Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38737785›Full record

ArticleCriminology & public policy2021

Bad apples and incredible certitude.

Michael Sierra-Arévalo, Andrew Papachristos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Criminology & public policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael Sierra-ArévaloDepartment of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4398-9950
Andrew PapachristosDepartment of Sociology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.

Funding

Scientific & Technical CoreP2CHD042849 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI Elizabeth T. Gershoff · 2017 to 2026
$5.2M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD042849
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research summary: Chalfin and Kaplan attend to the problem of police misconduct with a series of simulation analyses that leverage data on complaints and uses of force in the Chicago Police Department. They conclude that incapacitating officers has minimal effects on misconduct and that, given political constraints, policy makers may prefer broader reforms around accountability and management to removing "bad apples". In this comment, we argue that this conclusion and its policy implications are characterized by "incredible certitude" driven by a selective focus on a subset of their full simulation results and inadequate incorporation of network spillovers into their analysis. Policy implications: Contrary to CK's conclusions, their preferred estimates of the effect of incapacitating "bad apples" on misconduct are squarely within the range of other interventions aimed at reducing police complaints and use of force. Once network spillovers are accounted for, estimates are up to five times as large. We conclude with a discussion of how even small reductions in misconduct can have outsized benefits as measured in both dollars and human suffering, and argue that the removal of problem officers is a normative good that should be pursued on moral grounds.

Indexed as

incredible certitudemisconductpolicingpolicyspillover effects

Identifiers

PMID38737785
PMCPMC11086687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.