avoid violating laws for fear of the consequences. The policy made punishment and sanctions attached top different crimes to be immediate, certain and severe, thus sending a message to members of the society and potential criminals that crimes would not be tolerated (Murphy, Bradford and Jackson, 2016). The theory views criminals not to be different from the law-abiding citizens, but they rationally maximize self-interests against the constrains in life(economy) in their society thus engaging in crime, and this can, therefore, be countered by making the consequences tougher than the life constrains to deter them from engaging in crimes. For instance, United States recorded high crime rates in the 1990s, but since the enactment of the policy, crime rates started reducing from 1991 and later declined by 26% for the eight years President Bill Clinton was in the office. President cli8nton claimed credit for the reduction of crime in 1990 owing to the deterrence effect of the newly introduced clime reduction and law enforcement policy. Therefore, the policy will instill tough and stiff penalties in the criminal justice system and law enforcement systems, thus creating a deterrent effect that will instill fear among the people, offenders, re-offenders from committing crimes due consequences attached to committing such crimes or violating the law.
The policy ensured that the criminal justice system and law enforcement programs and activities were adequately funded to protect the victims of crime, preventing and controlling the crimes. Increased funding in criminal justice and law enforcement agencies ensures that professionals in different fields can meet their duties in line with handling and prosecution of legal issues and maintaining law and order, respectively. In this case, funding was increased thus ensuring that 100,000 new federal officers would be hired to serve in the controlling and prevention of crime, $9.7 billion was directed to the correctional department to that inmate services would not be overwhelmed, and $6.1 billion was directed prevention programs to ensure that potential offenders were inclined to be law-abiding through police programs directed towards the community (Nagin, Solw and Lum, 2015). The increased funding of legal, enforcement and social functions and programs ensures that different legal and social agencies and departments are not overwhelmed such that they can handle their mandate in protecting and preventing crimes. For instance, an additional $2.6 billion extra funding was directed towards the DEA, FBI, INS, Justice departments and the United States Attorneys, Treasury departments and federal courts to ensure that they effectively carried their activities and operation in controlling and preventing crimes.
Policy advantages to the agency or society that applies it
The Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994 policy were introduced to reduce and control crime rates across the United States. In this regard, the policy is credited for a wide range of benefits concerning reducing crime and improving the working conditions (Mummolo, 2018). In this regard, the most notable benefit of the policy is the significant reduction in 1991 going forward to the 2000s when the leveling of crime rates was experienced. President Clinton admitted that the policy at one time caused 25 years low in crime and a 33 year low in the murder rates. In general, the crime rates on different issues dropped due to the bill operation in controlling crime and criminals. As the bill was signed into law, crime rates had begun to decline due to the consequences attached to the different crimes. The policy introduced stiff penalties for different crimes, causing a deterrent effect that significantly reduced the crime rate.
The policy made it possible to fund programs and events to protect women against violence in society. In this regard, there was an increase in violence against women across the US, thus requiring the policy to address the issue in the interest of protecting women. In this case, a budget of 1.6 billion was allocated to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to ensure violence against women was effectively investigated and death with thus ensuring the safety of women (Hunt, Saunders and Kilmer, 2019). The increased funding and need to protect women made the VAWA be renewed in the period 2000, 2005 and 2013. The renewal of VAW introduced the Safe Streets for Women Act that increased federal penalties to those involved in repeat sex offending and made mandatory for restitution for medical and legal fees associated with the crimes. Additionally, battered women shelters received federal grants, a national domestic violence hotline was introduced, and rape shield law was included in the Federal rules of evidence. Therefore, the policy ensured that women protection was improved through stiff punishment for violent offenders and improved legal and social assistance.
Policy disadvantages to agency or society that uses it
The Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994 had its share of disadvantages that played a major role in the bill opposition and criticism. In this regard, the policy is said to have caused mass incarceration due to increased penalties and punishment that made offenders be incarcerated for relatively long periods. The stiffer penalties imposed by the 1994 policy meant that there would be an increase in jail terms for various crimes, even in the crimes that could be solved through the settlement of fines (Patton, 2010). Law enforcers were empowered by the policy with resources and funding, thus enabling them to combat crime effectively by apprehending and dealing with criminals. This fact made the prison population triple within two decades, thus overwhelming the authorities. In this regard, critics argued that the policy needed to prevent crimes by enabling former offenders and potential offenders to abide by the federal and state laws to avoid incarceration. Therefore, the policy solved one problem by creating another, thus rendering it ineffective.
