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.     

A Comparison of Female and Male Probationers

Abstract

A majority of women convicted of crimes are sentenced to probation. Although proportionately more women than men receive probation, little is known about female probationers. The current study is one of the few to compare the backgrounds and case outcomes of women probationers with those of men. Statewide probation discharge data were used to examine differences between male and female probationers on their individual characteristics, offense and sentencing variables, and case outcomes and to explore the effect of gender on case outcomes. A number of gender differences were identified across the probationer, sentencing and case outcome variables examined. In addition, gender had a statistically significant influence on both new arrests and technical violations, after controlling for other variables such as age, race, income, prior involvement in the criminal justice system, conviction offense and sentence length.     

Perceptions of domestic violence and mock jurors' sentencing decisions

The purpose of the investigation was to examine the influence of the victim's provocation and hopefulness on the sentencing of a husband convicted of domestic violence. It was hypothesized that mock jurors would assign less-severe sentencing if the victim was provoking and hopeful. Mock jurors read one of four factorial court case combinations of provocation and hopefulness and rendered an individual predeliberation sentence and a group postdeliberation sentence. Analyses revealed a significant effect of provocation, indicating that participants reduced the sentencing for the defendant when the wife was provoking relative to when she was not provoking. The analyses also revealed an effect of gender on predeliberation sentencing, with women delivering more-severe sentences than men. The effect of gender was not present in the postdeliberation sentencing, indicating that deliberation produced a sentencing compromise between women and men. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Direct and Indirect Effects of Case Complexity, Guilty Pleas, and Offender Characteristics on Sentencing for Offenders Convicted of a White-Collar Offense Prior to Sentencing Guidelines

Previous research on the punishment of offenders convicted of a white-collar offense estimated models that specify only direct effects of defendant characteristics, offense-related variables, and guilty pleas on sentence severity. Drawing from conflict or labeling theories, much of this research focused on the effects of offender's socioeconomic status on sentence outcomes. Findings from this research are inconsistent about the relationship between defendant characteristics and sentence severity. These studies overlook how differences in case complexity of white-collar offense and guilty pleas may intervene in the relationship between offender characteristics and sentence outcomes. This study seeks to contribute to an understanding of federal sentencing prior to the federal sentencing guidelines by testing a legal-bureaucratic theory of sentencing that hypothesizes an interplay between case complexity, guilty pleas and length of imprisonment. This interplay reflects the interface between the legal ramifications of pleading guilty, prosecutorial interests in efficiency and finality of case disposition in complex white-collar cases, and sentence severity. Using structural equation modeling, a four-equation model of sentencing that specifies case complexity and guilty pleas as intervening variables in the relationship between offender characteristics and length of imprisonment is estimated. Several findings are noteworthy. First, the hypothesized interplay between case complexity, guilty pleas, and sentence severity is supported. Second, the effect of offender's educational attainment on sentence severity is indirect via case complexity and guilty pleas. Third, offender's race and gender effect length of imprisonment both directly and indirectly through the intervening effect of case complexity and guilty pleas. These findings indicate the need to specify sentencing models that consider the direct and indirect effects of offender characteristics, offense characteristics, and guilty pleas on judicial discretion at sentencing.     

UNDERSTANDING THE INFLUENCE OF VICTIM GENDER IN DEATH PENALTY CASES: THE IMPORTANCE OF VICTIM RACE,SEX‐RELATED VICTIMIZATION,AND JURY DECISION MAKING*

Using data from the Baldus, Woodworth, and Pulaski (1990) study of Georgia's death penalty system, we examine the influence of victim gender in death penalty cases. Furthermore, to improve our understanding of the meaning of victim gender, we consider 1) the joint effects of victim gender and victim race, 2) victimization characteristics that might explain victim gender effects, and 3) the impact of victim gender at different decision‐making stages in the death penalty case process. We find that both victim gender and race are associated with death sentencing outcomes and that an examination of the joint effects of victim gender and race reveals considerable differences in the likelihood of receiving a death sentence between the most disparate victim race–gender groups. In particular, it seems that black male victim cases are set apart from all others in terms of leniency afforded to defendants. We also show that the effect of victim gender is explained largely by gender differences in the sexual nature of some homicides. An examination of prosecutorial and jury decision making reveals that although victim gender has little impact on prosecutorial decisions, it has a meaningful impact on jury decisions.     

