Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marion, N.
Right arrow Articles by Farmer, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Preliminary Examination of Presidential Anticrime Promises

Nancy Marion

Rick Farmer

Presidential candidates make many promises about crime control policies during a campaign. Once they are elected to office, do presidents follow through with their campaign promises about crime? Previous studies show that presidents tend to keep most of the promises that they make as candidates across a wide range of topics. However, a specific study of crime issues is heretofore lacking. Using a content analysis of campaign speeches, this article compares candidates' statements about crime control strategies to presidential crime policy since 1968 in order to discover whether one mirrors the other. Finding that fewer than half of the specific promises about crime policies were fulfilled by the presidents, the article posits that the general agenda of a campaign becomes the agenda of the presidency. It also shows that neither political party affiliation nor incumbency were factors that influenced the presidents' fulfillment of their anticrime promises. In general, anticrime promises were kept less often than campaign promises in other policy areas.

Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, 173-195 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/073401680402900110
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Criminal Justice Policy ReviewHome page
N. E. Marion and W. M. Oliver
Congress, Crime, and Budgetary Responsiveness: A Study in Symbolic Politics
Criminal Justice Policy Review, June 1, 2009; 20(2): 115 - 135.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice Policy ReviewHome page
W. M. Oliver and N. E. Marion
Political Party Platforms: Symbolic Politics and Criminal Justice Policy
Criminal Justice Policy Review, December 1, 2008; 19(4): 397 - 413.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice Policy ReviewHome page
W. M. Oliver and N. E. Marion
"Budgets, Institutions, and Change: Criminal Justice Policy in America" Revisited
Criminal Justice Policy Review, December 1, 2006; 17(4): 451 - 467.
[Abstract] [PDF]