The policy is criticized for the controversial provision that overturned the Higher Education Act of 1965, meaning that inmates would no longer get higher education while incarcerated. Previously inmates were granted grants, thus enabling them to proceed or take higher education courses (Patton, 2010). The introduction of the policy removed the grants, thus eliminating the ability of low-income prisoners from accessing college education. The policy made it impossible for inmates to access a college education, thus going contrary to the criminal justice policy of rehabilitation that ensures that inmates’inmates’ lives are improved by acquiring knowledge and skills that they can use when they complete their term. The rehabilitation ensures that they will no longer engage in crime and can be engaged in nation-building. Therefore, the policy was criticized for eliminating gains that were directed at rehabilitating inmates.
The policy enactments are viewed to have a wide range of misplaced priorities that result in conflicts and disagreements between the liberals and conservatives on the measures to be adopted in the prevention and control of crimes (Braga, Weisburd and Turchan, 2018). In this regard, the conservatives argued for the adoption of measures and programs to prevent people from engaging in crime. On the other hand, the liberals advocated for the adoption of punitive measures to deter people from engaging in crime. The punitive approach by the liberals direct a lot of funding to inappropriate places such as expanding prisons, finding police law enforcers as opposed to the rehabilitation and community programs that would have a significant and long term impact in preventing crime and ensuring that abiding by the law becomes a norm. Therefore, the policy is criticized for inappropriate funding of punitive approaches instead of preventive programs that only cater to short-term benefits.
Arguments for policy outline
The arguments for the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994 are based on the policy value concerning controlling and preventing crime in society. In the controlling and prevention of the crime aspect, the criminal justice system and law enforcement are empowered to handle and address crimes through activities and programs of combating it.
1. The punitive approach adopted in the policy has significant value in the consistent reduction of crime. The punitive measures taken on criminals entail justified punishment that calls people involved in wrongdoing to account for their crime, thus preventing them and the general members of the public from engaging in criminal acts (Stewart, 2011). The level of punishment thus determines the deterrence effect of committing crimes.
2. The prevention and criminal control through the policy provided reassurance that their authorities are in control and [people can expect law and order to be maintained in the society(Stewart, 2011). In the 1990s, Americans experienced high crime rates, thus life becoming unbearable for them despite the presence of a sitting government. The policy introduction enables the government to step its mandate and control in the interest of the common good.
3. The policy has made it possible for people to restore social morality in their lives and activities, thus restoring a balance. In 1990, crime rates increased due to societal neglect of vital values as occasioned by the rise in distributive inequality, racism and patriarch. Lack of values inclined members of society to engage in extreme crimes (La Vigne et al., 2011). The countering or crimes were made possible through the policy that introduced punitive measures that make people refrain from crime.
4. The policy effectively criminalizes wrongs and prescribes appropriate punishment to combat them in the interest of the larger social good. The policy introduces a legal framework to decisively deal with criminals involved in wrongdoings, thus sending a stern warning to other public members that they refrain from crimes (Brown, 2004 ). The criminalization of wrongs ensures that healthy relations are established in society since criminals are subjected to punitive consequences while law-abiding citizens are bound to enjoy life.
5. The policy is directly connected with the retributive justice that ensures that punishment causes suffering to persons involved in crime (Welsh and Farrington, 2012). The suffering inflicted on criminals justifies the use of criminal punishment as introduced through the policy is considered to be intrinsically good as it inclines people to avoid violation of the law for fear of consequences.
6. The policy introduces guiding principles to the members of the society on the dos and don’ts. The policy introduces rules and regulations that guide relationships, and conduct of the people in the course of coexistence in the society (Welsh and Farrington, 2012). The policy introduces stiff consequences for wrongdoing or violation of the law and rewards law-abiding citizens through an assurance of peaceful life. The guiding principle ensures that a societal balance is restored by punishing criminals through incarcerations and other penalties while ensuring that other members of the society can lead a normal life.
