Types of Criminal Justice Careers - Criminology

Types of criminal justice careers span sworn and civilian, operational and analytical, and public and private dimensions within the system. Organizing these careers by type — rather than by employer or job title — reveals the structural differences that actually determine what daily work looks like, what credentials are required, what authority professionals carry, and how advancement works. The Criminology and Criminal Justice Careers page examines individual roles and sectors in depth; this article builds the classification framework that makes those examinations coherent by identifying the dimensions along which criminal justice careers vary in professionally consequential ways.

Introduction

Job titles in criminal justice are poor predictors of what work actually involves. A “special agent” at the FBI does entirely different work from a “special agent” at the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General. A “probation officer” in a rural county conducting presentence investigations bears little institutional resemblance to a federal probation officer supervising high-risk offenders under supervised release in a major metropolitan district. A “forensic analyst” who processes drug evidence in a state crime laboratory and a “forensic analyst” who examines digital devices for a private consulting firm share a job title but occupy different professional worlds with different quality standards, different legal obligations, and different career trajectories (Saferstein, 2018).

The inadequacy of job titles as a classification system is not merely an academic inconvenience — it has real consequences for career planning. Students who anchor their career goals to a job title without understanding the type of work that title represents in a specific institutional context make choices they later regret: the student attracted to “detective” work who discovers that most investigative positions require years of patrol first; the student who pursues “correctional counseling” without recognizing that most counseling positions in prisons require licensure that the criminal justice degree alone does not provide; the student who aims for “federal law enforcement” without understanding that different federal agencies require entirely different background profiles and that getting into one rarely transfers to another (Maguire & Radosh, 1996).

A type-based classification framework cuts through these ambiguities by identifying the dimensions along which criminal justice careers actually differ in professionally consequential ways: the presence or absence of sworn authority; the operational versus analytical nature of the work; the functional role in the justice process; the governmental level and employing sector; the degree of specialization; and the orientation toward enforcement, adjudication, treatment, or knowledge production. Understanding where a career sits on each of these dimensions gives prospective practitioners a far more reliable guide to what they are actually choosing than any job title can provide.

Dimension One: Sworn Versus Civilian Authority

The Significance of Sworn Status

The most fundamental divide in criminal justice careers is between sworn and civilian positions. Sworn officers — also called peace officers in most states — take oaths of office, carry firearms, and exercise arrest authority under state or federal law. This authority is not merely symbolic: it defines the constitutional rules that govern how sworn officers interact with the public, the liability framework that applies when they use force, and the institutional culture that shapes their daily professional identity (Walker & Katz, 2018). The vast majority of sworn criminal justice careers are in law enforcement — police officers, sheriffs’ deputies, state troopers, correctional officers in some jurisdictions, and federal special agents — though probation officers carry sworn status in many states and some court officers are sworn.

The significance of sworn status extends beyond legal authority into professional culture and career structure. Sworn officers are typically represented by police or correctional unions that negotiate compensation, working conditions, and disciplinary procedures; they are subject to civil service rules governing hiring, promotion, and termination; and they operate within hierarchical rank structures — from officer through sergeant, lieutenant, captain, and command — that define advancement in ways quite unlike civilian career ladders (Gaines & Kappeler, 2015). Understanding that sworn careers are fundamentally different in governance, culture, and advancement structure from civilian positions in the same agencies is essential context for anyone considering either category.

Sworn status also carries distinctive obligations and risks that civilian employment does not. Sworn officers may be required to carry firearms off-duty, may be called back to duty during emergencies, may be subject to random drug testing and psychological evaluation as conditions of continued employment, and bear personal liability exposure for constitutional violations committed in the course of their duties — an exposure that has expanded significantly since the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence has come under sustained legal and political challenge (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015). These obligations are not reasons to avoid sworn careers but context that prospective officers should understand before committing.

Civilian Roles: The Majority of the Criminal Justice Workforce

Despite the cultural visibility of sworn officers, civilian personnel constitute approximately 30% of the law enforcement workforce alone — and across the full criminal justice system, including courts, corrections, forensic science, research, and nonprofits, civilian professionals substantially outnumber sworn officers (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2022). Civilian criminal justice careers include crime analysts, forensic scientists, victim advocates, probation and parole officers in civilian-classified agencies, court administrators, correctional counselors, research analysts, policy advisors, dispatch personnel, information technology specialists, and the full range of administrative and operational support functions that make criminal justice agencies function.

