The more things change, the more they stay the same: the Queensland Police Service as a model for sustainable policing reform

ABSTRACT

Police departments are consistently challenged to serve their communities by reducing misconduct and being held accountable. In the United States, policing reform is best described as déjà vu or Groundhog Day, with high-profile groups organising every few years to list the same recommendations for improving the police. Additionally, reform suggestions are too often countered by the comment, “we have always done it this way.” By stark contrast, through the Fitzgerald Inquiry and the work of scholars such as David Bayley, the Queensland Police Service stands as a model for creating sustainable change in policing. In this paper, we compare the experiences of the Queensland Police Service with attempts at reform in the United States to suggest a path forward for reforming policing in the US.

KEYWORDS:

• police reform
• David Bayley
• police comissions
• blue ribbon panels
• policing

It is a truism that police officers are given the authority and responsibility to maintain public order, which includes the use of force. Accordingly, systems are necessary to monitor police behaviour and hold officers and their agencies accountable and responsible for the force that is used.¹ On the one hand, treating individuals fairly and within the rule of law is critical. On the other hand, identifying and controlling misconduct is a necessary but not a sufficient part of managing and leading the police. Striking this balance between individual rights and police misconduct is the core goal of police accountability. While none of these challenges is new, accountability remains a challenge for police departments in most countries.

There has been a significant amount of research on police corruption and accountability (Noble & Alpert, 2009; Porter, 2021), but translating that knowledge into practice is a slow and sometimes deliberate process. The purpose of this article is to present a reform strategy that summarises what we know and to suggest a path forward. This cannot be done well without revisiting earlier attempts at reform and acknowledging the efforts of one of the great reformers, David Hume Bayley (Heslop, 2015). We will first revisit briefly the history of police reform by the use of commissions, use as an example Dr. Bayley’s efforts with the Queensland, Australia police, and conclude with a roadmap for the mid 2020s.

Police misconduct and reform

Over the years and around the world, police misconduct has been covered extensively by the media. Perhaps the most comprehensive coverage is in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and Australia (United States Commission on Civil Rights, 1981; Porter & Prenzler, 2012; Hough et al., 2018). Often, serious cases of police misconduct have led to Commission reports, Blue-Ribbon panels, and other responses that have exposed repeated acts of misconduct and patterns and practices of abuse. More recently, social media has provided an outlet for citizen input, which includes accurate and not-so-accurate accounts or reports of events. Social media includes opinions about police behaviour and has the ability to share a wide range of audio/video recordings that include abuses of authority that would likely go unknown, and views of events that have already caught the public eye but from different angles. These events or interactions range from incidents involving citizens trying to provoke police officers to respond inappropriately and aggressively to incidents of police abuse of their powers.

Regardless of the impetus, there have been a series of particularly disturbing investigations of individual agencies by the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division that have resulted in “Collaborative Reforms” and “Consent Decrees” (United States Commission on Civil Rights, 2018). Interestingly, these enquiries have resulted in many of the same findings in different agencies over the years – which mirror many of the same suggested reforms highlighted by investigations of police in other countries (Chanin, 2021; Headley & Wright, 2019; D’Souza et al., 2018; Walker, 1977). Recently, the (United States Commission on Civil Rights, 2018, p. 1) reported:

The relationship between law enforcement and many communities in the U.S. is fraught and challenging, particularly for those who experience violent crimes coupled with intensive police presence and surveillance. A number of recent developments suggest a renewed commitment to resolving this issue. For the first time in decades, the country has witnessed ubiquitous and sustained protests by young people, communities of color, and other impacted populations in cities all across the country. Further, in hope of fostering better community-police relationships, many law enforcement and city officials around the country have started implementing reform strategies to allay communities’ concerns about actual or perceived unfair and unequal policing. Reform advocates often acknowledge the positive steps that some jurisdictions are undertaking, but reported cases of excessive force remain a national concern. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the fundamental rights of both law enforcement and the communities they serve, whose rights are protected under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

While allegations that some police force is excessive, unjustified, and discriminatory continue and proliferate, current data regarding police use of force is insufficient to determine if instances are occurring more frequently. The public continues to hear competing narratives by law enforcement and community members, and the hard reality is that available national and local data is flawed and inadequate.

