Which method is used by academic researchers to assess the means and ends of criminal justice decisions?

The method recognized for assessing the means and ends of criminal justice decisions is empiricism. This approach is grounded in the systematic observation and testing of hypotheses, allowing researchers to gather data through direct experience and evidence rather than theoretical speculation. Empiricism emphasizes the importance of evidence-based research, whereby conclusions are drawn from data that can be observed, measured, and tested, providing a solid foundation for understanding criminal justice processes and outcomes.

In the context of criminal justice research, empiricism enables investigators to evaluate how effective certain policies, practices, or decisions are in achieving desired outcomes, such as crime reduction or fairness in legal processes. This analytical approach helps ensure that conclusions and recommendations are based on actual findings rather than assumption or anecdote.

While the other methods listed serve important roles in research, they do not primarily focus on the empirical assessment of criminal justice decisions. Qualitative analysis is more concerned with understanding human experiences and social phenomena through non-numerical data. Legal interpretation involves the examination of legal texts and precedents rather than evaluating the effectiveness of criminal justice outcomes. Case studies provide detailed examinations of specific instances or contexts but may not offer the broader empirical basis that leads to generalizable conclusions across the field.