The effects of psychiatric and “biological” labels on lay sentencing and punishment decisions

Objectives

This research, using focal concerns perspective on sentencing, examines how and why psychiatric labels, and having diagnoses biologically “labeled,” affect sentencing beliefs. Dimensions of public stigma toward psychiatric illnesses are hypothesized to mediate sentencing views.

Methods

This is a 2?×?2 partially-crossed, between-subjects multifactorial experiment with a lay sample (n=?1213), presenting mediation analyses.

Results

Four psychiatric labels (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, behavioral-variant Frontotemporal Dementia, High Functioning Autism, Borderline Intellectual Disability) led to significant beneficial effects on sentencing (less prison/rehabilitation support) as mediated by decreased stigmatization regarding lack of treatability, social acceptance, and personal responsibility. One biological “label” (Pedophilic Disorder) was mediated by decreased stigmatization (dangerousness), resulting in less prison support.

Conclusions

Data support effects of psychiatric labeling on sentencing under focal concerns. As no psychiatric labels resulted in increased discriminatory sentencing and, instead, led to decreased discriminatory sentencing behavior, psychiatric labeling may reduce punitiveness and bolster non-punitive sentencing beliefs. Biological labeling, aside from Pedophilic Disorder, may not affect sentencing.

     

美国量刑理论中的关注焦点理论

关注焦点理论是美国刑事司法领域解释量刑差异的主流理论。该理论认为,法官和其他刑事司法系统的决策者在作出量刑决定时有三个关注焦点:罪犯的可谴责性、人身危险性,以及实践中的可操作性。由于法官在量刑时缺乏完整的信息,因此使用"感官速记"把对这三个焦点的关注转化为对性别、年龄、种族等表面信息的关注,导致"类案不同判"。对关注焦点的研究,在理论上有助于理解司法过程中量刑差异的产生原因,在实践中有助于解决量刑不规范的问题。通过介绍美国的关注焦点理论,以及这个理论框架下的实证研究和对关注焦点理论的评论,反思对我国量刑理论和实践的借鉴意义。     

It's not the old ball game: Three Strikes and the courtroom workgroup

In 1994 California enacted legislation commonly known as “Three Strikes.” According to the conventional wisdom concerning the effect of “get tough” sentencing enhancements, the most draconian provisions are undermined by prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys, who resist the changes in the “normal” way of doing business. The research reported here uses data derived from interviews and surveys of courtroom members, and finds that Three Strikes has significantly disrupted the efficiency of the workgroup and has made the prediction of case outcomes difficult.     

The effect of local policy on the sentencing patterns of state wards

A large number of studies have identified individual and offense characteristics that predict the severity of criminal justice system sanctions against juvenile delinquents. However, very few studies have examined the effect of local decision making procedures and funding practices on sentencing outcomes. As such local practices could have important effects on sentencing, the present study compared the sentencing of juvenile state wards in counties that differ markedly in local policies. The hypothesis was that the availability of state, as opposed to local, funding for institutional placement (called a “charge-back” policy) in one of the counties would result in a more severe sentencing decisions and that this county's use of board of decision makers instead of individual caseworkers would result in harsher treatment of youths differentiated by minority status, sex, or family status. This difference might be due to the board's insulation from review.     

The influence of race,gender, family,and employment status on probationer sanctioning for noncompliance

Abstract

Although there is substantial attention to judicial decision-making during sentencing, fewer studies have examined decision-making post sentencing. Further, the interactions of probationer race and additional background factors have been under studied in post-sentencing decision-making. This study utilizes the focal concerns perspective to examine whether race interacts with gender, family status, and employment status in predicting sanctioning probationers for noncompliance. A sample of probation review hearings within an eight-month period in three domestic violence courts were selected. Results demonstrate that race does not interact with other background factors in influencing a jail sanction, while non-compliant behaviors are the strongest predictors.     