Yet, despite the apparent originality of protests and outrage over police abuse of power, this is far from the first time these concerns have been raised. In 2015, the President’s Task Force on 21^st Century Policing referenced many of these same issues and more than 50 years before the Civil Rights Commission Report, the report of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice: The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967) voiced many of them as well. That Commission was created in response to rising crime and beliefs of unfair policing practices including police use-of-force, police–community relations, trust, and communication between the police and the public. The Civil Rights Commission Report, “Who is Guarding the Guardians” published in 1981 also included many of the same reform issues. Fast forward to 2021, and yet another commission was created: the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, with foci on the same concerns, and a final report that offered neither new nor innovative answers.

Police reform in the United States has been shaped by a standard approach to improve several structural areas of policing including personnel, policies, training, supervision and accountability. The substantive pillars of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing’s (2015) include:

• 1. Building Trust and Legitimacy

• 2. Policy and Oversight

• 3. Technology and Social Media

• 4. Community Policing and Crime Reduction

• 5. Training and Education

• 6. Officer Wellness and Safety

As noted, an important takeaway is the repetitive nature of these investigations, blue-ribbon panels, and commission reports. There is no shortage of testimony and testimonials. It seems that every few decades a politically-appointed panel identifies reforms without acknowledging that they have been discussed previously, outlined and even mandated, but never put fully into practice. As the same issues keep reappearing, the question becomes is it the reform ideas that are flawed or is it the failure to implement the reforms that allow them to be discussed by new panels, and a new generation of analysts and politicians?

Porter (2021) created a typology of misconduct that assists in understanding police behaviour. She distinguishes between front-line and command-level officer behaviour as well as off-duty conduct, and failure to report misconduct. Porter does an excellent job of explaining police misconduct in a new and efficient way and provides us a springboard to look at one example, the Queensland, Australia Police Service.

Queensland and the Fitzgerald inquiry

In the 1980s, the Queensland Police Force (QPF) was known for its corruption and misconduct. A journalist, Chris Masters had been covering the “Force” and his investigation titled “The Moonlight State” exposed an agency rife with problems.² Masters’ journalistic account of a corrupt police force was the final straw that influenced the Queensland government to create a judicial inquiry led by Tony Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald, 1989; Lewis et al., 2010). The Fitzgerald Investigation took almost two years and found systemic political corruption and abuse of power in Queensland. While the initial investigation was concerned with police misconduct, the Fitzgerald investigation uncovered reasons to widen the net and found the tainted political system and power base to be the underlying cause, and reason for police misconduct (Fleming, 2010). The specific policing recommendations are important, but largely follow similar areas covered by earlier inquiries conducted in the United States and other countries. However, the reforms suggested reach out much farther than the repeated commission reports from the United States, going beyond the police organisations and into the political arena. The Fitzgerald Inquiry looked into political deal making, elections, appointments, kickbacks, and other structural elements that allowed police officers in Queensland to operate with impunity and allow corruption to flourish. Similarly, many of the recommendations of the Fitzgerald Inquiry went beyond police-specific programmes, strategies and tactics and included structural reforms and oversight, including the creation of the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) which grew into the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC). This body has the legislative authorisation, personnel and budget to investigate all forms of police corruption and misconduct. In fact, CMC/CCC has conducted important investigations into the use of force, pursuits and other controversial police activities besides investigating specific allegations of individual misconduct and corruption. The development and funding of this investigative and oversight body has guided and driven police reform in Queensland.

Unlike the failed approaches of the presidential commissions and investigations of major scandals in the United States, the Fitzgerald Inquiry resulted in the prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of four ministers and numerous police officers. For example, former Police Commissioner Sir Terence Lewis was convicted of corruption, stripped of his knighthood, and remains in prison. Overarching goals were stated on Pp. 357–363: “ … this report seeks to become a catalyst and platform for continuing reform, by which public confidence in the administration can be restored, and political processes improved. It addresses changes to the administration of criminal justice including but not confined to the Police Force. This focus is on the future, not the past. … the Police Force has its own culture. … What might have been positive aspects of the police culture have over time become distorted. The culture now incorporates and nurtures the problems of the Force, including misconduct, inefficiency and a contempt for the criminal justice system. … the force has become alienated from much of the community which it serves, and officers often feel more loyal to the Force than to the public.” As part of the sweeping reforms to improve the culture of the Queensland Police Force, an important symbolic change was made to rename it to the Queensland Police Service (QPS).

