Nancy E. Marion

Police academy training: are we teaching recruits what they need to know?

Police recruit training has come under scrutiny recently by both practitioners and academics who question the quality of education recruits receive prior to beginning their jobs. Past researchers have questioned whether the training adequately prepares recruits to be effective police officers. This study analyses the content of one police academy to determine if the training is sufficient. This was done by actually attending an academy training program as a recruit to determine what occurs within the academy setting. By comparing the content of this academy to the required elements identified in academic and practitioner’s literature, it was determined that this police academy is providing quality training to potential officers within time and budgetary constraints.

SYMBOLISM AND FEDERAL CRIME CONTROL LEGISLATION, 1960-1990

ABSTRACT Symbolism in the public statements of the past six presidents (and the first two years of the Bush administration) about crime is identified and compared to a recent study that identifies symbolism in civil rights policies. It is discovered that symbolism plays a vital role in the statements of the presidents in regard to crime issues. However, the patterns identified are not similar to those found in earlier research.

Presidential Agenda Setting In Crime Control

Research in presidential agenda setting in domestic policy arenas is lacking, and this study seeks to address this inadequacy in the research. Presidential agendas in crime control from 1963-1990 are examined to trace patterns over time and to examine individual presidential behavior. Five hypotheses concerning patterns of agenda setting are tested, none of which are supported to any great extent in the analysis. The analysis demonstrates that domestic agenda setting follows different patterns from those of international agenda setting, at least in this one particular domestic arena.

Crime control in the 2000 presidential election: A symbolic issue

Presidential candidates regularly use crime issues to help win electoral support. Contrary to conventional wisdom, crime control also became an issue in the 2000 presidential campaign. Despite decreasing crime rates, the debate was driven by public opinion. Because the crime debate was fueled by perception rather than reality, it is argued that the symbolic nature of the debate became important in providing reassurance to the American public. This finding points to the importance of symbolic rhetoric by presidential candidates in appealing to voters and increasing public support.

Political Party Platforms Symbolic Politics and Criminal Justice Policy

The theory of symbolic politics is used to examine the elements of criminal justice policy in political party platforms. It is hypothesized that political parties use their party platforms to make symbolic, rather than substantive, statements. Data were collected from the digital archives of both the American Presidency Project and the American Reference Library consisting of all political party platforms from 1868 to 2004. A content analysis of these party platforms, as they related to crime and justice issues, offers partial support for the claim that presidents and political parties use these party platforms primarily for evoking symbols.

“Budgets, Institutions, and Change: Criminal Justice Policy in America” Revisited

Calderia and Cowart published an article that theorized that presidents are responsive in their budgetary responsibilities to increases in official crime rates. The scope of their study was the years 1935 to 1975, and their findings supported their theory that presidents were engaged in substantive policy making. The current study replicates and updates the original research to determine if presidents continue this pattern of increasing budgets to fight increases in reported crime, as originally theorized. The authors theorize that in more recent years, criminal justice policy became more symbolic and is often a gesture used by presidents to gain political and popular support. This study finds that in the time frame after the original study, the same patterns do not hold true, and budgetary allocations are no longer responsive to the rise and fall in official crime rates, thus demonstrating support for the theory of symbolics.

Presidential Politics and the Problem of Drugs in America: Assessing the Relationship Between the President, Media, and Public Opinion

This study explores the relationship between the president, public opinion, and the media in regard to drug abuse policy in America from 1969 through 2004. The theory of presidential influence over public opinion is used to test the hypothesis that presidents influence public opinion of drug abuse. Using vector auto regression time-series analysis, the study finds that while presidents do not appear to influence the public directly, they influence the media which influences public opinion. These findings are different from previous findings regarding crime control policy, but are similar to past findings for drug policy. Reasons for these findings are discussed and future research proposed.

When the President Speaks… An Analysis of Presidential Influence Over Public Opinion Concerning the War on Drugs

The theory of presidential influence over public opinion is used to predict the impact of presidential rhetoric on the public’s concern regarding drug use as “the most important problem (MIP) facing the nation.” It is hypothesized that the more attention presidents give to the policy area of drugs in their state of the union (SOTU) addresses, the more concerned the public becomes with drug use. Using a time-series regression analysis of data collected from a content analysis of presidents’SOTU speeches regressed on the Gallup Poll’s MIP series from 1946 to 2010, the findings suggest that presidential mentions of drugs in the SOTU addresses influence public concern for illicit drugs in America.

Gubernatorial Crime Control Rhetoric A Study in Symbolic Politics

Past research on presidential rhetoric about crime shows that presidents use crime rhetoric in a specific manner. When talking about crime, they are most likely to use symbolic statements that are designed to make people feel satisfied about government action. To date, no research has analyzed how governors employ political language related to crime. The current study draws on hypotheses derived from research related to the federal executive and applies them to the 50 state executives. A content analysis of 7 years (2002-2008) of governors’ State of the State speeches was conducted to assess how governors employ the issue of crime in their political communication. Overall, the results show that governors rarely follow the same patterns as presidents when speaking to their constituents about crime.

Going Symbolic Presidential Use of Symbolic Rhetoric in Crime Control Policy

Research into the American Presidents’ role in crime control policy has consistently found that they rely on symbolic rhetoric in their crime speeches. The research to date, however, has been confined to qualitative analysis and has not attempted to explain why presidents engage in symbolic rhetoric when it comes to crime policy. This study assesses presidential speeches related to crime from 1948 through 2010, and employs logistic regression to estimate the effects of the independent variables on the likelihood presidents will employ symbolic rhetoric. Findings suggest public opinion, presidential election year, party affiliation, and divided government, are significant factors in the likelihood presidents will engage in symbolic politics. The article concludes with a discussion of the study’s implication for the larger body of research on presidential crime rhetoric and the federal role in crime control.