GENDER AND IMPRISONMENT DECISIONS

Guidelines sentencing data from Pennsylvania for the years 1985–1987 are analyzed to assess the influence of gender on judges' imprisonment decisions. These data provide detailed information on offense severity and prior record, permit statistical controls for other variables thought to affect imprisonment decisions, cover a fairly comprehensive list of common-law offenses (with adequate sample size), and contain judges' dispositional-departure reasons for sentences outside the guidelines schema. The data—analyzed with additive and interactive models–indicate that gender (net of other factors) has a small effect on the likelihood of imprisonment toward lesser jailing of female defendants but has a negligible effect on the length-of-imprisonment decision. Observations and interview responses from selected judges help to clarify the ways in which judges' sentencing practices are gender linked. Together, the statistical and the qualitative data suggest that the sentencing practices of judges are driven by two main concerns, blameworthiness (e.g., as indicated by prior record, type of involvement, remorse) and practicality (e.g., as indicated by child-care responsibility, pregnancy, emotional or physical problems, availability of adequate jail space). Based on our findings, we suspect that when men and women appear in (contemporary) criminal court in similar circumstances and are charged with similar offenses, they receive similar treatment. A major question from a policy perspective is, when gender disparities in sentence outcomes do arise, are the disparities warranted or unwarranted?     

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.     

THE INTERACTION OF RACE, GENDER, AND AGE IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING: THE PUNISHMENT COST OF BEING YOUNG, BLACK, AND MALE

Prior theory and research on sentencing oversimplify the role of race, gender and age in judicial decision making. In this article we present a "focal concerns" theory of judicial decision making to frame hypotheses regarding the effects on sentencing of these social statuses, both singly and in combination. Analyzing statewide sentencing outcomes in Pennsylvania for 1989–1992, we find that, net of controls: (1) young black males are sentenced more harshly than any other group, (2) race is most influential in the sentencing of younger rather than older males, (3) the influence of offender's age on sentencing is greater among males than females, and (4) the main effects of race, gender, and age are more modest compared to the very large differences in sentencing outcomes across certain age-race-gender combinations. These findings demonstrate the importance of considering the joint effects of race, gender, and age on sentencing, and of using interactive rather than additive models.     

The Impact of Race on the Pretrial Decision

This study examined the effect of race on the pretrial release decision for drug offenders. Although this decision point has not been examined as extensively as the final sentencing decision, it is a critical discretion point which impacts defendants’ future sentencing outcomes. The results found that race had a significant impact on judges’ decisions to release a defendant on recognizance, with black defendants less likely to receive this release status. Race was not significant, however, in the decision of bail amount or in the likelihood to post bail. These results are consistent with the focal concerns perspective which suggests that black defendants are viewed by courts as more dangerous and blameworthy and thereby, less likely to be released on their own recognizance.     

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.     

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.     

A Proposed Determinate Sentencing Model In Virginia: An Empirical Evaluation

After a brief presentation of issues that preceded the current disillusionment with the indeterminate sentencing practices in juvenile justice, the authors describe a determinate sentencing model being proposed in Virginia. Then, data are discussed comparing length of sentence under the proposed model to incarceration periods under the present indeterminate structure according to offense history, age, gender, and race. Finally, some immediate implications of the proposed model of sentencing are discussed.     

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.     

GENDER,RACE, AND HABITUAL OFFENDER SENTENCING IN FLORIDA*

This study explores the effects of race and gender on habitual offender sentencing in Florida. The sample consists of 1,103 female offenders admitted to the Florida Department of Corrections in fiscal year 1992–1993 who were eligible for sentencing under the habitual offender statute. Controlling for prior record, crime seriousness, crime type, and sentencing county contextual variables through logistic regression analysis, defendant race was found to be a relevant and statistically significant factor in the enhanced sentencing of female offenders. This factor was most noticeable with black female drug offenders and under structural contexts that were “high,” i.e., the percent of the population black, drug arrest rates, and violent crime rates. The race effects found with this sample of female offenders were often stronger than those in the Crawford et al. 1998 study of 9,960 eligible male offenders in Florida. The relevance of these findings is discussed.     