Civilian careers in criminal justice differ from sworn careers not only in legal authority but in credential requirements, advancement structures, and professional communities. Many civilian criminal justice positions — particularly in forensic science, research, and clinical treatment — require technical or scientific credentials that have nothing to do with traditional criminal justice training: chemistry, biology, psychology, social work, public administration, and computer science degrees are as relevant to civilian criminal justice careers as criminology degrees in many cases (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2016). The professional associations, certification bodies, and advancement norms for civilian positions reflect these disciplinary origins rather than the law enforcement institutional culture that dominates sworn career discussions.

Dimension Two: Functional Type

Enforcement and Investigation

The enforcement and investigation functional type encompasses positions whose primary purpose is to detect crime, identify offenders, gather evidence, and initiate the prosecution process. This is the most familiar criminal justice career type and includes patrol officers, criminal investigators, narcotics agents, fraud investigators, border patrol agents, and cybercrime investigators — roles at every level of government from local to federal and in every crime category from street crime to financial fraud to terrorism (Holt, Bossler, & Seigfried-Spellar, 2018). Enforcement and investigation positions are predominantly sworn, though some investigative roles — including insurance fraud investigators, corporate compliance investigators, and certain federal regulatory investigators — are civilian.

The work of enforcement and investigation is fundamentally reactive in the patrol and response context and proactive in the investigative context. Patrol officers respond to calls for service, maintain order, and enforce laws on a moment-to-moment basis with high operational tempo and significant discretionary authority over how individual situations are resolved. Investigators develop cases over days, weeks, or months — building evidentiary records, cultivating informants, executing search warrants, and constructing prosecutable cases that survive defense challenge in court. These two sub-types require different skill sets — patrol rewards situational awareness, physical readiness, and interpersonal skills; investigation rewards analytical patience, attention to detail, and legal knowledge — and professionals who excel in one do not always excel in the other (Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993).

Adjudication and Legal Practice

The adjudication and legal practice functional type encompasses positions whose primary purpose is to determine guilt or innocence, apply the law to individual cases, and manage the formal legal process through which the justice system processes defendants. This type includes prosecutors, public defenders, judges, magistrates, court administrators, paralegals, victim advocates, pretrial services officers, and the full range of professionals who make the courts sector function (Neubauer & Fradella, 2019). Attorney positions in this functional type require law school and bar admission; non-attorney positions typically require bachelor’s degrees and, for specialized roles, graduate training in social work, psychology, or public administration.

What distinguishes the adjudication and legal type from enforcement is its orientation toward process rather than detection. While enforcement professionals focus on finding offenders and gathering evidence, adjudication professionals focus on applying standardized procedures to evaluate evidence, determine facts, and produce legally defensible outcomes that respect constitutional rights. This process orientation creates a distinctive professional culture — more formal, more procedure-bound, and more explicitly adversarial than law enforcement — that shapes everything from dress and communication norms to the ethical rules governing professional conduct (Eisenstein, Flemming, & Nardulli, 1988). The professional identity of a prosecutor or public defender is formed more by the adversarial contest of the courtroom than by any affiliation with the broader criminal justice system.

Custody and Supervision

The custody and supervision functional type includes positions whose primary purpose is the physical or social control of individuals who have been arrested, convicted, or placed under supervision as a condition of release. Correctional officers, detention officers, jail supervisors, and prison administrators occupy the physical custody end of this type; probation officers, parole officers, pretrial services officers, and electronic monitoring specialists occupy the community supervision end (Clear, Cole, & Reisig, 2019). Both sub-types share an orientation toward managing behavior within a framework of legally imposed constraints, but they differ significantly in daily work environment, physical risk, and the professional skills that success requires.

