Sentencing Female Drug Offenders: Reexamining Racial and Ethnic Disparities

This study analyzes the relationship between race/ethnicity and sentencing outcomes for female drug offenders in Florida. Grounded in the focal concerns perspective, the research examines whether, in the specific case of drug offenders, minority women are treated more harshly than White women. Interaction models are estimated to determine the influence of drug offense type on racial and ethnic sentencing disparities. Differences in sentencing outcomes are also examined following significant policy changes in the state. In general, the findings suggest that minority female drug offenders are disadvantaged at both the incarceration and sentence length decisions. It also appears that perceptions of dangerousness associated with female offenders' race/ethnicity and offense are incorporated into sentencing authorities' patterned responses. That is, the level of disparity between Black, Hispanic, and White females is conditioned by type of drug offense in the interaction models. The changes in sentencing policy also impact the role of race and ethnicity in sentencing decisions. By analyzing drug offenders exclusively, the current study clarifies the role of race in sentencing decisions for females. In contrast to prior research that examined all offense categories together, the current study suggests that for drug offenses, minority females may, in fact, be deemed more dangerous and culpable than White female drug offenders.     

Sentencing Female Misdemeanants: An Examination of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Race/Ethnicity

Little is known about the predictors of sentencing for the typical female offender—one who commits a misdemeanor or lesser offense. Moreover, although ample discussions of racial/ethnic disparity in sentencing may be found in the extant literature, most researchers have focused on what happens to males who commit felonies. Thus, to help fill a void I examine the likelihood of receiving a jail sentence among a sample of cases for female misdemeanants. All were convicted in New York City's Criminal Court. I account for direct and indirect effects by estimating a causal model that predicts the sentencing outcome. Race/ethnicity did not directly affect sentencing. Indirect effects, however, were found. Black and Hispanic females were more likely to receive jail sentences than their White counterparts due to differences in socio‐economic status, community ties, prior record, earlier case processing, and charge severity.     

Gender Disparities in Sentencing Departures: An Examination of U.S. Federal Courts

Using data from the United States Sentencing Commission, the present study examines the role of guideline departures in the sentencing of male and female defendants in federal courts. Findings indicate that female defendants continue to have lower odds of incarceration and to receive shorter sentence length terms, even after legal, extralegal, and contextual factors are controlled. The largest gender difference in the odds of incarceration was found for defendants who received substantial assistance departures, while male and female defendants in this same category were given the most similar sentence lengths. When departure status was examined as a dependent variable, it was found that female defendants were more likely to receive a sentencing departure. Finally, for both males and female defendants sentenced on multiple counts, those who went to trial and had prior criminal histories were less likely to receive sentencing departures. But defendants with higher guidelines sentences, those who had committed drug offenses, and those with more education were more likely to receive a sentencing departure.     

CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE: EXAMINING RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITY IN PROSECUTION AND SENTENCING

Current research on criminal case processing typically examines a single decision‐making point, so drawing reliable conclusions about the impact that factors such as defendants’ race or ethnicity exert across successive stages of the justice system is difficult. Using data from the New York County District Attorney's Office that tracks 185,275 diverse criminal cases, this study assesses racial and ethnic disparity for multiple discretionary points of prosecution and sentencing. Findings from multivariate logistic regression analyses demonstrate that the effects of race and ethnicity vary by discretionary point and offense category. Black and Latino defendants were more likely than White defendants to be detained, to receive a custodial plea offer, and to be incarcerated—and they received especially punitive outcomes for person offenses—but were more likely to benefit from case dismissals. The findings for Asian defendants were less consistent but suggest they were the least likely to be detained, to receive custodial offers, and to be incarcerated. These findings are discussed in the context of contemporary theoretical perspectives on racial bias and cumulative disadvantage in the justice system.     

THE IMPRISONMENT PENALTY PAID BY YOUNG, UNEMPLOYED BLACK AND HISPANIC MALE OFFENDERS

A recent study of sentencing decisions in Pennsylvania (Steffensmeier et al., 1998) identified significant interrelationships among race, gender, age, and sentence severity. The authors of this study found that each of the three offender characteristics had significant direct effects on sentence outcomes and that the characteristics interacted to produce substantially harsher sentences for one category of offenders—young black males. This study responds to Steffensmeier et al.'s (1998:789) call for "further research analyzing how race effects may be mediated by other factors." We replicate their research approach, examining the intersections of the effects of race, gender, and age on sentence outcomes. We extend their analysis in three ways: We examine sentence outcomes in three large urban jurisdictions; we include Hispanics as well as blacks and test for interactions between ethnicity, age, and gender; and we test for interactions between race/ethnicity, gender, and employment status. Our results are generally—although not entirely—consistent with the results of the Pennsylvania study. Although none of the offender characteristics affects the length of the prison sentence, each has a significant direct effect on the likelihood of incarceration in at least one of the jurisdictions. More importantly, the four offender characteristics interact to produce harsher sentences for certain types of offenders. Young black and Hispanic males face greater odds of incarceration than middle-aged white males, and unemployed black and Hispanic males are substantially more likely to be sentenced to prison than employed white males. Thus, our results suggest that offenders with constellations of characteristics other than "young black male" pay a punishment penalty.     

