HU Credits: 4

Degree/Cycle: 2nd degree (Master)

Responsible Department: criminology

Semester: Yearly

Teaching Languages: Hebrew

Campus: Mt. Scopus

Course/Module Coordinator: Dr. Tal Jonathan-Zamir

Coordinator Email: tal.jonathan@mail.huji.ac.il

Coordinator Office Hours: Please coordinate appointments

Teaching Staff:
Dr. Tal Jonathan-Zamir

Course/Module description:
The purpose of this course is to examine key issues relevant to the criminal justice system in Israel and elsewhere, through the lens of organizational and behavioral theories. We will discuss different issues or concerns relevant to criminal justice organizations, such as open versus closed systems, complex organizational goals, formal and informal structures in organizations, external influences and more, and examine how these matters are expressed in the real world. The course is designed as a workshop which includes lectures, guest lectures and independent exercises.

Course/Module aims:
The purpose of this course is to become familiar with and analyze the criminal justice system using organizational and behavioral theories. Such analyses give rise to questions and discussions on aspects of this system sometimes perceived as simple reality.

Learning outcomes - On successful completion of this module, students should be able to:
Define the main organizations in the criminal justice system and their roles.
Identify differences in the operation of criminal justice organizations in different places and over time.
Describe the main concepts in analyzing organizations.
Use the different concepts and theories to analyze organizations in the criminal justice system.
Given the analysis, examine different aspects in the operation of criminal justice organizations with critical eyes.

Attendance requirements(%):
Full attendance (80%)

Teaching arrangement and method of instruction: Lectures
Guest lecturers (representatives from criminal justice organizations)
Open discussions
Exercises

Course/Module Content:
The criminal justice system in Israel
Basic concepts in the analysis of organizations
Structure and characteristics of criminal justice organizations
The criminal justice system in its environment
Research in criminal justice organizations
Legitimacy in the Criminal justice system
Evaluating performance in the criminal justice system

Required Reading:
Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., and Klofas, J. (2008). Chapter 1: Basic concepts for understanding criminal justice organizations. Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management (fourth edition) (pp. 1-16). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
*Bohm, R.M. (2006). McJustice: On the McDonaldization of criminal justice. Justice Quarterly, 23(1), 127-144.
*Geva, R., and Shem-Tov, O. (2002). Setting up community policing centers: Participatory action. Police Practice and Research, 3(3), 189-200.
*Weisburd, D. and Eck, J.E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42-65.
*Lorinskas, L., Kalinich, D., and Banas, D. (1985). Symbolism and rhetoric: The guardians of the status quo in the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice Review, 10, 41-46.
*Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S.D., Willis, J.J., and Greenspan, R. (2006). Changing so that everything can remain the same: Compstat and American policing. In D. Weisburd and A.A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 284-304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*Lum, C. (2009). Translating police research into practice. Ideas in American Policing, 11.
*Weisburd, D., and Neyroud, P. (2011). Police science: Toward a new paradigm. New Perspectives in Policing, January.
*Jonathan-Zamir, T., and Weisburd, D. (2013). The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy: Findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 3-32.
*Sunshine, J., and Tyler, T.R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513-48.
*Tyler, T.R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May, 593-608.
*Tyler, T.R. (2009). Legitimacy and criminal justice: The benefits of self-regulation. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7, 307-359.
*Telep, C. (2014). Methodological issues in evaluating police performance. In G. Bruinsma and D. Weisburd (Eds.), Springer encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. New York: Springer.

Additional Reading Material:
Allen, M. J., and Sawhney, R. (2010). Administration and management in criminal justice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cronkhite, C. L. (2013). Law enforcement and justice administration: Strategies for the 21st century. Jones & Bartlett Publishers

Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., and Klofas, J. (2008). Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management (fourth edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

סמואל י. (2012). ארגונים: מבוא לתורת הארגון (מהדורה שלישית). אור יהודה, ישראל: כנרת, זמורה-ביתן, דביר- מוציאים לאור בע"מ.


גימשי, ד. (2007). מערכת הצדק בפלילים: אכיפת החוק בחברה דמוקרטית. ראשון לציון: פלס הוצאה לאור.


*Jonathan, T., Ajzenstadt, M., and Weisburd, D. (2010). Israel. In M. K. Nalla (Volume ed.) and G. R. Newman (General ed.), Crime and punishment around the world: Volume 1- Africa and the Middle East (pp. 283-297). Santa-Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.

*גימשי, ד. (2007). ההליך הפלילי וסדר דין פלילי. בתוך: מערכת הצדק בפלילים: אכיפת החוק בחברה דמוקרטית (עמ' 264-276, 280-289). ראשון לציון: פלס הוצאה לאור.

*גימשי, ד. (2007). ארגון המשטרה. בתוך: מערכת הצדק בפלילים: אכיפת החוק בחברה דמוקרטית (עמ' 293-302, 391-461). ראשון לציון: פלס הוצאה לאור.

*גימשי, ד. (2007). התביעה ומערכת בתי המשפט. בתוך: מערכת הצדק בפלילים: אכיפת החוק בחברה דמוקרטית (עמ' 463-469, 478-500). ראשון לציון: פלס הוצאה לאור.

*גימשי, ד. (2007). מאסר ובתי סוהר בישראל. בתוך: מערכת הצדק בפלילים: אכיפת החוק בחברה דמוקרטית (עמ' 545-555). ראשון לציון: פלס הוצאה לאור.

*גימשי, ד. (2007). תקון בקהילה בישראל. בתוך: מערכת הצדק בפלילים: אכיפת החוק בחברה דמוקרטית (עמ' 572-590). ראשון לציון: פלס הוצאה לאור.