Assessing Cumulative Disadvantage against Minority Female Defendants in State Courts

Abstract

Prior sentencing research, especially research on cumulative disadvantage, has mainly focused on the treatment of male defendants. Little attention has been paid to female defendants, particularly minority female defendants. Drawing on the selective chivalry, evil women, and focal concerns perspectives and using data from the 1990–2009 State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS), this paper investigates the impact of race/ethnicity for female defendants across individual and successive stages in the sentencing process. The results indicate that ethnicity does not operate via indirect or direct pathways, and therefore no evidence of cumulative disadvantage against Hispanic female defendants was detected. The results, however, do suggest that race operates through direct and indirect pathways to cause more punitive sentencing outcomes for Black female defendants compared to White female defendants, thus providing evidence of cumulative disadvantage against Black female defendants. Theoretical, research, and policy implications are discussed.     

DOWNWARD DEPARTURES FOR SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENDERS: LOCAL COURT “CORRECTIONS” TO PENNSYLVANIA'S SENTENCING GUIDELINES*

We examine downward departures for serious violent offenders, using quantitative and qualitative data from Pennsylvania. We find that offense severity and prior record have negative direct effects on downward departures, but a positive interaction effect on them. Offenders convicted of aggravated assault, those who plead guilty, young black women, and offenders sentenced in large urban courts are more likely to receive downward departures, whereas those convicted by trial, young Hispanic males, and offenders sentenced in small rural courts are less likely to receive them. We argue that downward departures represent local “corrections” to guideline recommendations when there is a mismatch between guidelines and local court actors' definitions of key focal concerns of sentencing for serious violent offenders.     

Pressing for Sentence? An Examination of the New Zealand Crown Prosecutor’s Role in Sentencing

Prosecutors are among the most powerful actors in any criminal justice system. Their exercise of discretion, however, has not been subjected to the same level of public and empirical scrutiny as other parts of the criminal justice system. To deepen understanding, I empirically explore for the first time the form, function and limits of the New Zealand Crown Prosecutor’s role at the sentencing stage of the criminal justice process. Semi-structured interviews of a non-representative sample of ten Crown Prosecutors are analysed using Hawkins’ framework of “surround”, “field” and “frame”. Findings suggest that whilst New Zealand’s regime shares history, principles, and structural features with English and Australian regimes, it goes further to permit Crown Prosecutors a more assertive role in sentencing. In the ‘surround’, populist and managerial pressures create frustration, strain, and concern. Changes to funding models suggest the potential for unjust sentencing outcomes has increased. The “surround” also intrudes upon and transforms decision-making “frames”. The opinions and presence of stakeholders influences decisions and practices at office and individual levels. Justice may be reactive, forward-looking, or negotiated depending on the particular mix of individuals involved – something accentuated by the regime’s privatised and decentralised form. Findings also suggest that Crown Prosecutors “frame” their role in occupational terms. The lack of interest of universities, professional bodies, and law and policy-makers in offering or requiring prosecutorial training before entry to the role is influential. This renders decision-making more susceptible to pressures in the “surround” and “field”, and increases variation in decision-making “frames”.     

(Dis)order in the Court: Examining Neighborhood Disorder Prosecutions in Miami-Dade County

Abstract

This study examines race, space, perceptions of disorder, and nuisance crime prosecution in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Research has examined nuisance policing, yet little attention has been devoted to nuisance crime prosecutions, especially at the neighborhood level. Aggregating data on defendants arrested for nuisance offenses from 2012 to 2015 up to the neighborhood level, we estimate count models for pretrial detention, case acceptance, conviction, and sentencing outcomes in neighborhoods. We find two patterns of nuisance crime prosecution. Drug disorder prosecutions are concentrated in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods with large Black defendant populations, suggesting a more suppressive treatment of these “marginalized” spaces. In contrast, greater enforcement of homelessness and alcohol nuisance crimes in White non-Hispanic neighborhoods suggests disorder prosecutions are also used to impose order and containment in more economically “prime” spaces. These countervailing patterns highlight the spatial contingency of nuisance enforcement, whereby prosecutors differentially enforce nuisance crimes in prime and marginalized spaces.     

Split Sentencing in Florida: Race/Ethnicity,Gender, Age,and the Mitigation of Prison Sentence Length

American Journal of Criminal Justice - Corresponding with the theoretical expectations of the causal attributions and focal concerns perspectives, a vast body of sentencing literature has shown...     

National Academy of Sciences “Standardization”: On What Terms?