THE IMPACT OF THE ETHNICITY AND GENDER OF DEFENDANTS ON THE DECISION TO REJECT OR DISMISS FELONY CHARGES*

While social scientists have long been interested in the issue of racial and sexual discrimination within the criminal justice system, they have concentrated on the decisions to convict and sentence and have paid relatively little attention to the decision to prosecute. This study examines the issue of pretrial discrimination by focusing on the prosecutor's decision to reject or dismiss charges against black, Anglo, and Hispanic male and female defendants in Los Angeles. The data reveal a pattern of discrimination in favor of female defendants and against black and Hispanic defendants. Hispanic males are most likely to be prosecuted fully, followed by black males, Anglo males, and females of all ethnic groups.     

Gender dynamics in the sentencing of white-collar offenders

Theory and empirical research often have agreed that female and white-collar offenders benefit from leniency at the sentencing stage of criminal justice system processing. An untested research question emerging from these distinct bodies of literature is whether the greatest leniency is afforded to female white-collar offenders. We investigate the individual and interactive influences of gender and white-collar conviction on judicial leniency by analyzing Florida sentencing guidelines data from 1994 to 2004 using multinomial logistic regression to model the decision to incarcerate nonviolent economic offenders in jail or prison rather than sentence them to community control. Results indicate that female street offenders sentenced by male judges receive the most lenient sentences, while male offenders are punished the harshest regardless of the gender of the sentencing judge or type of crime. Theoretical and policy implications of the findings are discussed in terms of focal concerns, familial paternalism, and attributional perspectives on judicial decision-making.     

PUNISHING THE “MODEL MINORITY”: ASIAN‐AMERICAN CRIMINAL SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS*

Research on racial and ethnic disparities in criminal punishment is expansive but remains focused almost exclusively on the treatment of black and Hispanic offenders. The current study extends contemporary research on the racial patterning of punishments by incorporating Asian‐American offenders. Using data from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) for FY1997–FY2000, we examine sentencing disparities in federal district courts for several outcomes. The results of this study indicate that Asian Americans are punished more similarly to white offenders compared with black and Hispanic offenders. These findings raise questions for traditional racial conflict perspectives and lend support to more recent theoretical perspectives grounded in attribution processes of the courtroom workgroup. The article concludes with a discussion of future directions for research on understudied racial and ethnic minority groups.     

Defending the Homeland: Judicial Sentencing Practices for Federal Immigration Offenses

In the last decade, immigration prosecutions in federal court have increased 165%, with immigration offenses comprising over 28% of the federal criminal caseload in 2008. Despite this increase, research has yet to fully examine the sentencing outcomes for these offenders. Exploration of sentencing outcomes for immigration offenders is particularly salient due to the racial/ethnic composition of these defendants and the documented history of disparate treatment of minorities at this decision point. To explicate these issues, we examine the sentence length of immigration cases to assess the impact of legal, extra-legal, and case-processing factors. We further disaggregate by offense type to explore if correlates of sentencing are consistent across specific categories of immigration violations. Finally, we examine southwestern border districts, which process over 70% of all cases, to assess their specific sentencing practices. Model results, theoretical implications, and avenues for future research are also discussed.     

Race and Ethnicity Effects in Federal Sentencing: A Propensity Score Analysis

Research has examined the role of race and ethnicity in the punishment of offenders. Narrative and meta-analytic reviews have indicated that race/ethnicity influences key sentencing outcomes, at least under certain conditions. This research relies almost exclusively on regression-based analyses for determining race and ethnicity effects. While this technique is useful, recent statistical advances may provide more accurate race/ethnicity estimates. The current study employs propensity score analysis to compare punishment outcomes across White, Black, and Hispanic offenders sentenced in US federal courts during the years 2006 through 2008. Results suggest that (a) during the in/out decision the effect of minority status is frequently smaller than that estimated by regression modeling and (b) during the sentence length decision the effect of minority status is frequently larger than that estimated by regression modeling. Consequently, the modeling strategy may produce different conclusions regarding the presence of race- and ethnic-based disparity in sentencing outcomes.     

