Introduction

Abstract

To date, no published research has examined the role played by race and ethnicity in revocation decision-making, despite the fact that revocation of community supervision is a source of substantial admissions to prison. Using a large cohort of subjects sentenced to felony probation in a large south central state, we conduct main and indirect effects analyses to test the hypothesis that odds of revocation will be highest for those offenders who are young, male, black or Hispanic, and unemployed. Results coincide with outcomes of recent studies that focus on the interaction of race, age and gender: That harsher penalties attach to individuals who are young, male, and black. In most analyses, Hispanics fared no differently than whites. A further finding is the discounted value of employment for young black males, who received harsher treatment than unemployed white counterparts. The article identifies several directions for investigation of the low value assigned to employment by this group of offenders.     

A tale of two counties: Unemployment and sentence severity

This study explores the relationship between the offender's employment status and sentence severity. We use data on felony offenders sentenced in 1993 in Chicago and in Kansas City to test a number of hypotheses concerning the effect of unemployment on the likelihood of incarceration and the length of the prison sentence. Our analyses reveal a complex relationship between unemployment and sentence severity: Unemployment had a direct effect on the decision to incarcerate or not only in Kansas City, and directly affected sentence length only in Chicago. In addition, unemployment interacted with other offender characteristics. The offender's employment status had no effect on either measure of sentence severity in either jurisdiction if the offender was white. In Chicago, unemployment increased the odds of incarceration for young males and for young Hispanic males, and increased the length of the sentence for males, young males, and black males. In Kansas City, unemployment had no effect on sentence length for any subgroups of the population but influenced the decision to incarcerate if the offender was a black male. We suggest that our results support the proposition that certain types of unemployed offenders are perceived as “social dynamite” (Spitzer 1975) in need of formal social control.     

The Joint Effects of Gender and Race/Ethnicity on Sentencing Outcomes in Federal Courts

Using data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the present study examines the interaction effects of gender and race/ethnicity on sentencing outcomes of male and female offenders in federal courts. Findings indicate that female offenders in all racial/ethnic categories receive less severe sentence outcomes than male offenders in the same categories, even after legal, extralegal, and contextual factors are controlled. In addition, racial/ethnic differences are found within gender groups, such that Hispanic males are more likely to be incarcerated and Black males receive longer sentence terms compared to White male offenders. However, contrary to expectations, the analysis indicates that White females are more likely to be incarcerated than Black and Hispanic females and receive longer sentence terms than Hispanic females. Gender and racial/ethnic interactions are also explored across offense type (drug vs. non-drug) and type of sentencing departure (no departure, downward, or substantial assistance). Implications for future research are also discussed.     

The Effect of Pretrial Detention on Sentencing in Two Federal Districts

While a substantial body of research indicates that legal variables, such as offense severity and criminal history, principally shape sentencing decisions, other studies demonstrate that extralegal factors such as race, gender, and age influence sentencing outcomes, as well. The handful of studies focusing upon the effect of pretrial detention/release on sentencing outcomes indicate that pretrial detention is associated with greater lengths of incarceration. This study—the first to empirically examine the sentencing consequences of pretrial detention in the United States federal courts—employed a sample of 1,723 cases from two district courts (New Jersey and Pennsylvania Eastern). Pretrial detention and, to a lesser degree, revocation of granted pretrial supervision were associated with increased prison sentences; on the other hand, successfully completing a term of pretrial services supervision was associated with shorter sentence length. Implications for the federal criminal justice system are discussed.     

“BACK-END SENTENCING” AND REIMPRISONMENT: INDIVIDUAL,ORGANIZATIONAL, AND COMMUNITY PREDICTORS OF PAROLE SANCTIONING DECISIONS*