The frequently cited 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report entitled “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward” has become a focal point of forensic science practitioners' discussions and research since its publication. One of its recommendations is “Standardized Terminology and Reporting”. Little has been published to date on this topic, although conversations and dialogs on the subject are ongoing. The upshot of this communication is to draw attention to the problem of one term in particular, perimortem, which may be only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg” in the lexicon‐related concerns of forensic scientists. Even if it is an isolated issue, it is one that reflects the need for a consensus on term use and definitions by interdisciplinary practitioners who are currently using the term haphazardly, to the confusion of colleagues and potentially finders‐of‐fact in the courts.     

Sentencing Guidelines and focal concerns: The effect of sentencing policy as a practical constraint on sentencing decisions

Contemporary research on criminal sentencing has analyzed sentencing under numerous sentencing policies, yet the effect of sentencing policy on outcomes and disparity is not known. A variety of sentencing guidelines systems, one of the more common sentencing policies, exists throughout the country. In addition, recent Supreme Court decisions regarding sentencing guidelines are likely to produce alterations to several state sentencing policies over the next few years. Using data from the state of Florida, the current study examines the effects of policy transformation on sentencing disparity within the focal concerns of sentencing perspective. The authors view sentencing guidelines as a practical constraint on sentencing decisions that influence other key variables. The results indicate that sentencing policy transformation has an important effect on both sentencing decisions and on the factors that shape those decisions. The findings suggest that future sentencing research and theoretical development would benefit from incorporating measures of policy differences in its analyses.     

Development of a black criminology and the role of the black criminologist

In its study of black criminality, the discipline of criminology has failed to cultivate a cohesive, continuous and recognized body of research—what is termed a “black criminology.” Inasmuch as the theoretical framework of the discipline is limited by its failure to develop this subfield, policy recommendations proposed to and adopted by the criminal justice system are limited. It is argued that the development of a black criminology is necessary to fill this gap—in much the same way that feminist criminology filled a void. The components and scope of this subfield are outlined and the role of the black criminologist in the development of a black criminology is evaluated. It is argued that although black criminologists are needed to chart a black criminology, their participation alone is insufficient for the full development and vitality of this subfield.     

上下游犯罪“量刑倒挂”困境与“法益恢复”方案——从认罪认罚从宽制度的视角展开

无论是从法哲学视域的公正视角还是司法实践的立场,基于同一笔犯罪事实的前提,“下游犯罪量刑不高于上游犯罪”原则已被普遍承认。然而,由于上游犯罪来源的多样性与下游犯罪的相对单一性特点,司法裁判中上下游犯罪“量刑倒挂”现象时有发生。为了应对这一不合理现象,近年来司法机关在认罪认罚从宽制度的“背书”下,着力探索了一系列方法,主要包括:将自首、坦白情节“可以减轻处罚”的实质条件模糊化并人为主导“减轻处罚”结果,技术化地创设“下游犯罪量刑轻于上游犯罪的主犯但重于从犯”规则,对下游犯罪大量适用非监禁刑。然而,上述方案与认罪认罚从宽制度并无实质关联。事实上,在认罪认罚从宽制度背景下,下游犯罪行为人退赃退赔的“赎罪”抑或“法益恢复”行为可以作为量刑实质从宽的理论根据。具体而言,下游犯罪行为人在上游犯罪案发前的“法益恢复”情形,可以考虑对其“相对不起诉”,在上游犯罪案发后的“法益恢复”情形,可以考虑对其“定罪免刑”。     

Saving journalism from itself (and from US): The Hutchins Commission was right then,so what about now?

Even though the Hutchins Commission report has not explicitly informed journalistic practices, it has achieved a profound effect in its critique of media access equity and its concerns about media ownership. This article revisits the commission report to interpret its relevance to current media problems. Despite its practical shortcomings of influence, the report continues to provoke a critical inquiry: How is it possible to reconcile a standard of “professional ethic” with the demands of a workaday journalism concerned with the marketplace bottom‐line?     

“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.     