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.     

Mapping the Racial Bias of the White Male Capital Juror: Jury Composition and the “Empathic Divide”

This article examines the nature of racial bias in the death sentencing process. After reviewing the various general explanations for the continued significance of race in capital cases, we report the results of an empirical study in which some aspects of racially biased death sentencing are examined in depth. Specifically, in a simulated capital penalty‐phase trial setting where participants were assigned to small group “juries” and given an opportunity to deliberate, white male jurors were significantly more likely to sentence black defendants to death than were women and nonwhite jurors. This racialized pattern was explained in part by the differential evaluation of the case facts and the perceptions of the defendant that were made by the white male jurors. We discuss these findings in light of social psychological theories of contemporary racism, and we conclude that the demonstrated bias in capital jury settings should be understood as an interaction of several factors, including individual juror characteristics, group‐level demographic composition, and group deliberation processes.     

Neither Here nor There: Of the Female in American Legal Education

In this Critical Review Essay, Professor Obiora brings together work from many traditions to address the issue of how differences among students beyond gender–and, in particular, differences in terms of race–might affect legal education. After situating the question in terms of the literature on legal education generally (including standard critiques), she delves into work on gender–in law generally, in kgal education, in moral development and learning, in language use, and in education generally–to elucidate hypothesized differences between men and women that might affect differential experience in law school. She then moves on to make the picture more complex by drawing on work that indicates cross-cultural and class-based variation around conceptions of gender. Using research by sociolinguists on educational processes and work by historians and feminists of color on the intersection of gender, race, and class, Professor Obiora suggests specific ways in which women of color and working-class women might diverge from middle-class white women in their approach to kgal education. In particular, she notes: (1) different speech patterns and linguistic socialization lend different meaning to “voice,”“silence,” and “interruption” in classroom interactions; (2) the historical distinction between public and private spheres has been much more sharply drawn for upper-middle-class white women than it has been for black and working-class women; (3) the exclusion of black women from male “chivalry” and feminine idealization necessitated the development of agency; black women could not afford to be passive. Given these points of divergence, but also given convergences among the experiences of women, Obiora suggests a complex and contextually sensitive approach to the issue of gender in legal education, one that takes seriously the differences that exist among women. Because of the richness of the literature reviewed here, we include a Bibliography at the end of the article.     

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.     

THE SEXUAL STRATIFICATION HYPOTHESIS AND SEXUAL ASSAULT IN LIGHT OF THE CHANGING CONCEPTIONS OF RACE

Recent research examining race-based sentencing has reported anomalous results. It has been argued by Heck (1981) and Peterson and Hagan (1984) that these anomalies would not be perceived as such given a greater sensitivity to the "changing conceptions of race" in American society. This study performs a limited test of the sexual stratification hypothesis which asserts that various degrees of opprobrium are attached to sexual assaults depending on the racial composition of the offender/victim dyad. This hypothesis is tested with an additive and a race-specific model. The additive model fails to reveal any significant differences in severity of penalties based on either offender or victim race. The race-specific model reveals that significantly harsher penalties were imposed on blacks who sexually assaulted whites than were imposed on blacks who sexually assaulted blacks. The additive model suppresses this differential sentencing severity because blacks who assaulted blacks received the most lenient penalties, thus moving the black grand mean to one which was not significantly different from the white grand mean. Thus, both differential leniency and harshness are possible for blacks depending on the race of the victim.     

THE EFFECT OF GENDER ON THE DECISION TO INCARCERATE BEFORE AND AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES*

The present study explores the relationships between gender and imprisonment decisions in Minnesota before and after the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Results from a series of logistic regression models indicate that gender alone did not have a significant impact on the likelihood of imprisonment, but women with dependent children were significantly less likely to be imprisoned before sentencing guidelines and in the years subsequent to their implementation. The findings suggest that despite the introduction of sentencing reforms, court officials tend to return to issues of substantive justice, and they appear unable to shed their individual or organizational ideas of fairness in sentencing.