A positive relationship between law enforcement and the public is critical for the effective operation of the agency and continued safety of the community. The public’s perception of law enforcement officers is one indication of the nature of that relationship. Past research on perception of the police has used questionnaires to untangle how the public views officers. This research uses an alternative method to measure the public’s perceptions of the police by asking respondents to draw a picture of a police officer. By analyzing the drawings, it can be seen what characteristics people identify with law enforcement. This study analyzed the drawings of 443 respondents. The findings show that there are differences in perceptions of the police based on the respondent’s gender and race, but not age. Other findings show that female respondents are likely to draw female officers, but male respondents are not. Items included in the drawings (e.g., a badge, gun, facial hair) were also examined. Future research using this method of measuring perceptions of the police with different demographic groups will help us more fully understand the public’s insight into law enforcement.

Criminal courts are an essential component of the criminal justice system. How people perceive courts determines, in part, their compliance with court decisions. When courts are perceived as being just, fair and trustworthy, citizens are more likely to respect court rulings. However, few people have direct experience with the criminal courts, but many do with the police. This paper explores whether citizens' perception of police fairness affects their perception of criminal courts as being fair and examines the influences of a variety of individual and community factors upon this relationship. We tested a conceptual model with three clusters of predictive variables (individual, community, and national levels) based on data from the Caribbean. The findings indicate that perceived fairness of courts is driven primarily by perceived fairness of the police as well as by involvement in one's community and an individual's crime victimization. Policy implications of these findings are explored.

Little academic research has been carried out on the agenda-setting process for judges, particularly in states.This study examines the rhetoric and agenda setting of judges in 47 state courts of last resort from 2005 to 2015.A content analysis of the end-of-the-year speeches delivered by the justices was performed to determine patterns and trends in rhetoric according to political party affiliation, region, proximity to the border, and method of appointment.It was discovered that the topics discussed by state chief justices did not vary over time; that agenda items differed slightly between Republican and Democratic justices; that there were limited differences between the issues discussed by judges in border and non-border states; that agenda items did not differ significantly according to region; that issues mentioned by U.S. Supreme Court justices and state justices differed; and that the method of seating justices did not influence agenda items._______________________________________________________________________________ All politicians, whether they are elected to office or appointed, must create a political message and then relay that message to their constituents.This communication of information and messages to the general public is referred to as political communication, and it has become a critical component of a public official's success.The ability and skill of public officials in communicating their intent can be vital to their accomplishments in office (Cohen, 1995;Whitford & Yates, 2003).Political communication and rhetoric has been defined as "the role of communication in the political process" (Chafee, 1975, p. 15).It comprises all forms of Agenda Setting in State Courts of Last Resort

Presidents have increasingly made criminal justice a part of their public agenda. Much of their political speech on crime and violence focuses on creating the impression of action, even when none is taken. Moreover, if actions are taken, they are ineffective and do not result in significant policy shifts. When presidents give the impression that they are fighting crime, it is often called crime control theater. This is characterized by the use of mythic narratives, a reliance on moral panic, little public dissent, and the ineffectiveness of the policy itself. While many previous studies have demonstrated the importance of crime control theater regarding different criminal justice topics, none have focused on the emerging problems of cybercrime. The current study examines the patterns and trends in presidential rhetoric on cybercrime using a qualitative content analysis to test the hypothesis that presidents rely on the techniques that comprise crime control theater when discussing cybercrime, in particular, mythic narrative and moral panic. The findings indicate that presidents, on the whole, tend to rely on these elements when discussing cybercrime. In other words, they rely on techniques of crime control theater to allay public fears of cybercrime but at the same time, postponing any significant action.

