User:Jbrichan/sandbox

Stanford Prison Experiment

·      Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

everything in the article appears relevant to the SPE, although I feel that there is some concision needed for the introduction.

·      Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

the information in the article is to date with more current criticisms.

·      What else could be improved?

I can't think of anything.

·      Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I think in the back ground section it is biased toward the idea the guards were horrible, which even though that is not really able to be disputed but it should be more about the facts of how the participants and Zimbardo felt.

·      Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I do not believe so

Jbrichan (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Background (need for) I am editing this section

The first use of the term “public criminology” can be traced to a publication by Carrabine, Lee, and South, however Uggen and Inderbitzin have expanded the scope of the term by suggesting it would place greater emphasis on work that informs public understandings about such issues such as crime, punishment, criminal law, and criminal justice. Loader and Sparks similarly believe that public criminology can bring scientific research and evidence to public debates.

One goal of public criminology is to make criminological research available to the public and to create discussions. The nature of criminological research can be concerning and evoke strong emotions in the general public. Uggen and Inderbitzin argue that public criminology would quell Moral Panics caused by moral entrepreneurs, who have vested interests in manipulating public opinion while calling immediate attention to issues that need to be addressed. Uggen and Inderbitizen also believe that public criminology urges the public and scholars to understand new research and valuable implications.

There are multiple benefits to researchers and the public in practicing public criminology. Uggen and Inderbitzin argue how public criminology can help keep students in upper levels studies stay engaged and interested in researching crime problems. The uniqueness and hands-on approach can inspire a future generation of public criminologists. A second benefit is the potential to be interdisciplinary. Public Criminology can bring together other subdivisions in the field such as feminist and POC criminology to create research that is applicable to a diverse group of citizens. A final benefit is that public criminology can change how researchers are viewed. Elizabeth Turner argues researchers should stop believing that because they are the scientists the public has to listen to them, but rather looked at as Bruno Latour’s "diplomat”. Researchers will no longer be viewed as ultimate authorities that must be given supremacy, instead as someone using their skills to serve and benefit the public.

The overall objective of public criminologists is to create discussions and provide information to the community. Researchers work to make accurate and understandable evidence available for citizens to shape their opinions with. So public misconceptions on crime, criminals, and the justice system can be reduced. By providing accurate descriptions of current problems more effective dialogues and reforms are possible.