It's Hopeless

• Published date: 01 November 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12260
• Date: 01 November 2016
• Author: Francis T. Cullen,Travis C. Pratt,Jillian J. Turanovic

COMMENTARY

HOPE COLLECTION

It’s Hopeless

Beyond Zero-Tolerance Supervision

Francis T.Cullen

Trav is C. Prat t

University of Cincinnati

Jillian J. Turanovic

Florida State University

Project HOPE (Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation and Enforcement program) was

invented by a judge who cared about offenders. It was evaluated by prominent

scholars, committed to reducing the use of “brute force” in corrections, whose

study yielded positive findings (Hawken and Kleiman, 2009; Kleiman, 2009). It advocated

an approach that was part of a broader movement away from severity and toward the

certainty of punishment. And it cleverly made the case for adding in a dimension of

deterrence—celerity or swiftness—that seemed to ensure effectiveness (see, however, Pratt

and Turanovic, 2016). There was no correctional nastiness here; rather, it was more like

correctional parenting in which discipline was applied in a firm and fair manner.Who could

be against this? Who would be against HOPE, emphasized in capital letters?

With only a few exceptions (see Clear and Frost, 2014), criminologists voiced no

reservations about this intervention. If anything, they were part of a cheering section as they

abandoned a fundamental tenet of science: organized skepticism. The goodness and the

competence of the people involved insulated against criticism; there were no bad motives to

question. The presence of data made the claim that Project HOPE was evidenced based ring

true. And the underlying progressive orientation seemingly neutralized any concerns. After

all, this was a program called “HOPE,” not “scared straight” or a “boot camp.” Programs

bearing these labels immediately inspired suspicions among liberal criminologists. Like

blood hounds in pursuit of their prey,criminologists were dogged in showing the theoretical

foolishness and practical dangerousness of these programs. But not with Project HOPE.

Direct correspondence to Francis T. Cullen, School of Criminal Justice, PO Box 210389, University of Cincinnati,

Cincinnati, OH 45221-0389 (e-mail cullenft@ucmail.uc.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12260 C2016 American Society of Criminology 1215

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 4