Objective: to comprehensively study the presidential rhetoric as crime control theater.Methods: dialectical approach to the cognition of social phenomena, enabling to analyze them in their historical development and functioning in the context of a set of objective and subjective factors, which determined the choice of the following research methods: formal-logical, comparative-legal, and sociological.Results: Presidents have increasingly made criminal justice a part of their public agenda. Much of their political speech on crime and violence focuses on creating the impression of action, even when none is taken. Moreover, if actions are taken, they are ineffective and do not result in significant policy shifts. When presidents give the impression that they are fighting crime, it is often called crime control theater. This is characterized by the use of mythic narratives, a reliance on moral panic, little public dissent, and the ineffectiveness of the policy itself. While many previous studies have demonstrated the importance of crime control theater regarding different criminal justice topics, none have focused on the emerging problems of cybercrime. Scientific novelty: for the first time, the article analyzes the issue of the presidential rhetoric as crime control theater, examines the patterns and trends in presidential rhetoric on cybercrime. The authors use a qualitative content analysis to test the hypothesis that presidents rely on the techniques that comprise crime control theater when discussing cybercrime, in particular, mythic narrative and moral panic. As a result, public fears of cybercrime are allayed but at the same time, any significant action is postponed. The research results have confirmed the proposed hypothesis. Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific and pedagogical activity when considering the issues related to the presidential rhetoric as crime control theater.

What politicians say about crime matters, both because of the impact their rhetoric has on public opinion and the policies and motives those words often portend. This is no different when presidents speak about the relatively new area of technocrime. As with other types of crime, political rhetoric on technocrime relies on previous social constructions of the problem, which are (in part) based on myths rooted in popular culture. These myths can be used to help forward political agendas in ways that may be useful to the politician, but that do not address the causes or effects of technocrime. Using ethnographic content analysis, we examine presidential speeches on technocrime, specifically cybercrime, for reliance on mythic narratives, a set of characteristics including threats to common values, the construction of a hero, the existence of innocent victims, and reliance on a deviant population. Our findings indicate that presidents often rely on mythic narratives in their speeches regarding cybercrime. This reliance can best be understood through the lens of securitization, which allows presidents to use myths to further their security agendas.

In the spring of 1692, a group of young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts, began to act bizarre and experience “fits” that were blamed on the devil. The girls accused several local women of practicing witchcraft and placing curses on them. Over the next few months, more than 200 people were accused of performing the Devil's magic and sent to prison before being tried for their alleged crimes. Following this, 20 colonists were executed; 19 people were hanged at Gallows Hill; and an elderly man was crushed to death by heavy stones. In the end, the colony officials admitted to wrongdoing and financially compensated the heirs of those executed for being a witch. Keywords: crime; demon; popular culture

Issues pertaining to crime and criminal justice have long been part of presidential campaigns. Voters want to know how candidates plan to solve the problem of crime and keep them safe. In turn, candidates respond to voters’ concerns and describe their crime control ideas in hopes of increasing voter support. In doing so, they often rely on symbolic statements that provide little detail but make people “feel good”. This study analyzes the criminal justice rhetoric used by the three major presidential candidates in the 2016 election cycle to determine what issues they discussed and how often. The analysis also examines if candidates relied on symbolic statements, and how the issues were debated between the candidates. The findings show that the issues discussed were somewhat different than in previous years, and that the candidates relied on symbolic statements about crime – a change from the previous election cycle. Additionally, the candidates used crime control as a way to reach out to voters in their own political party, suggesting an interesting shift in how issues of criminal justice are being approached within elections.

In today’s digital age, new kinds of crime are continually emerging. If cybercriminals attack businesses and individuals, the results can be devastating. Although most people take precautions to prevent becoming a victim of cybercrime (i.e. firewalls, complex passwords), they are still concerned about the potential of becoming a victim. They will often put pressure on government officials and demand that action be taken to lessen the possibility of another cybercrime attack. Elected officials, particularly presidents, have begun to more often speak about the dangers of cybercrime and suggest possible solutions. To date, there is relatively little analysis of what presidents are saying about cybercrime and how they are speaking about it. This paper aims to fill that gap that currently exists in the literature by looking at patterns and trends in presidential rhetoric on cybercrimes. Specifically, this study examines whether presidents talk about cybercrime in substantive or symbolic terms. Do they give precise and actionable options in their rhetoric or more “feel good” statements? It was predicted that, given the complexity of the topic, presidents will use more symbolic rhetoric to speak about cybercrime rather than tangible policy language. The findings suggest this to be true. We also attempt to draw some conclusions about why presidents may be drawn to symbolic rhetoric regarding cybercrime.

