Crime,time, and punishment: An exploration of selection bias in sentencing research

The sentencing decision reflects the culmination of a long series of processing and, thus, selection decisions, with cases leaving the system at each decision point. Accordingly, the substantive implications of bias due to sample selection are of particular concern for sentencing research. In an effort to assess the existence and manifestations of selection bias, the sentencing decision is modeled for three samples, each of which was selected from different stages of the justice process. Event-history data on felony arrests in the State of California over a 3-year period are used, along with a relatively simple analytic technique which reduces such bias. Results indicate that biasis introduced when censored observations are excluded from the analyses. Also, the effects of certain exogenous variables on sentence length differ, depending upon the selection criteria. Of these, the influence of pleading guilty rather than going to trial is especially interesting. Overall, our findings are consistent with the possibility that selectivity bias has concealed effects of sentence bargaining in some earlier studies.The data utilized in this study were collected and made available by the State of California Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Statistics. The Department of Justice bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here.     

How do offenders move through the stages of change?

This study sought to investigate the way in which offenders moved through the stages of change. The University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (URICA) was administered to a group of general offenders (N = 371) who participated in the Short Motivational Programme (SMP), a brief motivational interviewing programme administered to medium-risk offenders in New Zealand. The offenders' URICA responses were subjected to a cross-lagged panel analysis using structural equation modelling. Four models specifying different prospective associations between stage engagements were examined. It was hypothesised that there would be support for sequential transitions through the stages as proposed by the Stages of Change model. However, the analysis rendered support for and against sequential transitions, in that offenders regressed to earlier stages or skipped a stage post-SMP. Offenders who skipped to an adjacent stage after the SMP may have actually passed through an intermediary stage during the intervention, and those who regressed to an earlier stage post-SMP may have gained a more realistic awareness of their problem behaviour. This finding also raises questions about the practical utility of the model with offenders and highlights the need for more rigorous studies investigating the way offenders move through the stages of change.     

Gendered Genocide: The Socially Destructive Process of Genocidal Rape,Killing, and Displacement in Darfur

Accounts of mass atrocities habitually focus on one kind of violence and its archetypal victim, inviting uncritical, ungendered misconceptions: for example, rape only impacts women; genocide is only about dead, battle‐aged men. We approach collective violence as multiple, intersecting forms of victimization, targeted and experienced through differential social identities, and translated throughout communities. Through mixed‐method analyses of Darfuri refugees' testimonies, we show (a) gendered causes and collective effects of selective killing, sexual violence, and anti‐livelihood crimes, (b) how they cause displacement, (c) that they can be genocidal and empirically distinct from nongenocidal forms, (d) how the process of genocidal social destruction can work, and (e) how it does work in Darfur. Darfuris are victimized through gender roles, yielding a gendered meaning‐making process that communicates socially destructive messages through crimes that selectively target other genders. The collective result is displacement and destruction of Darfuris' ways of life: genocide.     

Profiles of punishment and privilege: secret and disputed deviance during the racialized transition to American adulthood

This paper combines Glenn Loury’s (The anatomy of racial inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002) thought experiments about racial inequality with Howard Becker’s (Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Free, 1963) typology of deviance to guide the analysis of three waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The results reveal the racial anatomy of punishment and privilege during the transition to American adulthood. Our analysis points to a substantial pool of white American youth and emerging adults whose partying behavior is a prevalent form of unsanctioned secret deviance. These disproportionately white and economically advantaged secret deviants contrast with a smaller but significant number of African-American youth and emerging adults who dispute their designations by the juvenile and criminal courts as official deviants. While the privileged position of a party subculture may in social–psychological terms be enabling and even empowering for youthful and affluent white Americans, the selective punishment of other forms of drug activity and delinquency is disabling for African-Americans in profound and less recognized ways. The importance of the data presented in this paper is to expose the comparative probabilities of black and white punishment and privilege. The results reveal concealed racial conventions involved in the construction of the American collective conscience, which Loury identifies as a source of our cognitive imprisonment.     

How Law Rules: Torture,Terror, and the Normative Judgments of Iraqi Judges

We present a factorial survey experiment conducted with Iraqi judges during the early military occupation of Iraq. Because U.S. soldiers are immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts, there is no opportunity for these judges to express their views regarding highly publicized torture cases. As legally informed representatives of an occupied nation, however, Iraqi judges arguably have a strong claim to a normative voice on this sensitive subject. We are able to give voice to these judges in this study by using a quasi‐experimental method. This method diminishes social desirability bias in judges' responses and allows us to consider a broad range and combination of factors influencing their normative judgments. We examine why and how the U.S. effort to introduce democracy with an indeterminate rule of law produced unintended and inconsistent results in the normative judgments of Iraqi judges. A critical legal perspective anticipates the influences of indeterminacy, power, and fear in our research. More specifically, we anticipated lenient treatment for guards convicted of torture, especially in trouble cases of Coalition soldiers torturing al Qaeda prisoners. However, the results—which include cross‐level, judge‐case interaction effects—were more varied than theoretically expected. The Iraqi judges responded in disparate and polarized ways. Some judges imposed more severe sentences on Coalition guards convicted of torturing al Qaeda suspects, while others imposed more lenient sentences on the same combination of guards and suspects. The cross‐level interactions indicate that the judges who severely sentenced Coalition guards likely feared the contribution of torture tactics to increasing violence in Iraq. The judges who were less fearful of violence were more lenient and accommodating of torture by Coalition forces. The implication is that the less fearful judges were freed by an indeterminate law to advance Coalition goals through lenient punishment of torture. Our analysis suggests that the introduction of democracy and the rule of law in Iraq is a negative case in the international diffusion of American institutions. The results indicate the need for further development of a nuanced critical legal perspective.