• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society A Transdisciplinary Journal of Scholarly Inquiry, Policy, Practice, & Pedagogy Fomerly Western Criminology Review, CCJLS is the Official Journal of The Western Society of Criminology E-ISSN 2332-886X A B O U T T H E J O U R N A L Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society (CCJLS), formerly Western Criminology Review (WCR), is the official journal of the Western Society of Criminology. This peer-reviewed journal builds on the mission of its predecessor by promoting understanding of the causes of crime; the methods used to prevent and control crime; the institutions, principles, and actors involved in the apprehension, prosecution, punishment, and reintegration of offenders; and the legal and political framework under which the justice system and its primary actors operate. Historical and contemporary perspectives are encouraged, as are diverse theoretical and methodological approaches. CCJLS publishes theoretical and empirical research on criminology, criminal justice, and criminal law and society; practice-oriented papers (including those addressing teaching/pedagogical issues); essays and commentary on crime, law, and justice policy; replies and comments to articles previously published in CCJLS or WCR; book and film reviews; and scholarly article reviews. C O - E D I T O R S Henry F. Fradella, Arizona State University, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Aili Malm, California State University, Long Beach, School of Criminology, Criminal Justice, and Emergency Management Christine S. Scott-Hayward, California State University, Long Beach, School of Criminology, Criminal Justice, and Emergency Management E D I T O R I A L S T A F F Co-Managing Editor: Xochitl Escutia, California State University, Long Beach Co-Managing Editor: Chantal Fahmy, Arizona State University Copy-Editor: Vanessa Burrows, California State University, Long Beach Consulting Editor: Stuart Henry, San Diego State University Consulting Editor: Christine Curtis, San Diego State University E D I T O R I A L A D V I S O R Y B O A R D Martin A. Andresen, Angela Gover, Ray Paternoster, Simon Fraser University University of Colorado, Denver University of Maryland Hadar Aviram, Michael R. Gottfredson, Kim Rossmo, University of California, Hastings University of California, Irvine Texas State University Susan Bandes, Marie Griffin, Jonathan Simon, De Paul University Arizona State University University of California, Berkeley Gisela Bichler, Craig Hemmens, Michael R. Smith, California State University, San Bernardino Washington State University University of Texas at El Paso Martin Bouchard, Stuart Henry, Don Stemen, Simon Fraser University San Diego State University Loyola University Chicago Kate Bowers, John Hipp, Richard Tewksbury, University College London University of California, Irvine University of Louisville Joel Caplan, Anne Hobbs, Christopher Totten, Rutgers University University of Nebraska, Omaha Kennesaw State University Meda Chesney-Lind, Beth Huebner, Michael Townsley, University of Hawaii at Manoa University of Missouri, St. Louis Griffith University Finn Esbensen, Shane Johnson, William C. Thompson, University of Missouri, St. Louis University College London University of California, Irvine Patricia Ewick, Delores Jones-Brown, Bonita Veysey, Clark University John Jay College of Criminal Justice Rutgers University Marcus Felson, David Klinger, Michael D. White, Texas State University University of Missouri, St. Louis Arizona State University Ben Fleury-Steiner, Mona Lynch, Kevin Wright, University of Delaware University of California, Irvine Arizona State University Jona Goldschmidt, Daniel Macallair, Frank Zimring, Loyola University Chicago Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice University of California, Berkeley Lisa Pasko, University of Denver C O P Y R I G H T CCJLS retains all copyrights to articles and materials published herein. All individuals and entities are required to apply the same principles of copyright fair use that apply to printed publications. CCJLS articles and materials may be read online and downloaded for strictly personal use. CCJLS articles and materials may not, however, be copied for or distributed to other individuals or organizations for either resale or profit. For further information, including permissions to reproduce or reuse any CCJLS articles and materials beyond those authorized by the fair use doctrine, email [email protected]. E-ISSN 2332-886X Copyright © 2014 by Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society and The Western Society of Criminology Hosting by Scholastica. All rights reserved. i VOLUME 16, ISSUE 1 – APRIL 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Feature Articles Dark Network Resilience in a Hostile Environment: Optimizing Centralization and Density Sean F. Everton and Dan Cunningham ........................................................................................................... 