Moral Foundations,Intuitions of Justice,and the Intricacies of Punitive Sentiment

Research on punitive attitudes has, so far, focused largely on people's retributive attitudes toward offenders. However, a large theoretical body of research indicates that concerns about different types of offenses and victims may be just as important in structuring punitive attitudes. Particularly, Moral Foundations Theory suggests that distinct punitive attitudes may be based in intuitive moral concerns (“moral foundations”) about offenses that victimize individuals, groups, and the “divine,” referring to bodily purity or sanctity. In this study, I develop measures of what I term “victim‐centered punitiveness,” and use data from a nationwide survey of adult Americans (N = 915) to compare the sources of offender‐ and victim‐centered punitiveness. As expected, different moral foundations shape offender‐ and victim‐centered punitiveness in different ways, suggesting that they have distinct intuitive, moral bases. Other factors, including racial resentment, also have distinct effects on each type of punitiveness.     

A HEAVY THUMB ON THE SCALE: THE EFFECT OF VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE ON CAPITAL DECISION MAKING*

The past several decades have seen the emergence of a movement in the criminal justice system that has called for a greater consideration for the rights of victims. One manifestation of this movement has been the “right” of victims or victims' families to speak to the sentencing body through what are called victim impact statements about the value of the victim and the full harm that the offender has created. Although victim impact statements have been a relatively noncontroversial part of regular criminal trials, their presence in capital cases has had a more contentious history. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned previous decisions and explicitly permitted victim impact testimony in capital cases in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) . The dissenters in that case argued that such evidence only would arouse the emotions of jurors and bias them in favor of imposing death. A body of research in behavioral economics on the “identifiable victim effect” and the “identifiable wrongdoer effect” would have supported such a view. Using a randomized controlled experiment with a death‐eligible sample of potential jurors and the videotape of an actual penalty trial in which victim impact evidence (VIE) was used, we found that these concerns about VIE are perhaps well placed. Subjects who viewed VIE testimony in the penalty phase were more likely to feel negative emotions like anger, hostility, and vengeance; were more likely to feel sympathy and empathy toward the victim; and were more likely to have favorable perceptions of the victim and victim's family as well as unfavorable perceptions of the offender. We found that these positive feelings toward the victim and family were in turn related to a heightened risk of them imposing the death penalty. We found evidence that part of the effect of VIE on the decision to impose death was mediated by emotions of sympathy and empathy. We think our findings open the door for future work to put together better the causal story that links VIE to an increased inclination to impose death as well as explore possible remedies.     

“Fixed” Sentencing: The Effect on Imprisonment Rates Over Time

Objective

Sentencing guidelines, statutory presumptive sentencing, determinate sentencing, truth in sentencing, and three strikes are important components of the criminal justice system. The main purpose behind a relatively-fixed sentence is to remove judicial discretion by insuring that convicted felons receive a reasonably-assumed sentence depending on the crime committed. The current study assessed shifts in year-to-year changes in incarceration rates within all 50 states from the years 1965–2008 due to the adoption of sentencing reforms.

Methods

The study tests two competing theories, a normative theory and critical theory of the expected effects of reforms on imprisonment. Data was analyzed using panel regression with unit-specific fixed effects, conditional change scores, panel corrected standard errors, and a new measure of reforms.

Results

This study, possibly due to differences in model specification, ran counter to a number of previous studies and suggests some “front-end” sentencing reforms and “back-end” release changes are, on average, related to changes in imprisonment.

Conclusions

The study concluded, that when significant, reforms increased more than decreased prison growth in comparison to indeterminate sentencing. Additionally, the analysis concludes that changes in release mechanisms and parole decision structures are driving increased growth more than changes in sentencing structures.     

Effects of psychopathy and violence risk testimony on mock juror perceptions of dangerousness in a capital murder trial

The recent introduction of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) into the sentencing phase of capital murder trials has heightened concerns about the potentially prejudicial impact of such information on jurors, who might give disproportionate weight to this diagnosis when determining whether a defendant is a “continuing threat to society”. To investigate this issue, 238 undergraduates read a case summary based on US v. Barnette ( ), in which prosecution testimony was presented regarding the presence of a mental disorder (psychopathy, psychosis, or no disorder). Compared to the “no disorder” condition, participants rated psychopathic defendants as more likely to be violent in the future, even though testimony related to level of risk (high or low) was held constant. The difference in perceived dangerousness across the psychopathy and no disorder groups was particularly pronounced when the experts described the defendant as being at low risk. A similar pattern of effects was noted for the psychosis condition, suggesting that the impact of mental disorder testimony on perceptions of dangerousness may not necessarily be specific to the PCL-R.