Warranted and Unwarranted Complexity in the U.S. Sentencing Guideline

The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are highly complex because of both initial policy decisions and subsequent pressures from Congress and appellate courts. The two initial policy decisions that were largely responsible for this complexity were (a) basing guidelines on "relevant conduct" rather than on the offense of conviction and (b) specifying in detail the number and precise sentencing value of aggravating and mitigating factors. Given this initial bias toward specificity, it was inevitable that the complexity in the guidelines would become worse as Congress pressed for further distinctions and the Sentencing Commission responded to those statutory actions. The complexity of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines has detrimental effects on both the perceived and actual fairness of the laws. Although statistical analyses indicate that the most complex guidelines (as indexed by the length of each guideline, the length of application notes for each guideline, and the number of amendments to each guideline) are also those that are most frequently used, there is also evidence that at least some of the complexity in the guidelines (the number of specific offense characteristics in each guideline and the number of cross references) is unwarranted.     

Prevalence and Processing of Child Sexual Abuse: A Multi-Data-Set Analysis of Urban and Rural Counties

This study investigated how contextual factors affect the processing of child sexual abuse cases, from reporting to sentencing. We analyzed three types of data: (a) data compiled by the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape from monthly reports by all rape crisis centers in the state; (b) data from the Pennsylvania Office of Children, Youth, and Families; and (c) sentencing data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. Results indicated that aggregate rates of reporting, substantiation, and sentencing were affected by county levels of expenditure. In addition, reporting and substantiation were affected by county-level factors, such that rural counties, counties with a higher percentage of individuals living below the poverty level, counties with higher expenditures, and counties with a higher percentage of stranger assaults had higher rates of child sexual abuse reporting.     

Stereotypical Hate Crimes and Criminal Justice Processing: A Multi-Dataset Comparison of Bias Crime Arrest Patterns by Offender and Victim Race

Many hate crimes are not reported and even fewer hate crimes result in an arrest. This study investigates patterns of victim reporting and arrest for hate crimes in two parts. First, using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, we find that, controlling for offense severity, hate crimes are less likely than non-bias crimes to be reported to the police and that the police are less likely to take further action for hate crimes, compared to non-hate crimes. Second, we use data from the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the National Incident-Based Reporting System to compare differences between types of hate crimes in the likelihood of crime clearance. We find that those hate crimes most likely to result in arrest are those that fit the profile of a “stereotypical” hate crime: violent incidents, incidents committed by hate groups, and incidents involving white offenders and black victims.     

The Complexity of Hate Crime and Bias Activity: Variation across Contexts and Types of Bias

Are racially-motivated hate crimes, non-criminal bias incidents, and general forms of crime associated with the same structural factors? If so, then social disorganization, a powerful structural correlate of general crime, should predict rates of hate incidents. However, tests of social disorganization’s effects on racially-motivated hate crime yield inconsistent results. This study uses data from the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) to explore such inconsistencies. Specifically, we assess the effects of social disorganization across contexts and types of bias motivation using bias incidents over 12 years. The results suggest that (a) social disorganization, particularly residential instability, is robustly correlated with rates of both hate crime and other prejudicial conduct, and that (b) the interactive effects of social disorganization help explain variations in incident rates by motivation type. Specifically, anti-black incidents are most frequent in unstable, homogeneous (i.e. white) and advantaged communities, while anti-white incidents are most frequent in unstable, disadvantaged communities.     

Decision Making in Delinquency Cases: The Role of Race and Juveniles' Admission/Denial of the Crime

Investigated how accused delinquents' admission/denial of their crimes affected adjudication and disposition decisions. An archival analysis of 2,043 adjudication decisions in 16 Georgia counties found that juveniles who admitted committing their crimes were treated more severely than juveniles who denied committing their crimes. Whites were more likely than Blacks to admit committing the crime, and, after controlling for this and other legal factors, race did not have a significant effect. In the second study, 67 judges, 53 probation officers, and 126 court service workers made adjudication and disposition decisions about three juveniles in an experimental simulation in which race of juvenile, length of prior record, and the juvenile's reaction to the crime (admitting or denying it) were systematically manipulated. Consistent with the archival study, juveniles who admitted committing their offense were treated more severely than juveniles who denied committing their offense. Possible reasons are discussed for why admitting a crime leads to more punishment.     

Decision making by parole interviewers: The effect of case and interview factors

Nonverbal behavior of 103 inmates was coded during their parole interviews, and additional information was obtained from their case files. These data were related to interviewers' pre-and postinterview judgments of the inmates' likelihood of completing parole successfully and to interviewers' ratings of the inmates' honesty during the interview. Results showed that information obtained during the interview significantly affected the interviewers' postinterview judgments. Perceived honesty during the interview was affected significantly by the severity of the inmates' crime and by how much information the inmates' volunteered, how polite they were to the interviewers, and how much the inmates fidgeted during the interviews. Results suggest that the interviews did not improve, and may have lowered, interviewers' accuracy at predicting inmates' success on parole.