The Fitzgerald Report fits into the mould of other commissions and panels that suggest reform – such as the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice and the President’s Task Force on 21^st Century Policing – with several notable differences. Rather than only looking at policing broadly, the Inquiry focused on one police agency but referenced policing in other states. Additionally, a difference between the Fitzgerald Inquiry and many other commission reports is the focus on wider political institutions and politicians rather than the narrow focus on the police (see also, The Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, 1999; for a similar approach). There is little doubt that political corruption allows and perpetuates police corruption, but too often the commission reports are sponsored by politicians and the emphasis of reform is targeted and perhaps guided to fail. Too often the politicians who sponsor the reform will move up or on and will not be around when initial energy and funding are gone, and the long-term effects have faded. It has been said that “police may change but politics will remain the same.”³

Most researchers and reformers have been limited to understanding the issues in one culture or another, but a few have been able to look at agencies in multiple countries and understand the similarities and differences within and between them. One of those uniquely qualified scholars, David Bayley, studied police reform around the world. He (Bayley, 2001) explained in detail the elements and politics of successful police reform and although published almost twenty-years ago, his monograph remains relevant. He shared 17 core lessons necessary to change policing (2001, pp. 19–26):

• 1. Any reform programme must be based on a clearly articulated understanding of the connections between the objectives to be achieved and the actions proposed.

• 2. Sustained and committed leadership by top management, especially the most senior executive, is required to produce any important organisational change.

• 3. The key to changing any aspect of policing is management, that is, the way in which the members of a police organisation are brought to do what policies call for.

• 4. Police behaviour cannot be changed by formal reorganisation within the police or by restructuring on a national basis.

• 5. Material resources may support desired changes, but they are rarely essential and never sufficient to bring them about.

• 6. Significant reform requires widespread acceptance across ranks and assignments in a police department.

• 7. When pilot projects are undertaken, they must have committed leadership and personnel who are not continually pulled away for other purposes.

• 8. Police officers will not change their behaviour unless they perceive it to be in their personal interest to do so.

• 9. Reformers both inside and outside police organisations should be careful not to denigrate the motivation, knowledge, or skill of the people whose behaviour they are trying to change.

• 10. Programme evaluations that emphasise outputs rather than outcomes as a measure of success inhibit organisational creativity.

• 11. Reform requires that new programmes be monitored so that midcourse changes can be made. At the same time, burdensome evaluation can discourage reform.

• 12. Change is more likely to occur when new resources are made available rather than when existing ones are redistributed.

• 13. If the incidence of crime and disorder is thought to be unacceptable or increasing, police reform will be inhibited.

• 14. Increasing contacts between police personnel and respectable, noncriminal members of the public is an important way of encouraging the development of an accountable, service-oriented police organisation.

• 15. Issuing clear statements of organisational policy accompanied by appropriate positive and negative sanctions is a powerful way to change the behaviour of police officers, even in situations of high stress and urgency.

• 16. Reform is more likely to occur if police officials are connected to professional networks of progressive police leaders (regional, national, and international).

• 17. Labour organisations within the police must be included in the development and planning of any reform programme.

Adding to his lessons to-be-learned, he argued (Bayley & Perito, 2011, p. 1):

To reduce police corruption, the commissions recommend creating external oversight over the police with a special focus on integrity, improving recruitment and training, leadership from supervisors of all ranks about integrity, holding all commanders responsible for the misbehavior of subordinates, and changing the organization’s culture to tolerate misbehavior less.