Physical custody positions — particularly in high-security correctional facilities — involve continuous assessment of the security environment, management of potentially volatile interpersonal dynamics, and responsibility for maintaining the physical security of institutional spaces housing populations that include individuals with histories of violence (American Correctional Association, 2022). Community supervision positions involve regular contact with supervised individuals in community settings, assessment of compliance with supervision conditions, connection of supervised individuals to treatment and support services, and decision-making about when violation behavior warrants revocation proceedings. The movement from a custody orientation — focused on containment and compliance — toward a supervision orientation — focused on behavioral change and recidivism reduction — has been one of the defining reform trajectories in corrections over the past two decades, driven by accumulating evidence that supervision style affects outcomes (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

Treatment, Rehabilitation, and Human Services

The treatment and human services functional type encompasses positions whose primary purpose is to address the behavioral health, educational, vocational, and social needs of individuals involved in the justice system — as offenders, victims, or both. This type includes correctional counselors, substance abuse treatment specialists, mental health practitioners, reentry coordinators, victim service advocates, juvenile probation officers, and school-based prevention specialists who work within or alongside the justice system to address the underlying conditions that drive crime and victimization (Petersilia, 2003).

Treatment and human services careers in criminal justice require credentials that cross disciplinary boundaries. Licensed clinical social workers, licensed professional counselors, certified substance abuse counselors, and mental health case managers working in correctional or court settings need both their clinical credentials and sufficient understanding of criminal justice institutions to function effectively within them — a combination that most clinical training programs do not provide and that most criminal justice training programs do not address (van der Kolk, 2014). The growing recognition that criminal justice involvement is heavily correlated with trauma, mental illness, and substance use disorder has created significant demand for clinically trained professionals in justice settings, and the career opportunity for criminology graduates who supplement their degrees with clinical credentials is substantial.

Victim services — a growing sub-type within this functional category — deserves particular recognition. Victim advocates and victim/witness coordinators serve crime victims throughout the justice process, providing case support, court accompaniment, safety planning, crisis intervention, and resource referral that the formal justice system does not provide. These positions are employed by prosecutor offices, law enforcement agencies, courts, and nonprofit victim service organizations, and they represent a career path that combines justice system knowledge with direct client service skills in a way that is professionally distinct from both enforcement and treatment positions (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2022).

Research, Analysis, and Knowledge Production

The research and analytical functional type encompasses positions whose primary purpose is to generate, synthesize, and apply knowledge about crime, criminal behavior, and criminal justice system performance. This type includes academic criminologists, government research scientists, crime analysts, program evaluators, policy analysts, intelligence analysts, and data scientists working across every sector of criminal justice employment (Sherman, 2013). What unifies this type is an orientation toward evidence and systematic inquiry rather than the operational functions of enforcement, adjudication, or custody.

Within this functional type, the distinction between operational analysis and scholarly research is practically important. Crime analysts working in police departments or corrections agencies produce operational intelligence — pattern analysis, crime mapping, risk assessment, resource allocation recommendations — that is consumed by practitioners making near-term operational decisions (Santos, 2017). Academic researchers and policy evaluators produce scholarly knowledge — evaluations of program effectiveness, tests of theoretical predictions, analyses of system-wide patterns — that is consumed by policymakers and reformers making longer-term strategic decisions. Both are research in a broad sense, but they operate under different time pressures, different methodological standards, different publishing norms, and different accountability structures that make them professionally quite distinct. The National Institute of Justice bridges these sub-types through its research-to-practice translation programs, which fund academic research specifically designed to produce actionable findings for practitioners.

Dimension Three: Government Level and Sector

Federal, State, and Local Employment

The governmental level at which a criminal justice professional works shapes compensation, institutional culture, and career advancement in ways that cut across functional type and sworn status. Federal criminal justice employment — through agencies including the FBI, DEA, ATF, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, and dozens of inspector general and regulatory enforcement offices — is governed by the federal General Schedule pay system, offers superior retirement benefits under the Federal Employees Retirement System, and typically requires higher educational credentials and more intensive background investigations than state and local counterparts (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2024). Federal positions are often more specialized, handle more complex cases with higher evidentiary standards, and offer more opportunities for career mobility across geographic locations than local positions, which are typically tied to a specific community.

State criminal justice employment — through state police agencies, state departments of corrections, state attorney general offices, state forensic science bureaus, and state court systems — offers intermediate compensation levels that vary considerably across states with different fiscal capacities and collective bargaining environments. California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington consistently pay at the higher end of state compensation for criminal justice professionals; rural states in the South and Midwest pay considerably less for equivalent positions (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024). State positions often offer important advantages over local employment — larger agencies with more specialized units, more defined promotion systems, and more developed professional development infrastructure — while remaining closer in culture and community to local law enforcement than federal agencies.