An understudied contributor to the massive growth of American incarceration is an increase in the practice of reimprisoning parolees through parole board revocations—now referred to as “back-end sentencing.” To conduct the analyses outlined in this article, we use data from the California Parole Study to analyze the effects of three clusters of factors (parolees' characteristics, organizational pressures, and community conditions) on these sentences. Our analyses are informed by theories that have been used to explain “front-end” (court) sentences, which center on the focal concerns of social-control agents, labeling, and racial threat. Our results indicate that status characteristics—race/ethnicity and gender—affect the likelihood that criminal parole violators are reimprisoned. Moreover, certain “pivotal categories” of parolees—registered sex offenders and those who have committed “serious” or “violent” offenses—are much more likely to be returned to prison than others. Organizational pressure (prison crowding) also affects the likelihood of reimprisonment. Communities' political punitiveness affects the likelihood that technical violators are reimprisoned and that serious or violent offenders are reimprisoned for criminal violations. In this article, we use these findings to consider ways that mass incarceration is driven by both top-down policies as well as bottom-up organizational and community forces.     

Modeling the Distribution of Sentence Length Decisions Under a Guidelines System: An Application of Quantile Regression Models

How should sentencing disparity be assessed when decisions are constrained under a sentencing guidelines system? Much of the debate over the measurement of sentence disparity under a guidelines system has focused primarily on using specific values from within the sentencing grid (e.g., minimum recommended sentence) or on using interaction terms in regression models to capture the non-additive effects of offense severity and prior record on length of sentence. In this paper, I propose an alternative method for assessing sentencing disparity that uses quantile regression models. These models offer several advantages over traditional OLS analyses (and related linear models) of sentence length, by allowing for an examination of the effects of case and offender characteristics across the full distribution of sentence lengths for a given sample of offenders. The analysis of the distribution of sentence lengths with quantile regression models allows for an examination of questions such as: Do offender characteristics, such as race or offense severity, have the same effect on sentence length for the 10% of offenders who receive the shortest sentences as they do for the 10% of offenders who receive the longest sentences? I illustrate the application and interpretation of these models using 1998 sentencing data from Pennsylvania. Key findings show that the effects of case and offender characteristics are variable across the distribution of sentence lengths, meaning that traditional linear models assuming a constant effect fail to capture important differences in how case and offender characteristics affect punishment decisions. I discuss the implications of these findings for understanding sentencing disparitites, as well as other possible applications of quantile regression models in the study of crime and the criminal justice system.     

Of Race,Prison, and Perception: Seeking to Account for Racially Divergent Views on the Relative Severity of Sanctions

Several studies have found that offenders do not always perceive prison to be a harsher sanction than community-based punishments. Moreover, the literature shows that white offenders tend to estimate prison to be relatively more severe than do black offenders. The present study develops and tests eight possible explanations for the observed racial gap in perceptions. Relying on survey data from inmates in a large urban jail to establish sentencing preferences for black and white inmates, multivariate analyses show that the racial gap was attenuated but not eliminated by the explanations. This persistent racial difference in opinions of sanction severity is consistent with differential perceptions of criminal justice system fairness and merits additional research. The race gap has implications for theories on the effects of incarceration as well as sentencing practice.     

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.     

IMAGES OF DANGER AND CULPABILITY: RACIAL STEREOTYPING,CASE PROCESSING,AND CRIMINAL SENTENCING*

In this paper we argue that the meaning of race in criminal justice decision making will vary depending on other offender and offense characteristics, and that differences in treatment within races may therefore be as large as differences between races. We find that, among adult drug offenders from Washington State, those white offenders who most closely resemble the stereotype of a dangerous drug offender receive significantly harsher treatment than other white offending groups, while among black offenders, it is the defendants who least resemble a dangerous drug offender who receive substantially different—in this case, less punitive—treatment than other black offenders. That is, the exceptions are made for the most serious and the least serious offenders. We discuss the implications of these findings.     