Conclusion
The Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement of 1994 policy were introduced to enable the American society to reduce the crime rates by enabling the criminal justice and law enforcement agencies to handle and prevent people from engaging in crime. The policy introduces tougher penalties for wide range crimes, thus creating a deterrence effect concerning engaging in the crimes. In 1990 the American society experienced an increased crime rate, and thus there was a need to introduce stiff penalties to counter the crimes in the society. The policy has experienced its measure of success as it resulted in a reduction in crimes since 1991 all through the 2000s, where the rates leveled. The policy success can be attributed and explained from the different criminal justice and criminology theory of utilitarian theory of punishment and the deterrence theory that justifies punishment as it enhances the prevention and control of crimes. Consequently, the courts can effectively implement the policy for the interest of the society by ensuring that crime cases brought before them are deliberated in line with the policy guidelines. Finally, the policy has its share of advantages and disadvantages, and thus there is a need to capitalize on the advantages while incorporating legal reforms to reduce the disadvantage aspect.

References
American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association. [ISBN: 978-1-4338-3216-1]
Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of the empirical evidence. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 205-250.
Brown, D. K. (2004). Cost-benefit analysis in criminal law. Calif. L. Rev., 92, 323.
Choper, J. H. (2013). Judicial review and the national political process: A functional reconsideration of the role of the Supreme Court. Quid Pro Books.
Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (2006). Criminological theory: Past to present: Essential readings. New York: Oxford University Press.
De Caro, M. (2016). Utilitarianism and retributivism in Cesare Beccaria. Italian LJ, 2, 1.
Ellen, I. G., & O’Regan, K. (2010). Crime and urban flight revisited: The effect of the 1990s drop in crime on cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 68(3), 247-259.
Hunt, P. E., Saunders, J., & Kilmer, B. (2019). Estimates of law enforcement costs by crime type for benefit-cost analyses. Journal of benefit-cost analysis, 10(1), 95-123.
Kantor, S., Kitchens, C., & Pawlowski, S. (2017). Civil Asset Forfeiture, Crime, and Police Incentives: Evidence from the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (No. w23873). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Kemp, R. L. (Ed.). (2007). How American Governments Work: A Handbook of City, County, Regional, State, and Federal Operations. McFarland.
La Vigne, N. G., Lowry, S. S., Dwyer, A. M., & Markman, J. A. (2011). Using public surveillance systems for crime control and prevention: A practical guide for law enforcement and their municipal partners. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.
Levitt, S. D. (2004). Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that explain the decline and six that do not. Journal of Economic perspectives, 18(1), 163-190.
Maguire, E. R., & Duffee, D. E. (Eds.). (2015). Criminal justice theory: Explaining the nature and behavior of criminal justice. Routledge.
McCarty, W. P., Ren, L., & Zhao, J. S. (2012). Determinants of police strength in large US cities during the 1990s: A fixed-effects panel analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 58(3), 397-424.
Mishra, S. (2014). Crime drop of the 1990s. The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1-5.
Mummolo, J. (2018). Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 115(37), 9181-9186.
Murphy, K., Bradford, B., & Jackson, J. (2016). Motivating compliance behavior among offenders: Procedural justice or deterrence?. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 102-118.
Nagin, D. S., Solow, R. M., & Lum, C. (2015). Deterrence, criminal opportunities, and police. Criminology, 53(1), 74-100.
Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence?. The journal of criminal law and criminology, 765-824.
Patton, D. E. (2010). Guns, Crime Control, and a Systemic Approach to Federal Sentencing. Cardozo L. Rev., 32, 1427.
Pritchard, R. W. (Ed.). (2009). Symposium: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. University of Dayton Law Review, 20(2), 557-808.
Robinson, P. H. (2010). The Ongoing Revolution in Punishment Theory: Doing Justice as Controlling Crime. Ariz. St. LJ, 42, 1089.
Stewart, D. M. (2011). Collaboration between federal and local law enforcement: An examination of Texas police chiefs’ perceptions. Police quarterly, 14(4), 407-430.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Science, politics, and crime prevention: Toward a new crime policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 128-133.