Explaining cybercrime in a highly networked world, this book provides a comprehensive yet accessible summary of the history, modern developments, and efforts to combat cybercrime in various forms at all levels of government—international, national, state, and local. As the exponential growth of the Internet has made the exchange and storage of information quick and inexpensive, the incidence of cyber-enabled criminal activity—from copyright infringement to phishing to online pornography—has also exploded. These crimes, both old and new, are posing challenges for law enforcement and legislators alike. What efforts—if any—could deter cybercrime in the highly networked and extremely fast-moving modern world? Introduction to Cybercrime: Computer Crimes, Laws, and Policing in the 21st Century seeks to address this tough question and enables readers to better contextualize the place of cybercrime in the current landscape. This textbook documents how a significant side effect of the positive growth of technology has been a proliferation of computer-facilitated crime, explaining how computers have become the preferred tools used to commit crimes, both domestically and internationally, and have the potential to seriously harm people and property alike. The chapters discuss different types of cybercrimes—including new offenses unique to the Internet—and their widespread impacts. Readers will learn about the governmental responses worldwide that attempt to alleviate or prevent cybercrimes and gain a solid understanding of the issues surrounding cybercrime in today’s society as well as the long- and short-term impacts of cybercrime.

Presidents often give speeches about crime issues as a way to convince the public that there are significant problems for which an easy solution can be found. Studies have shown that presidential rhetoric on crime not only influences the public’s perception of the problem, but also the perception of the best solution. More recent research has demonstrated that presidents sometimes draw on the public’s fear of crime as a way to further affect the public’s perception of crime. In other words, presidents link crime with the public’s anxiety about other fearful events as a way to further impact the public’s perception of a problem (and thus further their agenda). This study examines presidential rhetoric on cybercrime to determine if executives link cybercrime with other issues such as national security. The findings provide credibility to both Cavelty’s threat frames approach as well as assertions made regarding the politics of fear.

Presidential signing statements—a written statement presidents attach to a bill when signing it into law—has recently come to light as a powerful, and possibly unconstitutional, tool for enhancing power of the unitary executive. Recent research has assessed how these signing statements have been used and why, offering insight into the politics of the American presidency in enacting public policy. This study examines how presidents use the signing statements as they approve legislation related to criminal justice, assessing them by type, president, and party affiliation. Results suggest support for the unitary executive theory and that presidents often take a unilateral action approach in their use of signing statements—including those that potentially violate the U.S. Constitution.

Previous research suggests that American presidents resort to the use of symbolic rhetoric because of public opinion, party affiliation, election year politics, and divided government. This research, however, treated crime policy as a general topic, disregarding the nuances that emerge from different types of crime policies. The research at hand posits not all crime policies are the same or handled the same politically, and thus divides them into seven crime policy categories: law enforcement, courts, corrections, juveniles, guns, death penalty, and drugs. Drawing upon the theory of symbolic rhetoric and categorizing presidential speeches from 1948 through 2010 into these seven categories, this study employs logistic regression to explain the influencing variables upon the likelihood presidents will employ symbolic rhetoric for each of these crime policy types. Findings suggest that although the use of symbolic rhetoric is different for each crime policy issue, there are two key factors that matter overall: divided government and party affiliation.

This chapter describes the political dynamics and policy accomplishments of three innocence reforms that occurred in the first decade of the twenty-first century: Illinois legislation stimulated by Governor Ryan's death penalty moratorium and his Commission on Capital Punishment, the Innocence Protection Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2004; and an innocence reform package passed by the Ohio legislature in 2010. The chapter contains two goals. First, by describing the political context as well as the substance of the reform efforts, it assesses the strengths and limits of innocence reform at the present time. Second, it explores the Innocence Movement and innocence projects as interest groups, assessing how closely innocence projects align with theories of policy making. Much policy making theory developed by political scientists is oriented toward federal level congressional policy level, and may not precisely fit innocence policy making at state and local levels.

Past research on presidential and gubernatorial rhetoric related to crime shows that both presidents and governors use symbolic statements in their crime rhetoric. To date, no research has analyzed how mayors employ political language related to crime. As mayors are politically closer to the people and have a greater impact on local crime policy, it is important to understand the nature of how mayors use symbolic language about crime. The current study draws on hypotheses derived from research related to presidents and governors and applies them to the top 50 city executives. A content analysis of 6 years (2005-2010) of mayors’ State of the City speeches was conducted to assess how mayors employ the issue of crime in their political communication. Overall, the results suggest that mayors employ crime rhetoric in a different manner from other executives when speaking to their constituents about crime.