Racial attitudes and belief in redeemability: Most Whites believe justice-involved Black people can change

Public belief in redeemability reduces punitiveness and increases support for policy measures such as rehabilitation, expungement, and housing and employment opportunities. Although racial attitudes are known to influence a wide range of criminal justice policy opinions, their effects on beliefs about redeemability and condemnation have not been fully explored. Using data from a 2019 YouGov survey of a national sample of White U.S. adults (N = 766), the current study estimates the effects of three distinct racial attitudes—racial resentment, racial sympathy, and White nationalism—on three measures of belief in redeemability: 1) a race-neutral measure, 2) a measure of belief in redeemability of Black offenders, and 3) a measure of condemnation of Black offenders. The results indicate that belief in redeemability is high—for offenders in general and for Black offenders. These findings are supported by a second 2022 YouGov survey of White U.S. adults (N = 1,505). Racial sympathy and White nationalism have significant effects across all three outcomes, with the positive effect of White nationalism on condemnation of Black offenders being the largest across the three models. These findings suggest that although most Whites agree that formerly incarcerated people are redeemable, racial attitudes influence these beliefs, especially for Black offenders.     

Does Mandatory Diversion to Drug Treatment Eliminate Racial Disparities in the Incarceration of Drug Offenders? An Examination of California’s Proposition 36

Objective

This paper addresses previous shortcomings in the literature on racial disparities in incarceration for drug offenders by taking advantage of a change in sentencing policy in California and a rich administrative dataset that is able to create a sample of comparable White and Black offenders.

Method

We use a nonparametric propensity weighting approach to identify similarly situated White and Black male offenders charged with drug-related offenses. We combine this approach with a difference-in-differences model to estimate the effect that a change in California sentencing law for convicted non-violent drug offenders had on racial disparities in prison and drug treatment dispositions.

Results

We find substantial reductions in the probability of a prison sentence after the policy change, but not differentially for Blacks. Blacks remain more likely to go to prison than similarly situated Whites after the policy, although the policy does lead to more referrals to treatment for Blacks.

Conclusions

This paper shows that even after comparing Blacks and Whites in similarly situated contexts that racial disparities in prison commitments remain after sentencing law changes that mandate diversion to drug treatment. The results suggests that addressing racial gaps in the commitments to state prisons will likely require more than shifting the eligibility of drug convictions for prison, as accumulated criminal histories are the primary driver of prison sentences. This means that expanding diversion options from prison alone will not reduce the racial gap in commitments to prison for drug offenses more than incrementally.

     

Does Gender Modify the Effects of Race–ethnicity on Criminal Sanctioning? Sentences for Male and Female White, Black, and Hispanic Defendants

Using data from large urban courts for the years 1990–1996 and drawing from the “focal concerns” framework on case-process decision making, we examine the main and interactive effects of gender and race–ethnicity on sentence outcomes. The main focus of the present study is whether the effects of race–ethnicity (and gender) on sentence outcomes are similar or different across gender (and racial–ethnic) groups. Consistent with the findings of prior research, we find that female defendants receive more lenient sentences than male defendants and that black and Hispanic defendants receive less favorable treatment than white defendants. However, these main effects are strongly dependent on whether the sample is partitioned by gender or race–ethnicity. We find that race–ethnicity influences male but not female sentences. Conversely, gender strongly influences sentencing across all racial–ethnic groups. These findings are at odds with the traditional view that leniency in court sanctioning typically by-passes “women of color.” Instead, it appears that black and Hispanic female defendants actually benefit more from their “female” status than would be expected all else equal.

Assessing Cumulative Disadvantage against Minority Female Defendants in State Courts

Abstract

Prior sentencing research, especially research on cumulative disadvantage, has mainly focused on the treatment of male defendants. Little attention has been paid to female defendants, particularly minority female defendants. Drawing on the selective chivalry, evil women, and focal concerns perspectives and using data from the 1990–2009 State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS), this paper investigates the impact of race/ethnicity for female defendants across individual and successive stages in the sentencing process. The results indicate that ethnicity does not operate via indirect or direct pathways, and therefore no evidence of cumulative disadvantage against Hispanic female defendants was detected. The results, however, do suggest that race operates through direct and indirect pathways to cause more punitive sentencing outcomes for Black female defendants compared to White female defendants, thus providing evidence of cumulative disadvantage against Black female defendants. Theoretical, research, and policy implications are discussed.     

Sex and ethnic differences in past aggressive behaviors

To investigate gender and ethnic differences in experiences of violence, 415 Black and White males and females were asked about some of their aggressive behaviors in the past. In their most aggressive encounters, males were more likely than females to have received and instigated physical violence and females to have experienced violence in a sexual context; same-sex aggression was more common than cross-sex violence. More males than females had urged or screamed at others to be more aggressive, with males more likely to incite other males and females to urge other females to be aggressive. Males were more likely than females to have last been angry with a male, and a number of sex differences were found in the behaviors exhibited when last angry. Although positive consequences of aggression did not differ significantly by sex, females were more likely to have experienced negative interpersonal effects of behaving aggressively and males to have suffered physical harm or legal troubles. Relatively few differences between Black and White subjects were found, but Black males were more likely than Whites to keep their anger to themselves and to get the target in trouble; White males were more likely to yell at the target and tell the target of their anger. White females were more likely than Blacks to get the target in trouble. In general, the results are consistent with sex role stereotypes and suggest that the experiences of aggression and responses to anger may be substantially different for males and females.     