Local law enforcement, county corrections, and municipal courts employ the largest share of criminal justice professionals by volume, though typically at lower compensation levels than state or federal equivalents. The diversity of local criminal justice employment is enormous: the experience of a patrol officer in Los Angeles, a sheriff’s deputy in a rural Montana county, and a municipal court officer in a mid-sized Midwestern city share a basic legal framework but diverge in almost every other professionally relevant respect — agency size, specialization, union presence, promotional opportunities, community demographics, and institutional culture. Prospective criminal justice professionals who anchor their career planning to the local employment context they know from home must understand that experience in a specific local environment may or may not transfer to other local environments, let alone to state or federal positions (Walker & Katz, 2018).

Public, Nonprofit, and Private Sector Employment

The employing sector — government, nonprofit, or private — constitutes a third dimension of criminal justice career type that cuts across functional role and governmental level. Government employment dominates the core functions of law enforcement, courts, and corrections, providing the institutional stability, defined benefit pensions, civil service protections, and public mission orientation that attract many criminal justice professionals. But nonprofit and private sector employment now account for a substantial and growing share of criminal justice work — in victim services, reentry, treatment, research, technology, security, and investigative services — that offers different compensation structures, different organizational cultures, and different relationships to the communities served.

Nonprofit criminal justice employment — in victim service organizations, reentry nonprofits, advocacy organizations, research institutes, and diversion programs — typically offers lower base salaries than government employment but greater mission alignment, more organizational flexibility, and in many cases more direct impact on the individuals and communities served (Vera Institute of Justice, 2021). The nonprofit sector has become particularly important for criminology graduates whose professional values emphasize reform, community engagement, and treatment over enforcement and custody functions. Private sector criminal justice employment — in corporate security, fraud investigation, cybersecurity, forensic consulting, and risk management — typically offers higher compensation than government positions for equivalent technical expertise, with trade-offs in job security, benefits, and public service orientation (Holt et al., 2018).

Dimension Four: Specialization Level

Generalist Versus Specialist Careers

Criminal justice careers also vary fundamentally along a generalist-to-specialist continuum that affects both the nature of daily work and the long-term career trajectory. Generalist positions — patrol officers, general assignment detectives, intake correctional officers, general civil trial attorneys — require broad competency across a wide range of situations and provide the foundational experience from which specialization typically develops. Specialist positions — homicide investigators, forensic DNA analysts, cybercrime agents, mental health court coordinators, appellate attorneys — require deep expertise in a specific content area, often supported by advanced credentials, and command premium compensation in recognition of the scarcity of that expertise (Bernard et al., 2016).

The generalist-to-specialist career arc is common in law enforcement and corrections, where professionals typically begin in generalist roles that provide exposure to the full range of institutional functions before selecting a specialty track. This sequential structure has significant career planning implications: early investment in the broadest possible operational experience typically produces better long-term outcomes than premature specialization, because the generalist foundation provides the institutional credibility and contextual knowledge that specialized expertise alone cannot supply. Investigators who have never worked patrol may lack the street knowledge that makes investigative judgment credible to patrol colleagues; corrections counselors who have never worked a housing unit may lack the institutional understanding that makes therapeutic recommendations operationally realistic (Paoline & Terrill, 2007).

Emerging Hybrid and Boundary-Spanning Roles

A growing category of criminal justice career types occupies the boundaries between traditional functional types, creating hybrid roles that do not fit cleanly into enforcement, adjudication, custody, or treatment categories. Mental health crisis co-responders — who accompany law enforcement officers on calls involving individuals in psychiatric crisis — combine law enforcement knowledge with clinical skills. Restorative justice coordinators — who facilitate dialogue between offenders and victims in lieu of traditional prosecution — combine legal process knowledge with therapeutic facilitation capacity. Criminal justice data scientists — who build predictive analytics systems for police departments, courts, and corrections agencies — combine technical data science skills with criminal justice institutional knowledge (Lum & Koper, 2017).

