Attitudes toward sentencing guidelines and simulated sentencing among Missouri circuit court judges

This study examines attitudes toward sentencing guidelines and simulated sentencing practices among Missouri circuit court judges. In addition, the study investigates the efficacy of sentencing workshops by comparing judges who attended or did not attend workshops. All Missouri circuit court judges were mailed surveys and 97 judges responded. Results indicated that judges generally felt positive toward Missouri’s voluntary sentencing guidelines, but often failed to refer to the guidelines when sentencing sample cases. Attendance at a sentencing workshop was not associated with attitudes about Missouri sentencing guidelines or sentencing in simulated cases. Sentencing in simulated cases varied by nature of the crime and circuit type. Judges from metropolitan areas tended to sentence more leniently than judges from rural areas. In their written comments, many judges expressed fear about the possibility of mandatory guidelines. Results suggest that there is ambivalence among Missouri judges over the acceptance and use of sentencing guidelines.     

War Chests as Precautionary Savings

I present a model of campaign spending and saving in repeated elections which yields empirical implications on the creation of war chests. As previous studies disagree whether war chests deter potential challengers from running against incumbents, I present an alternative model that intentionally excludes deterrence as a motivation and formalizes under what circumstances (if any) a war chest would be created for savings. The model predicts that an incumbent creates a war chest when she faces a weaker challenger, i.e. as precautionary savings for future elections. The model yields several other predictions of incumbent fund-raising, spending, and saving behavior. Using incumbents from 1982–1998 U.S. House elections, I find strong empirical support for the predictions of the model.     

Segregation and latino homicide victimization

A growing concern exists that an increase in Latino urban violence is the result of social and economic inequality. One structured form of inequality is segregation. Research indicates that many Latino communities have moderate to high levels of segregation. Prior criminological research has revealed that segregation is a strong predictor of black violence. The present study extends this line of research to the issue of Latino crime by examining the link between Latino segregation and Latino homicide victimization. Two measures of segregation are employed in the current research: residential segregation and social isolation. Using census data and mortality files, regression models indicate that while social isolation is a significant predictor of Latino homicide victimization, residential segregation is not significantly related to Latino rates of homicide victimization. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Criminal Justice Association, Clearwater, FL, 2001.     

Fighting back: Lethal responses to predatory attacks

Each year millions of Americans become victims of predatory crimes. The way victims respond to these attacks varies from complicance with offenders' requests to physically challenging offenders. In some cases, the physical defense of self and property has lethal consequences for the initial offender. While much is known about felony murder victims and typical homicide offenders, little is known about individuals who fight back against predatory attack by using lethal violence. In this paper, we use data from the Homicides in Chicago, 1965–1995 study to describe the characteristics of defensive homicide offenders and to determine how they compare with felony murder victims and defensive homicide offenders. Our results indicate that defensive homicide offenders are more similar to typical homicide offenders than felony murder victims, and are even more likely to have violent criminal histories and to use firearms than typical homicide offenders. Our results challenge the common perception that individuals who fight back against predatory attack are simply “law-abiding citizens.” We conclude the paper with a discussion of the implications of our study for additional research and police practice. Authors' Note: The authors thank editor Dennis Stevens and James Black for their helpful comments on earlier draft of the paper.