Conditional Race Disparities in Criminal Sentencing: A Test of the Liberation Hypothesis From a Non-Guidelines State

Objectives

To test the liberation hypothesis in a judicial context unconstrained by sentencing guidelines.

Methods

We examined cross-sectional sentencing data (n = 17,671) using a hurdle count model, which combines a binary (logistic regression) model to predict zero counts and a zero-truncated negative binomial model to predict positive counts. We also conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations to demonstrate that the hurdle count model provides unbiased estimates of our sentencing data and outperforms alternative approaches.

Results

For the liberation hypothesis, results of the interaction terms for race x offense severity and race x criminal history varied by decision type. For the in/out decision, criminal history moderated the effects of race: among offenders with less extensive criminal histories blacks were more likely to be incarcerated; among offenders with higher criminal histories this race effect disappeared. The race x offense severity interaction was not significant for the in/out decision. For the sentence length decision, offense severity moderated the effects of race: among offenders convicted of less serious crimes blacks received longer sentences than whites; among offenders convicted of crimes falling in the most serious offense categories the race effect became non-significant for Felony D offenses and transitioned to a relative reduction for blacks for the most serious Felony A, B, and C categories. The race x criminal history interaction was not significant for the length decision.

Conclusions

There is some support for the liberation hypothesis in this test from a non-guidelines jurisdiction. The findings suggest, however, that the decision to incarcerate and the sentence length decision may employ different processes in which the interactions between race and seriousness measures vary.

     

Changing legal standards for proof of causation in hazardous waste tort cases. Plaintiffs' problems and congressional responses

Increasing public awareness and concern over the possible dangers of exposure to toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes has resulted in a variety of lawsuits brought by plaintiffs claiming injury resulting from chemical exposure. The legal system and its traditional approach to tort cases demands that a plaintiff demonstrate that a particular chemical substance was the "cause in fact" of his injury. However, a plaintiff's inability to present credible scientific evidence sufficient to pinpoint conclusively the specific cause of his injury or disease, particularly in cancer cases, leads to defeat in courts of law. This article discusses the existing barriers to plaintiffs' recovery in toxic tort cases and reviews congressional proposals designed to ease plaintiffs' evidentiary burden and increase their chances of prevailing.