Racial and ethnic differences in the consequences of school suspension for arrest

A growing body of literature has demonstrated that when schools suspend students, the suspension acts not as a deterrent but as an amplifier of future punishment. Labeling theory has emerged as the predominant explanation for this phenomenon, suggesting that the symbolic label conferred along with a suspension shapes how other people perceive and respond to labeled students. Few studies, however, have attended to racial/ethnic differences in this process even though critical race theory suggests the consequences of suspension likely differ across racial/ethnic groups due to prevailing racial/ethnic stereotypes. This study uses six waves of data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1997 (N = 8,634) to examine how the relationship between suspension and subsequent arrest differs for White, Black, and Hispanic students. Using a series of within-person analyses that control for time-stable personal characteristics, this study finds that suspension amplifies Black and Hispanic students’ risk of arrest relative to that of White students. White students’ risk of arrest was not amplified by suspension and, in some models, was diminished. This study's findings underscore the importance of understanding the labeling process as different by race/ethnicity and indicate that suspension is particularly harmful for Black and Hispanic relative to White students.     

Sentencing Native Americans in US Federal Courts: An Examination of Disparity

Existing sentencing literature largely focuses on the study of white, African-American, and to a lesser extent, Hispanic offenders. Unfortunately, very little is known about the sentencing of Native American offenders, especially in the federal courts. To address this shortcoming, the current study employs United States Sentencing Commission data for the fiscal years 2006-2008 to examine the comparative punishment of Native Americans. Consistent with the focal concerns perspective and its reliance on perceptions of race-based threat, findings demonstrate that Native Americans are often sentenced more harshly than white, African-American, and Hispanic offenders. Moreover, race-gender-age interactions indicate that during the incarceration decision, young Native American males receive the most punitive sentences, surpassing the punishment costs associated with being a young African-American or Hispanic male. These findings highlight the importance of directing increased attention toward the sentencing of this understudied offender population.     

Gender, Police Arrest Decisions, and Notions of Chivalry

The extent of preferential treatment toward female offenders during arrest has been a neglected topic in research on female criminality. This article uses data collected in 1977 during police-suspect encounters with 785 males and females to explore the existence of chivalrous treatment of female offenders in the initial stages of criminal processing. These data indicate that chivalry exists at the stage of arrest for those women who display appropriate gender behaviors and characteristics. In general, the findings suggest that female suspects who deviate from stereotypic gender expectations lose the advantage that may be extended to female offenders. Specifically, older, white, female suspects are less likely to be arrested than their younger, black or hostile sisters. In addition, in the initial stage of criminal processing, female property offenders receive no leniency, and some evidence suggests that offenses against property weigh we heavily in arrest decisions for females than for males. Differences in the factors influencing police arrest decisions for male and female suspects are also examined.     

Judges’ sentencing decisions with older offenders

Older offenders tend to be treated with more leniency in the criminal justice system. A number of studies show that older offenders are less likely to be incarcerated, and when they are incarcerated, are more likely to receive shorter sentences. However, to date, no research has directly examined why such leniency occurs. This study asked U.S. state trial court judges to reflect on their sentencing practices with older offenders and to rate the factors considered most important when sentencing this population. Responses were received from 212 judges. Only 31% of judges acknowledged treating older offenders with greater leniency. These judges also indicated that they predominantly rely on legal factors when making decisions about sentencing with older offenders rather than factors specifically associated with age. Only cognitive impairment was identified by judges as one of the five most important factors to consider when sentencing older offenders. These results are discussed in terms of judges’ awareness of how they weigh information to make legal decisions. The influence of judges’ age and attitudes about aging on sentencing decisions are also explored.     

The intersection of race and gender: an examination of sentencing outcomes in North Carolina

This study examines the intersection of offenders’ race and gender in the sentencing process using data on felony cases sentenced in North Carolina. Analyses examine the likelihood that charges were reduced in severity between initial filing and conviction, the likelihood of imprisonment, and the length of sentence imposed, and test whether race affects punishment similarly for men and women. Results indicate that status characteristics predict both reductions in charge severity and the severity of the final sentence, and that racial disparity is conditional on gender. However, the results are not entirely consistent with predictions derived from the extant literature. Gender significantly predicts case outcomes at each stage, but black men were not uniformly disadvantaged, and black women received the least severe treatment in two out of four analyses. Theoretical implications for the intersection of race and gender in sentencing theories are discussed.