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.     

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.

     

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 effectiveness of felony probation: Results from an eastern state

Data from New Jersey were used to examine the effectiveness of felony probation. Examination of more than 2,000 burglars, robbers, and controlled substance offenders placed on probation in 1976–1977 showed that their recidivism at three, four, and approximately 10 years after sentencing ranged from approximately one-third to more than half arrested and about 10 percent imprisoned. Prior convictions, type of offense, age, race, the Greenwood prediction device, use of heroin, and employment were statistically significant correlates of recidivism. The major conclusion is that probation is an acceptable sentencing alternative for some felony offenders in some states but that recidivism rates can be alarmingly high for particular categories of offenders. In addition, probation officials should devote some attention to the needs of probationers in such problem areas as employment and drug abuse.     

Proportionality in Sentencing and the Restorative Justice Paradigm: ‘Just Deserts’ for Victims and Defendants Alike?

The doctrine of proportionality seeks to limit arbitrary and capricious punishment in order to ensure that offenders are punished according to their ‘just desert’. In Australian sentencing law, proportionality goes some way toward achieving this ‘balanced’ approach by requiring a court to consider various and often competing interests in formulating a sentence commensurate with offence seriousness and offender culpability. Modification of sentencing law by the introduction of victim impact statements or the requirement that sentencing courts take explicit account of the harm done to the victim and community has generated debate, however, as to the extent to which offenders may be now subject to unjustified, harsher punishments. This article proposes that in order to overcome the controversy of the modification of offender and victim rights in sentencing, sentencing courts adhere to a doctrine of proportionality that is explicitly sensitive to the needs of victims and offenders in a model of restorative justice that focuses on the consequences of crime as against the individual, rather than the state. The extent to which proportionality, as the current constitutive principle of Australian sentencing law, may be modified to better encourage a dialogue between victim and offender is discussed.     

Revising Images of Public Punitiveness: Sentencing by Lay and Professional English Magistrates

England grants unusually broad responsibility for sentencing of criminal offenders to voluntary part-time lay magistrates who, like their legally trained professional colleagues, sentence a wide range of offenders. Using simulated cases, archival analyses, and observational techniques, this article compares the sentencing decisions of the lay and professional magistrates in London. The study reveals no evidence of the lay preference for more severe sentencing that is typically shown in public opinion polls. The extent to which legal training, court experience, panel decisionmaking and role within the court system can explain the relative leniency of the lay magistrates are considered Consistent with results from other studies, these findings suggests that when laypersons assign sentences to particular offenders rather than express generalized satisfaction or dissatisfaction with current sentencing practices, laypersons are no more punitive than professional judges.     

Police professionalism and cynicism reconsidered: An assessment of measurement issues

A hierarchical logistic model is used to analyze data on Three Strikes-eligible offenders in California and the counties in which they are sentenced. The analysis finds that discretion is widely exercised by elected prosecutors and judges in the administration of Three Strikes. Discretion functions as a “safety valve” and preserves some sentencing proportionality, but may also allow political concerns to influence sentencing decisions. A more conservative political environment is strongly associated with stricter application of the law. Consistent with racial threat theory, eligible felons are more likely to receive Three Strikes sentences in counties with larger Latino populations. However, the size of the black population has no significant effect. Higher unemployment rates are associated with more stringent application of the law. Prosecutorial and judicial discretion benefits offenders unequally. Controlling for legally relevant factors, black offenders are more likely to receive Three Strikes sentences, while younger ones are less likely.     

SOCIAL BACKGROUND AND THE SENTENCING BEHAVIOR OF JUDGES*

This paper explores the extent to which the social background of judges affects their sentencing behavior. An analysis of data on felons convicted in Georgia suggests that background has little direct bearing on sentencing outcomes. Instead, it conditions the weight judges attach to legally relevant and social background factors. Expectations about the role of the judge's age, religion, prior prosecutorial experience, and local background received mixed support. Older judges were selectively more punitive than their younger colleagues, but they did not direct this punitiveness toward disadvantaged offenders. Nor was there evidence that male judges were paternalistic toward female offenders. Baptist and Fundamentalist judges also sentenced more punitively, but they were not more likely than other judges to discriminate against black or disadvantaged offenders. Rather, they appeared to hold white and older offenders to a higher standard of behavior. Former prosecutors were selectively punitive and applied the law more uniformly than nonprosecutors. Local judges appeared to be more responsive to public demands for incarceration and sentenced more particularistically. These results illustrate the importance of considering judicial background in conjunction with case attributes, and they underscore the need for research that increases our understanding of judicial background as a conditioner of differential treatment during sentencing.     

