RACIAL–ETHNIC INTOLERANCE AND SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: A CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARISON*

This article tests cross-nationally the minority group threat thesis that public sentiments toward repressive crime-control policies reflect conflicted racial and ethnic relations. Using multiple data sets representing France, Belgium, the Netherlands, East and West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Great Britain, Greece, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Canada, Ireland, and Portugal, we examine whether racial and ethnic intolerance—animus, resentments, or negative sentiments toward minorities—predicts greater support for the death penalty. Our results reveal that the respondents were significantly more likely to express support for capital punishment if they were racially or ethnically intolerant while controlling for other covariates of public opinion. These findings indicate that the link between support for capital punishment and racial and ethnic animus may occur universally in countries with conflicted racial and ethnic relations.     

Thirty Years of Social Science in Supreme Court Criminal Cases*

The Supreme Court early took note of extralegal, “social science” materials in Muller v. Oregon (1908), and a half-century later made specific reference to social science authorities in the famous footnote 11 of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Since Brown, much has been written about the Supreme Court's use of social science research evidence, but there has been little systematic study of that use. Those writing on the subject commonly focus on areas of law such as jury size, where social science has been used, and have generally assumed that social science information has been utilized in Supreme Court decisions with increasing regularity. Surprisingly little is known, however, about either the justices' baseline use of social science authorities, or many other aspects of their uses of social science information. The focus here is on the citation of social science research evidence in a sample of 240 criminal cases decided during the 30 years between the Supreme Court's 1958 and 1987 Terms. The resulting portrait contributes to a fuller understanding of the justices' use of social science materials, and may ultimately help promote more effective utilization of social science research evidence in Supreme Court decisions.     

COMMUNITY ACCOUNTABILITY,MINORITY THREAT,AND POLICE BRUTALITY: AN EXAMINATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS*

A growing body of evidence shows that minorities are disproportionately the targets of police brutality, but important theoretical questions about the causes of that inequity remain unanswered. One promising line of research involves structural‐level analyses of the incidence of police brutality complaints; however, existing studies do not incorporate variables from alternative theoretical explanations. Drawing on the community accountability hypothesis and the threat hypothesis, we tested the predictions of two prominent structural‐level explanations of police brutality in a study of civil rights criminal complaints. The study included cities of 150,000+ population (n = 114). The findings reveal that two community accountability variables—ratio percent Hispanic citizens to percent Hispanic police officers and the presence of citizen review—were related positively to police brutality complaints, partially supporting that perspective. Two threat hypothesis measures of threatening people—percent black and percent Hispanic (in the Southwest)—were related positively to complaints, as predicted. The relative degree of support for the two hypotheses is assessed.     

Judicial Procedures as Instruments of Political Control: Congress's Strategic Use of Citizen Suits

Citizen suit provisions, which give proregulatory interests access to the federal courts, can be used by Congress to increase the courts' role in regulatory policy. I analyze 284 environmental regulation bills reported favorably out of committee and show that committee support for citizen suits is a function of the committee's policy goals and the political context in which the bills are generated. These findings indicate that Congress deliberately uses judicial procedures as instruments of political control and that scholars examining judicial policymaking must include legislative goals in the list of explanatory factors.     

Reentry and Removal: Implications for Juvenile Confinement Facilities

An important national initiative in juvenile justice is Juvenile Offender Reentry (JOR). The renewed emphasis on offender reintegration has generated significant attention to juvenile justice practices, with the notable exception of juvenile confinement facilities. Juvenile detention and, to a lesser degree, juvenile corrections practitioners are involved but not invested in reentry, having made very few programmatic changes to accommodate JOR initiatives largely because these initiatives have been external to the institution and its staff. Yet, reentry is a powerful concept for juvenile facility practitioners, and the application of reentry principles could have a profound impact on daily operations. This article addresses a range of issues about investing juvenile institutions in reentry practices. Several reentry models are discussed along with their implications for daily operations and programs.