In 200-250 words, read the below and provide one of the following:
Ask a probing question.
Share an insight from having read your colleague’s posting.
Offer and support an opinion.
Validate an idea with your own experience.
Make a suggestion.
Expand on your colleague’s posting.
For this assignment I selected a meta-analysis article on the effects of Day Reporting Centers (DRC) on recidivism. A DRC is a court-ordered form of community supervision that is more intensive than traditional probation though less restrictive than incarceration. Individuals ordered to participate in a DRC are required to report to a center each day for programming and / or treatment but are then allowed to return to their homes at night.
This meta-analysis included a review of nine studies published between 1996 and 2017 that were found through a search criterion for crime, evaluation, and DRC. The researchers noted that a primary limitation in this study was the heterogeneity amongst studies in the sample. This means that studies varied in terms of DRC structure, program availability, and how recidivism was defined. As Geyer (2009) noted, recidivism is often a dichotomous measurement. However, some studies in the sample defined recidivism by whether the individual was arrested, convicted, reincarcerated, or a combination of these, adding to the heterogeneity of the studies. Overall, the findings in this study suggest that DRCs for adult offenders are no different in terms of recidivism outcomes than traditional supervision options (Wong et al., 2019). However, it was noted that front-end DRCs (i.e., those used as a means of supervision prior to incarceration) had a more significant impact on recidivism than back-end DRCs (those used to help transition an individual from prison to community). The researchers noted that the statistical significance of treatment impact varies based on how recidivism is measured. They recommend that future studies involving DRCs should deliberately include details of the program so they can be better compared and contrasted with other programs (Wong et al.).
Though recidivism can be easy to measure (Geyer, 2009), the definition of it becomes more complex. As Wong et al. (2019) noted, the studies in their sample varied in terms of how recidivism was defined. Additionally, the variance in what the DRCs were offering in terms of treatment or services creates several moderating variables. What I took from the study is that when you are trying to determine an effect on recidivism, you need to be very specific in how you are defining recidivism as well as which intervention you are measuring effect for. For example, it would not be enough to say you want to determine if a DRC reduces recidivism but rather if a specific drug treatment program administered through a DRC has an effect on re-arrest rates for drug offenses.
As previously stated, Brazilian legislature is comprised of an upper chamber, the Senate, or Senado, and a lower Chamber of Deputies, or Câmara dos Deputados. Formally, the Senate contains 81 seats, where three senators are chosen from each of the 27 federal states to ensure equal representation. In the Chamber of Deputies, 513 seats are chosen based on the open-list proportional representation, or open-list PR, the electoral system instituted within Brazilian politics. As stated by J. Tyler Dickovick and Jonathan Eastwood in Comparative Politics, “this system allows each voter to select a specific candidate and then attempts to achieve proportionality by aggregating the votes across parties,” (Dickovick/Eastwood, 209). In Brazil and European nations, open-list PR features the opportunity for political parties to gain house support from the various states while allowing citizens to actively seat candidates they believe will benefit their regional constituency. Furthermore, PR systems give political access to minority parties even if they do not receive a majority of the vote, meaning that to some extent everyone is being represented. Additionally, these weaker political parties can form coalitions with larger, more prominent parties to form coalitions that sway chamber voting. Coalitions aid smaller, weaker parties to combat social dominance theory as “the dominators in order to continue domination, and the disadvantaged group to try to change the status quo,” (Aguilar/Barone/Cunow/Desposato, 180). In this way, power sharing between parties, and even interest groups become more apparent to citizens so they know who is responsible for the policies being enacted, which influences the next election cycle. Overall, open-list PR produces a number of advantages permitting a level of transparency between the governing bodies and the populace at large.
On the other side of the aisle, there are a handful of disadvantages associated with the relationship of open-list PR. In traditional PR, party leaders would have the power to allocate seats to their parties candidates as they deem appropriate, taking away political influence from citizens. Candidates in both systems have incentives to garner political party support as it allocates more party power within the upper and lower chambers of the legislature. However, since candidates have more personal power in making a name for themselves without necessarily following party principles, this can lead to a weakening of political parties. Lack of faith in political parties leads to what is known as floor crossing, political figures would change party affiliation, “in an attempt to jockey for the best positions for future elections,” (Dickovick/Eastwood, 409). Only causing faith in open-list PR to further disintegrate, political leaders would offer bribes to legislators to maintain a majority vote on specific pieces of legislation. Also, due to legislators loyalty to their federal states, they do not always have Brazil’s interests in mind when enacting legislation, as only the members of their respective state ensure re-election. What’s more, Brazil contains a multi-party, fragmented party, system where “voters may face as many as one thousand candidates in a single district… [caused by] high-magnitude legislative districts, low cost