Making Corrections Corrective

Revising the sentencing procedural process for convicted offenders is identified as being a key intervention point in reforming the current ineffective correctional system. A new procedural system for determining the disposition of convicted individuals is advanced which is designed to make correctional supervision more effective in curbing recidivism. If this proposed system is adopted by other countries, the rate of recidivism will be substantially reduced. Included in the recommendations are: requiring extensive testing of offenders' needs and goals in a community-based center prior to sentencing, reassignment of sentencing responsibility from criminal trial judges to a Dispositions Board, and giving supervisees an option to develop achievement contracts guaranteeing supervision release upon completion of the contract terms.     

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 Gender Gap in Sex Offender Punishment

This paper tests theoretical arguments that suggest court actors hold gendered views of sex offenders that result in a gender gap in sex offender punishment, where women who commit sexual offenses are treated more leniently than their male counterparts. We test this argument with precision matching analyses using 15 years of data on all felony sex offenders sentenced in a single state. Results indicate that gender disparities in sex offender sentencing exist and are pervasive across sex offense types. Specifically, male sex offenders are more likely to be sentenced to prison, and given longer terms, than female sex offenders. Findings are similar across sex offense severity and whether the offense involved a minor victim. These findings suggest that female sex offenders are treated more leniently than their matched male counterparts, even in instances of more serious sex offenses and those involving minor victims. Findings support theoretical arguments that contend that court decision-making is influenced by legally-irrelevant characteristics and raise questions about the source of gendered views of sex offenders and their effects on punishment approaches. Findings also raise questions about the virtue of get-tough sentencing policies that provide leeway for such dramatic variation across different groups of people.     

SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITIES UNDER DETERMINATE SENTENCING SYSTEMS: A COMPARISON OF PREGUIDELINE AND POSTGUIDELINE PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA*

After a brief review of determinate sentencing systems, this study examines the impact of Minnesota's determinate sentencing law on various presentence and sentencing outcomes. Using comparable pre- and postguideline measures, the results of this study suggest that Minnesota's reform effort was largely successful in reducing disparity within the scope of the new guidelines. However, although the direct impact of socioeconomic attributes of the offender diminished, these characteristics continued to influence sentencing decisions indirectly through various presentence decisions and case attributes not governed by the guidelines Different models of charge bargaining and sentence negotiations are also observed when pre- and postguideline models are compared. Yet, the determinants of these time-specific models are not consistent with the assumptions of a circumvention argument. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research evaluating the impact of determinate sentencing systems on achieving social neutrality in the application of criminal sanctions.     

Court Sentencing Patterns for Environmental Crimes: Is There a “Green” Gap in Punishment?

Objectives

This study examines sentencing patterns for environmental crimes and tests the assumption that “green” offenders receive more lenient treatment from criminal courts than non-environmental offenders.

Methods

We present two sets of analyses. First, we present an empirical portrait of environmental felony offenses convicted in a single state (Florida) over a fifteen-year period and the resulting criminal sanctions. Second, we use a precision matching analysis to assess whether environmental offenders receive more lenient treatment when compared to non-environmental offenders with the same characteristics and offense severity scores.

Results

Findings indicate that an overall small percentage of felony convictions in state courts stem from environmental crimes. We also find that punishments for environmental crimes are more lenient than sanctions assigned to comparable non-environmental offenses when the environmental crime is ecological, but that punishments are sometimes harsher when the environmental crime involves animals.

Conclusions

The findings provide general support for the argument that courts and other formal institutions of social control treat environmental crimes more leniently than non-environmental crimes. This paper also raises important questions about citizen and state actors’ perceptions of crimes against the environment and, more generally, about the ways in which theories of court sentencing behaviors apply to environmental crime sanctioning decisions.

     

Excessive Uniformity in Federal Drug Sentencing

The ideal of fair and proportionate punishment was a major impetus for federal sentencing reform. Observers of the current federal drug sentencing regime contend that the sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums lead to the problem of “excessive uniformity” in which offenders of widely differing culpability receive similar sentences due to the dominance of drug quantity as a sentencing factor. This study investigates this phenomenon using the 1997 Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities. Controlling for relevant offense, offender, and case processing variables, the analysis finds that the quantity-driven sentencing fails to account for important differences in offender culpability—resulting in excessively uniform sentences for offenders with highly dissimilar roles in the offense. The main policy implication of this research is that the central, organizing role of drug quantity in federal drug sentencing needs to be rethought. Indeed, effectively dealing with the problem of excessive uniformity will likely require the wholesale restructuring of how federal sentences for drug offenders are determined.