These hybrid roles represent some of the most intellectually interesting and, in several cases, most rapidly growing career opportunities in criminal justice. They are also among the most difficult to enter from a credential and career planning perspective, because no single degree or certification pathway points directly to them and because hiring agencies often have not yet developed clear qualification standards for positions that did not exist a generation ago. Professionals who develop genuine cross-domain competency — combining technical skills with criminal justice knowledge, or clinical training with institutional understanding — and who can communicate that competency effectively to hiring managers operating within traditional categories are well positioned to fill these hybrid roles as they proliferate (Brayne, 2020).

Dimension Five: Orientation Toward Control Versus Change

The Control-Change Spectrum

A fifth dimension — less structural than the others but no less consequential for professional satisfaction and career longevity — is the orientation of a criminal justice career toward social control versus social change. Control-oriented careers — patrol, corrections custody, prosecution, enforcement — focus on the immediate management of legally defined behavior: apprehending offenders, enforcing rules, maintaining order, and vindicating the law as it exists. Change-oriented careers — prevention, treatment, reform advocacy, restorative justice, research — focus on addressing the conditions that produce crime and criminal justice involvement and on improving how the system responds to those conditions (Clear, 2007).

This distinction matters for career satisfaction and longevity in ways that career advisors rarely discuss explicitly. Professionals who enter control-oriented careers with change-oriented values — who want to fix the system from within — often find that the institutional culture and structural constraints of control-oriented positions leave insufficient room for the reformist impulse, producing the burnout and cynicism that the occupational stress literature documents extensively in law enforcement and corrections (Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993). Professionals who enter change-oriented careers with a desire for the immediate impact and authority that control-oriented positions provide often find the slower, more indirect pace of change-through-research or change-through-advocacy unsatisfying. Honest self-assessment of where one falls on this spectrum — and honest evaluation of where specific positions sit — is among the most useful exercises a prospective criminal justice professional can undertake.

Reform Roles Within Control Institutions

A significant and growing category of criminal justice career types attempts to bridge this dimension — working within enforcement, corrections, or legal institutions with an explicit reform mandate. Police accountability units, civilian oversight offices, correctional ombudsman programs, and prosecutorial conviction review units create positions for professionals who combine institutional legitimacy — earned through service within the system — with reform orientation (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015). These positions are among the most strategically valuable in criminal justice reform, because they combine insider access and institutional authority with the critical perspective that produces genuine accountability.

For criminology graduates, the growing availability of reform-oriented positions within traditional criminal justice institutions represents an important expansion of career options beyond the traditional choice between pure enforcement and pure advocacy. Organizations including the Vera Institute of Justice, Council on Criminal Justice, and Police Executive Research Forum regularly document the growth of these positions and the policy environments that produce them, providing career intelligence for graduates seeking to work within institutions while advancing reform agendas. The American Society of Criminology’s Division on Corrections and Sentencing and Division on Policing similarly serve as professional communities for practitioners who combine operational roles with scholarly and reform engagement.

Using the Typology for Career Planning

Matching Dimensions to Personal Profile

The five dimensions described in this article — sworn versus civilian authority, functional type, governmental level and sector, specialization level, and control versus change orientation — provide a multidimensional framework for career planning that goes substantially beyond the job title comparisons that dominate most career guidance in criminal justice. A prospective professional who maps their preferences across these dimensions — who wants civilian employment in an analytical function at the federal level with moderate specialization and a change orientation, for example — arrives at a profile that points toward specific career tracks (NIJ research analyst, BJS statistician, federal policy advisor) more precisely than any list of job titles could (Blumstein & Farrington, 1982).

The framework is also useful for understanding why careers that look similar on the surface feel completely different in practice. Two corrections professionals — one a custody-oriented correctional officer in a maximum-security facility, the other a treatment-oriented reentry coordinator in a community corrections center — occupy the same sector and the same functional category but sit at opposite ends of the control-change dimension and in entirely different organizational cultures. The framework makes these differences visible in ways that help both prospective entrants choose wisely and experienced professionals understand why a career change within the same nominal field might represent a more profound transition than they anticipated.