1 Correlates of Violence within Washington State Prisons Kerryn E. Bell and Dale M. Lindekugel ........................................................................................................ 21 Seeing Saw through the Criminological Lens: Popular Representations of Crime and Punishment J. C. Oleson and Tamara MacKinnon ........................................................................................................... 35 Help-Seeking Behavior among Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence Victims: An Intersectional Argument Megan Marie Parry and Eryn Nicole O’Neal ................................................................................................ 51 ii CCJLS Acknowledgements This issue of CCJLS was supported by generous contributions from: iii VOLUME 16, ISSUE 1, PAGES 1–20 (2015) Criminology, Criminal Justice Law, & Society E-ISSN 2332-886X Available online at https://scholasticahq.com/criminology-criminal-justice-law-society/ Dark Network Resilience in a Hostile Environment: Optimizing Centralization and Density Sean F. Everton and Dan Cunningham Naval Postgraduate School A B S T R A C T A N D A R T I C L E I N F O R M A T I O N In recent years, the world has witnessed the emergence of violent extremists (VEs), and they have become an ongoing concern for countries around the globe. A great deal of effort has been expended examining their nature and structure in order to aid in the development of interventions to prevent further violence. Analysts and scholars have been particularly interested in identifying structural features that enhance (or diminish) VE resilience to exogenous and endogenous shocks. As many have noted, VEs typically seek to balance operational security and capacity/efficiency. Some argue that their desire for secrecy outweighs their desire for efficiency, which leads them to be less centralized with few internal connections. Others argue that centralization is necessary because security is more easily compromised and that internal density promotes solidarity and limits countervailing influences. Unsurprisingly, scholars have found evidence for both positions. In this paper, we analyze the Noordin Top terrorist network over time to examine the security-efficiency tradeoff from a new perspective. We find that the process by which they adopt various network structures is far more complex than much of the current literature suggests. The results of this analysis highlight implications for devising strategic options to monitor and disrupt dark networks. Article History: Keywords: Received 26 April 2014 dark networks, terrorism, social network analysis. Received in revised form 9 Sept 2014 Accepted 17 Sept 2014 © 2015 Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society and The Western Society of Criminology Hosting by Scholastica. All rights reserved. Violent extremist networks (aka covert networks, Stevenson, 2012; McCormick & Owen, 2000; dark networks) are an ongoing concern for countries Morselli, Giguère, & Petit, 2007). A consensus, around the globe. Their nature and structure have however, has not been reached as to which features been examined for the purpose of developing enhance the ability of dark networks to maintain such interventions that destabilize, disrupt, or otherwise a balance. For example, existing literature offers two prevent further violence. Identifying structural somewhat conflicting hypotheses about the features that enhance (or diminish) their resilience to relationship between network structure and exogenous and endogenous shocks is of particular operational security. Some argue that when the desire interest. As many have noted, groups generally seek for secrecy outweighs the desire for efficiency, dark to balance operational security and networks tend to be internally sparse and capacity/efficiency (see e.g., Combatting Terrorism decentralized (Baker & Faulkner, 1993; Enders & Su, Center, 2006; Crossley, Edwards, Harries, & 2007; Raab & Milward, 2003). Others argue just the Corresponding author: Sean F. Everton, Naval Postgraduate School, 1 University Circle, Monterey, CA, 93943, USA. Email: [email protected] 2 EVERTON AND CUNNINGHAM opposite: the desire for secrecy leads dark networks in our analysis. We then present the results, which toward high levels of centralization and density. show that the process by which dark networks adopt Centralization is necessary because security can be various network structures is far more complex than compromised when transactions have to traverse long much of the current literature suggests. We conclude paths, and this can be overcome when a central hub by discussing

Load more

  71

Copy Link