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 Influence of Parole Officers’ Attitudes on Supervision Practices

The supervision of offenders conditionally released into communities is one of the primary functions of parole officers. Scholars have hypothesized that officers’ attitudes towards supervision may influence their job performance. Yet there are few studies which have examined the influence of parole officers’ attitudes on their actual supervision practices, and studies of the attitude–behavior relationship among other justice system actors have revealed mixed findings. This study involved an examination of the relationship between officers’ attitudes towards supervision and their supervisory responses to offender behavior. Findings revealed that officers’ attitudes influence their intended behaviors. However, results of the analyses of the potential relationship between officers’ attitudes and their actual behaviors were mixed. Officers’ attitudes had no effect on their rate of issuing community-based sanctions, but officers who held more authoritative attitudes were more likely to pursue revocation hearings for offender noncompliance.     

Effects of Court Officials on Sentence Severity: Do Judges Make a Difference?

The present article examines the effects on sentencing of a number of variables measuring court actors and their traits. Sentencing patterns were shown to vary substantially from judge to judge but the differences were found to be related more to the types of cases judges received than to sentencing styles of individual judges. Independent of traditional sociodemographic traits of offenders and legal variables, individual judges do not appear to sentence differently. Moreover, when we estimated equations which included judicial background characteristics, there were no discernible independent effects. These findings differ from both informed intuition and inferences one might draw from previous research. Consideration of subcultures of justice and cases on which court officials disagree about sentences may help explain differences between present and past research.     

Latinos in the war on drugs: The role of offender citizenship status and family ties on downward departures

The present study analyzes Latino drug offenders sentenced in U.S. federal courts from 2006–2014 in order to assess whether any family ties effects were contingent on offenders’ citizenship status. The findings indicate that citizenship status conditions the influence of family ties on the decision to grant downward departures, but not the decision on the magnitude of the discount granted. The findings indicate the importance of conducting intra-ethnic examinations of sentencing outcomes for Latinos rather than assuming parity in treatment and solely comparing them to other groups.     

Establishing a compulsory drug treatment prison: Therapeutic policy, principles, and practices in addressing offender rights and rehabilitation

A Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Center (CDTCC) was established in Australia in 2006 for repeat drug-related male offenders. Compulsory treatment law is inconsistent with a therapeutic jurisprudence approach. Despite the compulsory law, a normative offender rehabilitation framework has been established based on offender moral rights. Within moral rights, the offender rehabilitation framework addresses the core values of freedom (supporting autonomous decision-making) and well-being (supporting support physical, social, and psychological needs). Moral rights are underpinned by a theory or principle which, in this instance, is a humane approach to offender rehabilitation. While a law that permits offenders to choose drug treatment and rehabilitation is preferable, the article discusses the establishment of a prison based on therapeutic policy, principles, and practices that respond to participants as both rights-violators and rights-holders. The opportunity for accelerated community access and a therapeutic alliance with staff has resulted in offenders actively seeking to be ordered into compulsory drug treatment and rehabilitation.     

The influence of court location on type of criminal sentence: The rural-urban factor

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of court location on criminal sentencing. Previous research in both the field of rural-urban sociology and public-policy decision making suggested that differences in the location of the sentencing court might result in different sentences being imposed on criminal offenders. Review of the criminal sentencing literature located several empirical studies which had previously focused on the rural-urban factor and criminal sentencing. The findings from those studies coupled with the conceptual linkages between rural-urban attitudes and values, public-policy decision making, and judicial sentencing provided a rationale for assuming that the sentences imposed on convicted offenders in rural, suburban, and urban courts might differ. Data for the study consisted of a secondary sample of 1,664 convicted Iowa felony offenders derived from archival sources including the Iowa Division of Adult Corrections and the Bureau of Correctional Evaluation within the Iowa Department of Social Services. The major finding from the study was that in urban courts legal considerations were of greater importance than extralegal ones in accounting for the sentences received by offenders, while in rural and, to a limited degree, in suburban courts, the opposite was true. The findings from the study contain theoretical and policy-related implications regarding criminal sentencing.