Anticipating Career Evolution

The typology is also useful for anticipating how criminal justice career types are evolving under pressure from technology, reform, and changing public expectations. The sworn-civilian boundary is shifting in some jurisdictions as unarmed civilian responders take on calls previously handled by sworn officers; the enforcement-treatment boundary is shifting as mental health courts, drug courts, and diversion programs integrate clinical functions into the adjudication process; the generalist-specialist boundary is shifting as data science and digital forensics create specialist roles without precedent in traditional criminal justice structures (Lum & Koper, 2017). Professionals who understand the typology can anticipate these shifts and position themselves accordingly — developing the cross-type competencies that emerging hybrid roles will require rather than optimizing narrowly for the type as it currently exists.

The public-private boundary is also shifting in directions that create new career types. Private companies developing algorithmic risk assessment tools, predictive policing software, electronic monitoring systems, and real-time crime center technology are hiring criminologists as subject-matter experts, product developers, policy liaisons, and ethical review specialists — roles that did not exist until recently and that combine criminal justice expertise with private-sector employment in ways the traditional typology does not capture (Brayne, 2020). As these companies’ products become embedded in law enforcement, courts, and corrections operations, the professionals who understand both the technical systems and the criminal justice contexts in which they operate become increasingly valuable — and increasingly difficult to categorize within traditional typological frameworks.

The control-change dimension is also evolving as criminal justice reform has moved from the margins to the mainstream of policy discourse. Positions that would previously have been categorized as purely advocacy — civilian oversight director, police accountability researcher, prosecutorial equity analyst — are now institutionalized within government agencies and mainstream criminal justice organizations in ways that create stable career tracks where none previously existed (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015). Professionals entering the field today face a typological landscape that is substantially more complex and more varied than the one their counterparts faced twenty years ago — a development that represents both more opportunity and more complexity for career planning purposes.

Conclusion

Types of criminal justice careers are best understood not as a list of job titles but as a multidimensional space defined by authority type, functional role, organizational context, specialization level, and reform orientation. Mapping any specific position — or any specific career goal — across these dimensions reveals the structural features that determine daily experience, credential requirements, advancement trajectories, and professional culture more reliably than any job title or sector label can. The articles in this category examine individual roles and sectors in operational depth; this typological framework is the analytical foundation that makes those examinations coherent and makes the comparisons among them meaningful for prospective practitioners at every stage of career planning.

References

American Correctional Association. (2022). Standards and accreditation. https://www.aca.org/
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Matthew Bender.
Bernard, T. J., Snipes, J. B., & Gerould, A. L. (2016). Vold’s theoretical criminology (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Blumstein, A., & Farrington, D. P. (1982). Prospective studies of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 20(2), 157–163.
Brayne, S. (2020). Predict and surveil: Data, discretion, and the future of policing. Oxford University Press.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2022). Census of state and local law enforcement agencies, 2018. U.S. Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024). Occupational outlook handbook. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/
Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press.
Clear, T. R., Cole, G. F., & Reisig, M. D. (2019). American corrections (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Eisenstein, J., Flemming, R. B., & Nardulli, P. F. (1988). The contours of justice: Communities and their courts. Little, Brown.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2024). Special agent careers. https://www.fbijobs.gov/
Gaines, L. K., & Kappeler, V. E. (2015). Policing in America (8th ed.). Routledge.
Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., & Seigfried-Spellar, K. C. (2018). Cybercrime and digital forensics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Lum, C., & Koper, C. S. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press.
Maguire, E. R., & Radosh, P. F. (1996). Introduction to criminology. The Justice Professional, 10(3), 223–231.
National Center for Victims of Crime. (2022). The crime victim service field. https://victimsofcrime.org/
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2019). America’s courts and the criminal justice system (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Paoline, E. A., & Terrill, W. (2007). Police education, experience, and the use of force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(2), 179–196.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.
Police Executive Research Forum. (2020). Critical issues in policing series: Responding to the call for police reform. PERF. https://www.policeforum.org/
President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the president’s task force on 21st century policing. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Saferstein, R. (2018). Criminalistics: An introduction to forensic science (12th ed.). Pearson.
Santos, R. B. (2017). Crime analysis with crime mapping (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Sherman, L. W. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing, and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451.
Skolnick, J. H., & Fyfe, J. J. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force. Free Press.
van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.
Vera Institute of Justice. (2021). State of justice reform 2021. Vera Institute. https://www.vera.org/
Walker, S., & Katz, C. M. (2018). The police in America: An introduction (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Related Articles