Response to Sonya CJUS 601

 
The process of measuring recidivism can indeed have an impact on the evaluation of effectiveness of corrections policies. Many studies have strived to articulate the effects of correctional interventions on recidivism. For many of these studies, there are recognizable issues or relationships involving the type of treatment, its implementation and the nature of the offenders. It is possible, as advanced by Mosher, Miethe and Hart (2011), that measuring recidivism can negatively impact the evaluation of how effective correctional policies are. Considering my experience in low enforcement, I can relate to how measuring or evaluating one parameter such as recidivism can affect the evaluation of another. This is because the same correctional system and subjects are used for both evaluations.
In “The Revolving Door at the Prison Gate” by Padfield and Maruna (2006) I believe the bias is found from the fact that the researchers use subjects from a different environment to contextualize the increase in recalls to prison in the United States. I believe bias to be a prejudice against an individual or a group of people. From my understanding of this study, the researchers fail to provide sufficient grounds on which to justify the comparative features of England and Wales. Moreover, the researchers characterize the US system as costly, discriminatory and ineffective at reducing crime without providing the empirical justification for this claim. Again, I believe that it is unfair to attack a research in this manner if the scholars recognized the limitations of their study and concluded by highlighting the need for more research on the subject.
References
Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., & Hart, T. C. (2011). The mismeasure of crime (2nd ed.). Los          Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. ISBN: 9781412981811.
Padfield, N., & Maruna, S. (2006). The revolving door at the prison gate: Exploring the dramatic increase in recalls to prison. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6(3), 329-352.