This summary places police misconduct in its proper perspective and removes it from a smaller, less-important role limited to police-specific reforms. Importantly, Bayley and the reforms of QPS, have emphasised two points that have been absent from the commissions, investigations, and demands for reform in the United States. First, Bayley and QPS recognised the need for permanent, authoritative external oversight. The principles of democratic policing require police to be accountable to the public, but external oversight in the United States is all too often either short-term or lacks the proper authority to enforce its decisions. Second, reform is a long-term endeavour. Repeatedly throughout his 17 lessons Bayley points out the need for change to be a continual process with new strategies being constantly monitored and a commitment to improving policing day-in and day-out. This stands in stark contrast to common police reforms in the United States where reform comes in short, intense bursts following a high-profile scandal only to be abandoned – or at least seriously downsized – once the attention fades.

Bayley’s work has been multi-national and multi-cultural and because of his wide-ranging perspective he was asked to discuss the legacy of the Fitzgerald Report and provide the 2014 Tony Fitzgerald Lecture sponsored by Griffith University commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Report.⁴ In his lecture, he presented and summarised findings and conclusions of commissions and blue-ribbon panels from all over the world but emphasised the necessity to design and customise reforms to local areas and agencies. An important takeaway from his lecture is the need to understand the general recommendations and conclusions of the various commission reports as areas of concern and needed attention. Importantly, there is a critical need to modify and adjust these general recommendations and conclusions to respond to the specific concerns of the local community, police and political entities. In developing unique solutions for a local context, it is more likely that the reforms being adopted will be sustained.

A roadmap for reform – The United States

Research in criminology and criminal justice tends to be US-centric and often ignores the broader world in which we live. However, the issues of police abuse of power have become more prominent in the United States than many other countries and an international and applied lens to the issue could help other – arguably more successful countries – provide a roadmap for creating better police reform in the United States. Specifically, the Fitzgerald Inquiry had a transformational effect on the Queensland Police Service and while Bayley’s proposition that police reform needs to be responsive to the local environment is important, the lessons of sustained efforts and external oversight should serve as guiding principles for police reform in the United States and around the world.

The local context

As heavily emphasised by Bayley, it is important to consider the local context when creating police reform. In examining the unique context of the United States, it is readily apparent that the structure of policing systems poses a larger challenge to police reform than it did in Queensland. In particular, policing in the United States of America is governed by three overlapping layers of government – federal, state, and local governments. Police departments are typically created and overseen at the local level but are also responsible for and accountable to legislation passed at the state and federal level. This becomes more complicated in issues of overlapping jurisdictions. Consider for example, the recent insurrection in Washington, DC. As rioters moved from one side of the street to the other they moved from the jurisdiction of the United States Secret Service (on the White House grounds) to the Metropolitan Police Department (on the streets of the city) to the United States Capitol Police (on the Capitol grounds). In an incident like this that demands police reform, there are challenges to identifying the areas of reform and receiving commitment from all involved agencies to generate the desired change.

Further complicating these matters is the nature of the job of police chief in the United States. With 18,000 state and local policing agencies operating at the desires of 18,000 different local governments, being a police chief has become similar to being a college football coach. Police chiefs are brought in to reform bad departments, given a very small chunk of time (often too small to create the type of lasting change we are talking about), and then fired when they either (a) adopt short-term solutions that are unlikely to be very successful (see below) or (b) adopt long-term solutions that do not transform the police department quickly enough for politicians. This is enough of a reason to worry, but much like college football, there is an ever-increasing trend for fired police chiefs to quickly be re-hired by the next police department in trouble. It has become troublingly rare for good, progressive police chiefs to last long in the United States which further impedes opportunities for reform.

These issues notwithstanding, each of level of government in the United States’ federalist system provides a different opportunity for creating sustainable reform. Below we review some of the opportunities for reform at each level with emphasis on ideas that can create sustainable change with external oversight. Interestingly, external oversight is not only a recommendation of Bayley and the QPS experience that makes departments more accountable to the people they serve, but may also institutionalise reform in a manner that insulates reform from the coaching carousel of police chiefs.

Federal interventions

Federal interventions into police reform were reviewed earlier in this article, but notably include the presidential commissions on policing that have generated a lot of ideas, but largely failed to produce meaningful change. More recently federal interventions into policing have included federal consent decrees to address patterns and practices of unconstitutional policing (Alpert et al., 2017; Powell et al., 2017). While research continues on the effectiveness of consent decrees in reforming policing, early results suggest that they do create important change in the short term (Chanin, 2014; Chanin, 2015; Alpert et al., 2017; Powell et al., 2017). This is likely related to our foundational suggestion that police reform involve external oversight. The consent decree process requires the appointment of a consent decree monitor who ensures that the troubled police department implement the recommendations agreed upon by all parties of the consent decree. This is further reinforced by early evidence that when the consent decree ends and the monitor no longer has authority, there is a good chance that departments revert back to bad habits of unconstitutional policing (Walker, 2012; Alpert et al., 2017).