The judicial response to crime and the criminal: A utilitarian perspective

This paper examines the hypothesis that the sentencing decision of the criminal court is consistent with utilitarian principles and that the judiciary uses the length of incarceration as an instrument for the maximization of societal well-being. A theoretical model is developed, whose principal arguments are offender and offense attributes, resource costs, the availability of alternative sanctions, and the general crime rate. Four questions are considered: (i) How does a utilitarian court respond to a general increase in crime? (ii) How does the availability of alternative sanctions affect the length of incarceration ? (iii) How does a utilitarian court respond to offenders who are more likely to recidivate? (iv) How does the court respond to offenders who commit more serious offenses? The model is empirically evaluated, using cross-sectional data for the state of Georgia for individuals sentenced to prison in 1978 for a UCR index offense. The theoretical model provides few specific behavioral rules for the court to follow. Answers to the foregoing four questions are shown to depend upon both the efficacy of sanctions and the cost of the administration of those sanctions. It is not possible to predict, for example, how a utilitarian court should respond to a rise in crime or how it should respond to offenders who are likely to commit more serious offenses. The empirical analysis shows that, in fact, the sentence length varied inversely with the general offense rate, with the likelihood of imprisonment, and with the length of postprison probation. The evidence also indicates that sentences vary with the individual's original record but not with the offender's age or race. With the exception of possible gender bias, the court's sentencing behavior was consistent with utilitarian principles.     

INEQUALITY IN THE TYPES OF SENTENCES RECEIVED BY NATIVE AMERICANS AND WHITES

A comparison of the distribution of the types of sentences imposed on native American offenders and Write offenders by the district courts of a western state reveals that the native American offenders were more likely to receive sentences involving incarceration in the state prison and were less likely to receive sentences which would have allowed them partially to escape stigmatization as a “convicted felon.” The introduction of a number of test factors revealed that these ethnic differences in the sentence received could only slightly be explained by ethnic differences in the kinds of offenses involved or in other differences in the legal and personal background characteristics of the offenders. A number of possible explanations of the discrepancies in the sentencing of native Americans and whites are suggested. However, regardless of the best explanation of these discrepancies, there are reasons to believe that these discrepancies in themselves may have contributed to an increased probability that the native American offenders would engage in future criminal activity and that these offenders would continue to receive harsher sentences than would similar White offenders.     

RACE,RACIAL THREAT,AND SENTENCING OF HABITUAL OFFENDERS*

As legislatures proliferate novel “enhancements” to criminal sentencing, such as “three-strikes” and related provisions, and as criminologists debate their effects, the role of existing enhancements, such as habitual offender statutes, has received little empirical attention. This article explores the effect of race in the decision to prosecute and sentence eligible defendants as “habitual” offenders. During FY 1992–93, 9,690 males admitted to prison in Florida were statutorily eligible (two prior felony convictions or one prior violent felony conviction) for sentencing as “habitual” offenders. Approximately 20% received that disposition. They will serve at least 75% of their enhanced sentence as compared with the state average of about 40%. Logistic regression, controlling for prior record, crime seriousness, and other relevant factors, shows a significant and substantial race effect. The disadvantage of black defendants is particularly strong for drug offenses and for property crimes that have relatively high victimization rates for whites (larceny, burglary). Race is less consequential for violent and weapons-related crimes. Race effects are more often significant in sentencing contexts that are low in terms of percent black, racial income inequality, drug arrest rates, and violent crime rates. The relevance of these findings for a “racial threat” interpretation of sentencing outcomes is discussed.     

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.     

Sentence dispositions accorded assault and burglary offenders: An exploratory study in twelve California counties

This study using offender-based transaction statistics (OBTS) examined sentence dispositions accorded assault and burglary offenders in selected California counties. The data cover a three-year period (1969 to 1971), and include a number of social and legal factors frequently thought likely to influence sentence disposition. The age, race, sex, and criminal histories of these offender groups are considered in light of incarceration dispositions occurring at both municipal and superior court levels. Using the method of predictive attribute analysis, this study assesses the importance of social and legal factors in the probability of receiving an incarceration disposition.     