- אתרי האינטרנט הרשמיים של הארגונים הרלוונטיים.
- הרצאות מרצים אורחים מטעם הארגונים.



Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., and Klofas, J. (2008). Chapter 1: Basic concepts for understanding criminal justice organizations. Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management (fourth edition) (pp. 1-16). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.



*Bohm, R.M. (2006). McJustice: On the McDonaldization of criminal justice. Justice Quarterly, 23(1), 127-144.

*Geva, R., and Shem-Tov, O. (2002). Setting up community policing centers: Participatory action. Police Practice and Research, 3(3), 189-200.

Kalinich, D., and Stojkovic, S. (1985). Contraband: The basis for legitimate police in prison social systems. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 435-451.

Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., and Klofas, J. (2008). Chapter 2: Structure of criminal justice organizations. Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management (fourth edition) (pp. 17-42). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

*Weisburd, D. and Eck, J.E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42-65.

Weisburd, D., Shalev, O., & Amir, M. (2002). Community policing in Israel: Resistance and change. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25(1), 80-109.

Williams, E.J. (2003). Structuring in community policing: Institutionalizing innovative change. Police Practice and Research, 4(2), 119-129.



Greene, J.R., and Herzog, S. (2009). The implications of the formal and social organization of policing in the U.S and Israel: Some concerns and opportunities. In D. Weisburd, T. Feucht, I. Hakimi, M. Lois and S. Perry (Eds.), To protect and to serve: Policing in an age of terrorism (pp. 143-175). New York: Springer.

Kovandzic, T.V., Sloan, J.J. and Vieraitis, L.M. (2004). Striking out as crime reduction policy: The impact of three strikes laws on crime rates in US cities. Justice Quarterly, 21(2), 85-97.

*Lorinskas, L., Kalinich, D., and Banas, D. (1985). Symbolism and rhetoric: The guardians of the status quo in the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice Review, 10, 41-46.

Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., and Klofas, J. (2008). Chapter 3: The criminal justice system in its environment. Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management (fourth edition) (pp. 43-79). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
*Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S.D., Willis, J.J., and Greenspan, R. (2006). Changing so that everything can remain the same: Compstat and American policing. In D. Weisburd and A.A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 284-304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Light, S., and Newman, T. (1992). Awareness and use of social science research among executives and administrative staff members of state correctional agencies. Justice Quarterly, 9, 299-319.

Lovell, R. (1988). Research utilization in complex organizations: A case study in corrections. Justice Quarterly, 5, 258-280.

*Lum, C. (2009). Translating police research into practice. Ideas in American Policing, 11.

Lum, C., Koper, C.S., and Telep, C. (2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 3-26.

Rosenfeld, R., Fornango, R., and Baumer, E. (2005). Did Ceasfire, Compstat and Exile reduce homicide? Criminology and Public Policy, 4(3), 419-450.

Sherman, L.W. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Ideas in American Policing, July.

Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., and Klofas, J. (2008). Chapter 15: Research in criminal justice organizations. Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management (fourth edition) (pp. 399-425). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Weisburd, D., and Braga, A. (2006). Introduction: Understanding police innovation. In D. Weisburd and A.A. Braga (Eds.). Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 1-26). New York: Cambridge University Press.
*Weisburd, D., and Neyroud, P. (2011). Police science: Toward a new paradigm. New Perspectives in Policing, January.



Joanthan-Zamir, T. and Harpaz, A. (2014). Police understanding of the foundations of their legitimacy in the eyes of the public: The case of commanding officers in the Israel National Police. The British Journal of Criminology, 54(3), 469-489.
Jonathan-Zamir, T., Mastrofski, S.D., and Moyal, S. (2015). Measuring procedural justice in police-citizen encounters. Justice Quarterly, 32(5), 845-871.
*Jonathan-Zamir, T., and Weisburd, D. (2013). The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy: Findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 3-32.
*Sunshine, J., and Tyler, T.R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513-48.
*Tyler, T.R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May, 593-608.
*Tyler, T.R. (2009). Legitimacy and criminal justice: The benefits of self-regulation. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7, 307-359.
הרפז, ע. (2012). אסטרטגיות שיטור: סוגיות בעיצוב מדיניות אכיפת החוק. שריגים-ליאון: נבו [פרק ג' סעיף ב' - לגיטימיות המשטרה, עמ' 44-48]

Bayley, D.H. (1996). Measuring overall effectiveness. In: Hoover L.T. (Ed.), Quantifying quality in policing. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC, pp 37–54.
Mastrofski, S.D. (1996). Measuring police performance in public encounters. In: Hoover L.T. (Ed.), Quantifying quality in policing. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC, pp 207–241.
Skogan, W.G. (1999). Measuring what matters: crime, disorder, and fear. In: Langworthy R.H. (Ed.), Measuring what matters: Proceedings from the police research institute meetings, pp 37–54. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice
*Telep, C. (2014). Methodological issues in evaluating police performance. In G. Bruinsma and D. Weisburd (Eds.), Springer encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. New York: Springer.
Wilson, J.Q. (1993). The problem of defining agency success. In: DiIulio JJ et al (Eds.), Performance measures for the criminal justice system. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pp 156–164.

Course/Module evaluation:
End of year written/oral examination 0 %
Presentation 0 %
Participation in Tutorials 0 %
Project work 0 %
Assignments 100 %
Reports 0 %
Research project 0 %
Quizzes 0 %
Other 0 %

Additional information:
Please follow the messages and instructions on the course's website during the year. The site will also include most of the reading material.