Clearly then, reforms to policing at the federal level should avoid the pitfall of a short-term intervention as evidenced by presidential commissions and consent decrees. These programmes are necessary but not sufficient. They are a poor solution to create lasting police reform. Stoughton et al. (2020) instead suggest creating legislative change that improves local communities’ ability to hold officers accountable through ending or strongly reducing the use of qualified immunity and collecting more comprehensive data. Reducing the use of qualified immunity would make it easier for individuals to sue police officers for egregious examples of police misconduct. Improving the national use of force database by making data collection mandatory for inclusion in certain programmes would enable communities to understand how a department is using force and how their data compare to other comparable departments across the country.

To be clear, efforts at police reform such as consent decrees and presidential commissions are not useless endeavours. Consent decrees have produced meaningful short-term change in police departments such as New Orleans, Los Angeles, and other cities. Presidential commissions have generated some truly good ideas on how to improve policing. However, both practices are responses to crises akin to stopping the bleeding by placing a tourniquet on a bullet wound. Our point – which we learned from Dr. Bayley – is that if all we ever do is stop the bleeding, we have missed an opportunity for long-term healing, and to improve policing.

State interventions

There are a range of activities that state legislatures can do to improve policing that range from creating statutes governing the use of force to changing policies regarding police unions. Again, however, our focus is on recommendations that fulfill the criteria of being a sustained, long-term endeavour and valuing external oversight. To this end, we suggest that states make two key changes. First, states should consider adopting a stringent state-wide use of force policy and reporting procedure. On the one hand, changes to use of force policies has been a hallmark of movements such as #8cantwait in recent years and some success in creating new policies has been achieved. On the other hand, New Jersey has implemented a comprehensive, state-wide use of force policy (Citrin, 2020). In so doing, they have gained two crucial advantages: (1) in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, they were able to make revisions and implement one of the most progressive use of force policies in the country quickly, and (2) they are able to require reporting of the use of force to a state database that is publicly accessible to encourage greater transparency (see above discussion of a national use of force database). This approach then creates sustainable external oversight.

The second change we suggest is the increased use of decertification as a means of getting rid of bad officers. Police officers in a given state are certified to serve as a law enforcement officer by that state, but it is rare for that certification to be taken away for police misconduct (Kane & White, 2012; Grunwald & Rappaport, 2020). If the same entity that currently oversees certification is given the authority and directive to decertify police officers who are found to engage in serious misconduct, it would help to prevent officers from being re-hired in another agency after being fired for misconduct. Again, this approach is favoured because it involves external oversight that is sustainable through a state agency that is already responsible for certifying police officers.

Local level

The local level of policing has the most opportunity for implementing change as police departments are inherently local. However, most of this change falls into the category of internal or unsustainable reform. Cutting-edge technology such as body-worn cameras can reduce the use of force, reduce citizen complaints, and improve perceptions of transparency (Lum et al., 2019), yet have often backfired with the public when agencies do not release footage (see e.g., the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, NC). Similarly, cutting-edge use of force policies with mandates that officers de-escalate encounters, explore alternative options, and render aid after force is used, are only good if officers follow the policy and are held accountable when they violate the policy. Finally, cutting-edge training programmes on de-escalation and implicit biases may be effective but are traditionally limited to one or two-day in-service training sessions with little follow-up on implementation in the field (see e.g., Skogan et al., 2015; Engel et al., 2020). While one-day training programmes may be beneficial, the claim that a single day of training will result in a transformational change for a police department is akin to believing that eating salads for a day will result in permanent weight loss. Long-term success requires effective policies, repeated practice of skills, a culture of reform, and, most importantly, external accountability from citizens.

