Kathryn E. Scarborough

Work-related stress and coping among correctional officers: Implications from organizational literature

Abstract Using self-report data from a sample of correctional officers at a medium security prison, this article examines two questions. First, are there similarities in the particular sources of stress for correctional officers and those described in the organizational literature as sources of stress among employees of other organizations? Second, given the particular sources of stress identified, what are the most effective coping mechanisms utilized by correctional officers? The analysis reveals that correctional officers experience many of the same organizational level stressors as those identified within the broader occupational literature, as well as those unique to their profession. Additionally, correctional officers appear to utilize personal coping mechanisms for successfully reducing overall levels of job stress. Those same coping mechanisms, however, do not appear to mediate the effects of organizational sources of stress. The findings support the inclusion of the broader occupational literature on stress and coping in correctional officer stress research. Additionally, the findings suggest the need for administrators of correctional facilities to develop resources to assist officers in dealing with stress.

Examining the effect of work-home conflict on work-related stress among correctional officers

The purpose of this study was to explore two questions: (1) What is the contribution of work-home conflict to work-related stress among correctional officers? and (2) What role does gender play in understanding the contribution of work-home conflict to work-related stress among correctional officers? The findings supported the prediction that work-home conflict is an important contributor to work-related stress for females. The analysis, though tentative, also suggested that males experience work-home conflict but experience its effect at home, rather than work.

Contributory factors affecting arrest in domestic and non‐domestic assaults

Provides empirical evidence for the first time to suggest that police officers are less apt to arrest in domestic violence cases when directly comparing officers’ responses in domestic and non‐domestic assaults. Uses a sample of 92,000 police reports in a small midwestern police department of the USA. Supports the premise of disparate treatment for domestic assaults. Finds that injuries were equally likely in domestic and non‐domestic assaults; that the impact of weapons is limited. Calls for further research to clarify these issues, e.g., to re‐examine officers’definitions of injuries and weapons. Supports findings that officers are more apt to arrest when a victim requests this.

Grave doubts about 'reasonable doubt': Confusion in state and federal courts

The United States Supreme Court, in the companion cases Victor v. Nebraska and Sandoval v. California (114 S.Ct. 1239, 1994) attempted for the third time in recent years to determine what constitutes a constitutionally sufficient definition of the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This legal concept is familiar to lawyers and laypersons alike, but its precise meaning is unclear. This article examines the history of reasonable doubt and analyzes the various definitions used in state courts and the thirteen federal Courts of Appeal. The various definitions are classified and categorized to determine commonalities. The study finds that reasonable doubt needs to be defined more precisely and suggests a way whereby this can be done. It suggests that the United States Supreme Court provide a clearer definition for use by trial courts.