Sentence length: Interactions with race and court

Sentencing research tends to focus on two questions. First, do some categories of offenders receive substantially different sentences than do other categories of offenders, for the same or similar offenses? Second, do some courts give substantially different sentences, when compared to other courts, for the same or similar offenses? Focusing on these questions, researchers have typically examined the impact of three types of variables on either sentence length or sentence type: defendant status variables (e.g., race, education), extra-legal process factors (e.g., court, plea), and legal factors (e.g., seriousness of offense, prior convictions). Study results have been contradictory and inconclusive.The problem with sentencing studies is that only main effects are examined. A more appropriate model is one that contains the interactions between the defendant's race (black/white) and the other independent variables, and the interactions between the court's locale (urban/rural) and the other independent variables.Using data collected in 1978 on 412 male prisoners in Maryland, four interaction terms were found to contribute to an understanding of sentencing decisions. It was found that blacks received longer sentences than whites, net of all other variables. However, whites received lengthier sentences for more serious offenses. In comparison to blacks, whites received lengthier sentences when they used more court resources. It was found that rural jurisdictions give lengthier sentences than urban jurisdictions, net of all other variables. However, in comparison to rural courts, urban courts give lengthier sentences when the defendant uses more court resources. More serious offenses receive lengthier prison terms in rural, as compared to urban, courts.     

DISCRETION AND DISPARITY UNDER SENTENCING GUIDELINES: THE ROLE OF DEPARTURES AND STRUCTURED SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES*

This article examines the use of alternative sentencing provisions as mechanisms for departing from sentencing guidelines in Washington State and as structural sources of unwarranted sentencing disparity. The authors argue that these structural features of guidelines not only serve as “windows of discretion” through which disparities arise, but they also may encourage disparities by requiring consideration of substantive criteria that disadvantage certain offender groups. The analyses find that males and minority offenders are less likely to receive alternative sentences below the standard range, but that race‐ethnicity and gender have inconsistent effects on departures above the standard range. Theoretical implications of the study are discussed.     

Race and the Death Penalty

Abstract

Scholars have learned a great deal about race and the death penalty. Yet the field has limitations: (1) prior research focuses on African Americans and Hispanics but ignores Asian Americans; (2) researchers have not explored Donald Black's (1989) plan to eliminate discrimination called the “desocialization of law.” Black notes that jurors who do not know the race of the offender and victim cannot discriminate. Black then outlines proposals aimed at removing race information from trials, while still providing jurors with relevant legal information. We address both issues through an experiment in which mock jurors (N = 1,233 students) recommended a sentence in a capital murder trial consisting of four conditions: (1) Asian American-white; (2) white-Asian American; (3) African American-white; (4) race of offender and victim unknown. The results suggest that Asian Americans are treated the same as whites, while African Americans continue to suffer from discrimination. Here, we consider the potential role of social status in such outcomes. The results also suggest that African American offenders and unknown offenders face the same odds of a death sentence. Here, we consider two potential interpretations. On one hand, jurors in the unknown condition could have seen an African American offender and a white victim in their “mind's eye,” effectively merging the conditions. On the other hand, death sentences could be the same in the conditions for distinct reasons: Death sentences could be high in the unknown condition because of relational distance between the juror and offender, while death sentences could be high in the African American-white condition because of discrimination. We conclude by considering the theoretical and public policy implications of both the central findings.     

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.     

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.

Punishing the Wicked: Examining the Correlates of Sentence Severity for Convicted Sex Offenders

Objectives

To examine the correlates of sentence severity for convicted sex offenders under sentencing guidelines, contrasted with individuals convicted of non-sexual, violent offenses.

Methods

Drawing on 7 years of data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, we utilize a logit-negative binomial hurdle model to examine the predictors of incarceration and sentence length, and an accompanying Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition of the gap in sentencing outcomes between the groups. We then implement a quantile regression framework to examine variation in effects across the distribution of sentence lengths. All analyses are contrasted with a matched sample of violent offenders to consider the extent to which estimated associations are unique to sex offenders.

Results

The analyses suggest several predictors of sentence severity for sex offenders, and that these predictors vary between the incarceration and sentence length decisions. In comparing effects for sex and matched violent offenders, divergent effects were observed for both case and offender characteristics. An Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition suggests that differences in the coefficient estimates account for less than one-fifth of the gap in average sentencing outcomes between sex and violent offenders. Subsequent quantile regressions indicate that these effects vary considerably over the sentence length distribution in ways that are not captured or obscured by the hurdle models.

Conclusions

The predictors of sentence severity for sex offenders, and points of divergence from violent offenders, are congruent with the notion that judges utilize crime-specific stereotypes in arriving at sentencing decisions. Further, the application of quantile regression following point-based estimation can reveal meaningful patterns in sentencing disparities.