To this end, perhaps the most important accountability measure that a local government can implement is to empower an external body – whether it is a citizen review board or an independent government agency – to review police practices, recommend changes in policy and practice to the department, and hold officers accountable for violations of policies. Citizen review boards are not a new idea, having been around since at least the 1970s (Hudson, 1971). However, citizen review boards often lack powers beyond reviewing incidents and providing recommendations that are easily over-ridden by the police chief or other individuals in the police department (Bumphus, 1991; Walker & Kreisel, 1996; Walker, 2021). Accordingly, we concur with noted police academic and reformer Samuel Walker (2021) that the preferred method of external accountability should be independent police auditor who are employed by the local government and have broader powers to review police practices, policies, and procedures, and issue public reports and recommendations to citizens and the local government. This represents a local, institutionalised authority to ensure that the police department continues to pursue police reform and best practices over the long-term.

In the end, the transformational change achieved by Queensland Police Service – or even the short-term, drastic improvements seen in consent decree police departments such as New Orleans – are accomplished through mandates by external bodies to change. In Queensland, the Crime and Corruption Commission continues to hold officers accountable. In consent decree cities, the monitors hold agencies accountable for achieving change. In local communities, citizen review boards or other independent government agencies can serve this function and ensure that lasting reform is achieved.

Conclusions

In the wake of policing scandals such as the massive police corruption incidents investigated by the Knapp, Mollen and Kerner Commissions, incidents of police brutality such as the beating of Rodney King or killing of George Floyd, politicians, police departments, and the community have all attempted to influence or force the police to make significant changes. (Headley & Wright, 2019, p. 280) explain that several areas, including recruiting, training, policies, use of force and accountability, are examined in multiple commission reports over the years. While we continue to have investigations there is precious little systemic change. Political pressure to fund more commissions wins out over making wholesale or national changes to the police.

Even when changes are made when successes have been determined, these changes are too often short-lived. Recent reform has focused on finding “magic bullet” solutions like better technology (e.g., body-worn cameras or TASERs) or one-day training programmes (e.g., implicit bias or de-escalation training) to immediately transform policing. These technologies and programmes are undoubtedly important and can help to improve policing (see Skogan et al., 2015; Engel et al., 2020; White & Malm, 2020; Wood et al., 2020), but each is one tool that when used properly in conjunction with others, creates an opportunity for real and sustained change. Unfortunately, while we have seen these “solutions of the moment” embraced by politicians and the local community, we have yet to see a coordinated effort to reform even a segment of the police. Again, these solutions that are touted are important, but they are only solutions for now. Body-worn cameras are continually adapting and improving and training will need updated curricula and refreshers for in-service officers. This is true for all technologies and tactics that are used by the police. The push to continually improve technologies and training must be institutionalised rather than waiting for the next crisis to spur interest in more solutions. In 2021 and beyond, we can rely on many of the principles for creating sustainable change proposed by Bayley and demonstrated by the Fitzgerald Inquiry. Police reform is not a one-off event, but a continual process of improving policies and practices and external oversight.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kyle McLean

Geoffrey P. Alpert is a Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina and has an appointment at Griffith University. He has taught at the FBI National Academy, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and The Senior Management Institute for Police. He is currently a Federal Monitor for the New Orleans Police Department and on the compliance team for the Portland, Oregon Police Bureau. He has testified to Congress, several state legislatures and the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, and is a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Research Advisory Committee and the PERF Research Advisory Board. For the past forty years, his research interests have focused on police use of force, emergency driving and the linkages between researchers and practitioners.

Kyle McLean is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice at Clemson University and a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Law Enforcement Advancing Data and Sciences (LEADS) Academic. Dr. McLean’s research interests focus on understanding police-community relations and evaluating efforts to reform the police to better reflect community demands of policing. Accordingly, Dr. McLean has conducted research in the areas of police legitimacy, police training, police culture, police use of force, and body-worn cameras. His recent work has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, Criminology & Public Policy, and the Journal of Experimental Criminology.

Notes

1. As Uncle Ben told Peter Parker, “with great power comes great responsibility.”

2. Chris Masters, “The Moonlight State,” Four Corners, ABC Australia, 11 May 1987.

3. Arif Alikhan, personal conversation, July 2020.

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRyjzVYIzWc.