Search

The focal concerns framework is widely used in research on sentencing, although the empirical validity of the framework itself is seldom directly evaluated. To fill this gap, we use survey data from 134 trial court judges to examine two basic questions about the focal concerns framework: (1) How and to what extent do judges consider the original focal concerns of blameworthiness, community protection, and practical constraints in their sentencing decisions? (2) To what extent is perceived rehabilitation potential, or "redeemability," considered by judges and should it become a fourth focal concern? Results based on open-ended survey questions reveal that judges continue to rely on the original focal concerns, but they operationalize these concerns in a variety of ways. Results further show that most judges are concerned about the rehabilitation potential, or "redeemability," of defendants. Based on these results, we conclude that the focal concerns framework continues to be of value but that future research using the framework should consider adding redeemability/rehabilitation potential as a fourth focal concern. We caution, however, that some of the factors judges consider in connection with rehabilitation potential/redeemability could increase sentencing disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on when alternatives to incarceration are available – and for whom – is underdeveloped. In this study we introduce the concept of "salvageability" as a fourth focal concern guiding the decisions of court actors. In assessing salvageability, actors must consider the casual reasons behind offenders' criminal involvement and the extent to which those causes can be ameliorated through rehabilitative programming. This process of causal attribution likely exacerbates racial disparity in sentences. We test whether offender race, gender, and prior histories of substance use affect assessments of salvageability as indicated by prosecutor decisions to pre-screen offenders for admittance into an intensive rehabilitation alternative sentence in Pennsylvania using linked data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Results suggest that black offenders are substantially less likely to be referred for the rehabilitative program even if that referral would be an upward departure from a guidelines-conforming sentence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The death penalty has historically been used to communicate moral outrage and fear about the murders of some kinds of victims more than others. A large body of research has inquired into the effects of defendant race, and to a lesser extent victim race in capital punishment. However, there is much less research on how victim gender influences capital punishment decisions, and even less research on how victim gender and race might intersect to influence such decisions. This study examines the role of victim gender and race in: prosecutors' decisions to seek the death penalty, prosecutors' decisions to retract death filings, and jury or judge decisions to sentence defendants to the death penalty. We utilize detailed data on first degree murder convictions in 18 Pennsylvania counties, 2000–2010. The intersecting gender and race of victims conditioned each of the death penalty outcomes. In addition, whether the victim had children conditioned the effects of victim gender/race. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study uses propensity score weighting to examine three key death penalty decisions in Pennsylvania from 2000–2010, focusing on the role of defendant and victim race: prosecutors' decisions to seek the death penalty, prosecutors' decisions to retract death filings, and decisions to sentence defendants to the death penalty. We collected data on 880 first degree murder convictions in 18 Pennsylvania counties, encompassing 87% of the state's first-degree murder convictions. We do not find that black defendants, or black defendants who kill white victims specifically, are more likely to have the death penalty sought or imposed. Instead, we find that those who kill white victims, regardless of defendant race, are more likely to receive the death penalty. We further found that black defendants, and blacks who killed black victims, were more likely to have a death filing retracted by prosecutors. Finally, patterns of death penalty race disparity varied greatly depending on the county in which a case was prosecuted and sentenced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research shows that federal punishment disparity between Hispanic and white defendants varies according to federal district court contexts. Recent sociological scholarship has also drawn distinctions between traditional Hispanic immigrant destinations and new or emerging immigrant destinations, and depicted the reception of Hispanic immigrants in new immigrant destinations as less welcoming and supportive than in traditional destinations. We examine whether federal courts in different Hispanic immigrant destinations exhibit differing levels of Hispanic citizen and non-citizen sentencing disadvantage circa 2000, and then circa 2010. We find that traditional destinations exhibit little or no Hispanic versus non-Hispanic disparity, while Hispanic citizens and non-citizens both received longer sentences in new destinations and in non-immigrant destinations circa 2000. By the early 2010s, emerging destinations did not sentence Hispanic citizens and non-citizens significantly differently from traditional destinations. However, new destinations, along with non-immigrant destinations, sentenced Hispanic non-citizens more harshly, especially the undocumented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Occasionally, I encounter a colleague in criminology or sociology who does not share my fascination with courts and their sentencing decisions, and they ask me (usually with some bemusement) a version of, "Why do people keep studying that?" For example, how much have individual sentencing decisions themselves driven mass incarceration, as compared to changes in sentencing policy? This special issue presents both novel theoretical approaches to understanding sentencing decisions, and many new empirical contributions that extend our knowledge of contemporary sentencing. [Extracted from the article]

Native Americans are US citizens, but they are also tribal nationals subject to complex and unique criminal jurisdiction arrangements over Indian lands. Tribal nations typically have tribal court jurisdiction over less serious crimes, but for serious crimes the federal justice system often supersedes tribal authority, exposing Native Americans to more severe punishments. In addition, recent federal programs have attempted to foster greater tribal/federal criminal justice coupling. Yet, examinations of criminal punishment of Native Americans are few, and most are outdated and/or of very limited generalizability. We examine the punishment of Native American defendants in federal court, focusing on 28 federal districts with substantial Indian presence. Using recent US Sentencing Commission data, as well as contextual data from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal courts, we focus on differences in the federal sentencing of Native American defendants, and how these differences are conditioned by indicators of tribal-federal criminal justice coupling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unwarranted sentencing disparity, a long-standing concern for sociologists studying criminal sentencing, helped to stimulate reforms of sentencing such as sentencing guidelines. Guidelines, however, do not assure the elimination or even the reduction of sentencing disparity. Courts have the discretion to deviate from guideline recommendations, and these departures become a potential source of unwarranted disparity. Therefore we examine five years of recent sentencing data from Pennsylvania, focusing on the degree to which sentences that depart from the state's guideline recommendations involve extralegal differences. We find that legally prescribed factors such as offense type/severity and criminal history are the primary predictors of departure decisions, but that departures from guidelines are also the locus of significant extralegal differences involving gender, race, and mode of conviction (guilty plea vs trial). We conclude by discussing the dilemmas these extralegal differences present for sentencing reform, and their theoretical implications for understanding court decision-making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various articles within the issue on topics including the processing system of prosecutor-centered case, the inequalities in the federal selective prosecution of the drug trafficking offenses, and the variation of plea bargaining.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including sociology, cynicism, and traditional police culture.