Multimedia Listing

1984

This video, in the Crime File series, portrays a panel discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of criminalizing heroin use, with particular attention to contrasting the British and American systems for controlling heroin use.

This Crime File video portrays a panel discussion of the rationale for and the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system, the advantages and disadvantages of processing serious juvenile offenders as adults, and due process in the juvenile justice system.

This video, in the Crime File series, portrays a panel discussion of the nature and reliability of the Federal and California parole guidelines, justification for their use as sentencing guidelines, and moral and legal issues associated with their use.

This video, in the Crime File series, presents background material on some U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertinent to the use of the exclusionary rule in sanctioning illegal police searches and seizures (Mapp v. Ohio and Shepherd v. Massachusetts); the moderator, James Q. Wilson, poses questions to Professor Yale Kamisar, University of Michigan Law School, and D. Lowell Jensen, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, designed to probe the controversial implications of the exclusionary rule.

This video, in the Crime File series, portrays a three-member panel discussing prison conditions in Texas both before and after a 1980 court order for the reform of prison management practices, implications of the Texas experience for prison management, and lessons for prison management to be drawn from the experiences of the experimental Federal correctional facility in Butner, N.C.

This Crime File video describes the Repeat Offender Program (ROP) of the Washington, D.C., police department and a similar program that targets young offenders in Mecklenburg County, N.C. A panel discusses these programs and constitutional issues involved in their operation.

This Crime File video shows three dramatized scenarios of police search and seizure tactics are critiqued as to their legality by a panel consisting of a police officer, a U.S. attorney, and a public defender.