Search

Considerable research examines discretion in judicial sentencing. However, little is known about the role of moral values or ideological beliefs in judicial sentencing decisions. The current study draws on insights from moral psychology to propose a model of judicial decision-making in which moral intuitions may inform sentencing both directly and indirectly via ideological beliefs about punishment (including general punitiveness and concern for offenders). We test this model using a statewide survey of Pennsylvania Common Pleas Criminal Court judges (N = 132), which included hypothetical sentencing vignettes. Results indicate that although moral intuitions were related to punishment ideology, moral intuitions were largely unrelated to judicial sentencing decisions, with a few exceptions. We interpret the results as suggesting that while moral and ideological preferences may be relevant under some circumstances, the role of morality in judicial decision-making may be constrained by legal or organizational factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

David R. Maines was a founder of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction, a fierce defender and practitioner of interactionist sociology, and cross-disciplinary pioneer, bridging sociology and communication research in the study of narrative. He invariably gathered collaborative circles of colleagues and students around him wherever his intellectual travels took him. Here, I recall the collaborative circle that formed with him at its center at Penn State in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This was a time of both personal and professional turmoil for David, and also prolific scholarly achievement. I then introduce other contributions to this volume that feature others' remembrances and appreciations of David's life and work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

David R. Maines was a key founder of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction, and a champion of symbolic interactionist sociology. Maines fought against characterizations of symbolic interactionism as astructural and "subjectivist." He was adamant that symbolic interactionism offered vital perspectives on the study of social structure and organization, and that it was compatible with a variety of research methods. He played a vital role in developing narrative sociology and bringing narrative scholarship from communication studies to sociological audiences. In this retrospective on his life and career, I detail what Maines saw as the five central features of symbolic interactionism: (1) interpretation and meaning, (2) communication, (3) temporality and process, (4) agency, and (5) dialectical thinking. I then examine four interrelated themes of Maines' sociological contributions: (1) temporality, (2) debunking myths about interactionism, (3) mesostructure, and (4) narrative sociology. A video abstract is available at https://youtu.be/YodjvXbo51Q. [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 history of criminal justice reform is largely the history of attempting to control decision-making discretion in response to societal dissatisfactions with the quality of justice. (1) The United States [...]

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]

In Pennsylvania, the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences presents an important opportunity to examine relatively 'pure' prosecutorial discretion over sentencing outcomes. The authors present a multilevel analysis of the prosecutorial decision to apply a mandatory minimum among mandatory-eligible offenders sentenced for drug crimes or as repeat, ''three-strikes' offenders. They find that prosecutors' decisions to apply the mandatory minimum are significantly affected by the type and characteristics of offenses and guideline sentence recommendations, prior record, mode of conviction, and gender. They also find that Hispanic males are more likely to receive mandatory minimums and that Black-White differences in mandatory application increase with county percentage Black. The authors frame and interpret their analysis and findings in light of the uncertainty reduction theory of prosecutorial discretion, the view of courts as communities, and an integrative focal concerns perspective on criminal justice decision-making. Keywords: prosecutorial discretion; mandatory sentences; courts; sentencing

Criminal case processing and sentencing are affected not only by legal factors and defendant characteristics but also by courts' organizational and political contexts. This article examines the influence of these latter factors in the context of a rural trial court. The analysis traces the lines of influence between the state's legal context, the county's political context, the judges' relations with other court community sponsoring agencies, their interaction strategies within courtroom workgroups, and the consequences for defendants' sentences. The article concludes by outlining an agenda for further comparative research and by discussing the potential contributions of such research to the courts/sentencing literature and to interactionist-oriented theories of social organization.

Street Justice: Retaliation in the Criminal Underworld By Bruce A. Jacobs and Richard Wright Cambridge University Press, 2006. 154 pages. $19.99 (paper) It has been close to common knowledge among […]

Research Summary: The death penalty remains one of the most controversial issues of criminal punishment not only because of racial/ethnic disparities, wrongful convictions, and inadequate defense representation but also because of the potential for geographic arbitrariness. The key empirical proposition embedded in the concept of geographic arbitrariness is that localities react to legally and procedurally equal capital cases in much different ways. This study assesses whether this key proposition is observed. We use data on 880 capital murder cases, nested in 18 counties in Pennsylvania from 2000 to 2010, to examine between‐county differences in (a) prosecutors' filing of specific aggravating circumstances, (b) prosecutors' filings to seek the death penalty, (c) prosecutors' decisions to retract a death filing, and (d) court (judges' or juries') decisions to impose the death penalty. First, we found that counties differed substantially in their decisions connected to the same statutory aggravators and murder characteristics. Second, propensity score weighting models demonstrated meaningful and sometimes huge differences between specific counties in prosecutorial decisions to file to seek the death penalty, and to retract those filings. We also found meaningful differences in the likelihood of defendants being sentenced to death across counties, although differences were not as large as those for the prosecutorial decisions. Little evidence exists that county partisan composition accounts for differences between counties in death penalty outcomes, and some limited evidence points to county size as a factor that shapes death penalty outcomes. Overall, however, results point to the idiosyncrasy of specific counties in their likelihood of exposing and sentencing defendants to the death penalty. Policy Implications: The remedies most connected to this study's findings involve local prosecutorial discretion. A key suggestion would be to strengthen the narrowing function that is supposed to be performed by statutory definitions of aggravating factors. The number, breadth, and vagueness of aggravating factors give prosecutors more expansive discretion to select cases for exposure to the death penalty, as well as judges/juries wider grounds to potentially impose it. This discretion, in turn, allows for wide local variations in the interpretation and application of these aggravating factors. Constraining this discretion would necessitate reducing the number of aggravating factors and defining the remaining ones clearly and narrowly. Another possible remedy would be prosecutorial guidelines for the weighting and use of statutory aggravating factors. The very enterprise of capital punishment in the United States, however, may well have geographic arbitrariness inherently embedded in it. If so, there would be no practical way to eliminate geographic arbitrariness short of abolishing the death penalty. [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]

Objectives: We argue that the reasons court actors conform to or depart from sentencing guideline recommendations likely vary depending on whether the decision involves an alternative sanction or incarceration and that these reasons may have consequences for ethnoracial disparities in the sentencing of defendants and how these disparities are understood. Method: We use recent (2012–2016) Pennsylvania sentencing data to examine (1) the relationship between defendant race/ethnicity and court actors' decisions to depart downward and upward from the guidelines and (2) whether such relationships vary depending on whether they involve an alternative sanction, namely intermediate punishments (IPs). Results: We find that the association of defendant race/ethnicity with decisions to conform to the guidelines or to depart is greatly impacted by whether the sentence involves an IP. Blacks and, to a lesser extent, Latinos experienced greater disadvantage in guideline decision-making, whether conformity or departures, when the sentence involved an IP. Conclusions: Results suggest that the integration of IP into guideline systems may have (1) mobilized ethnoracial disparities in sentencing, (2) focused the location of sentencing disparities to sentences involving IP, and (3) changed the applicability of common interpretations of guideline decisions and disparities in their imposition. [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]

Religious congregations' experiences with crime victimization are an under-researched and poorly understood phenomenon. Religious congregations represent a street crime target as a potential source of money, electronics, furniture and other goods, or as places where potential victims come and go. Furthermore, religious congregations are potential targets of bias crimes, especially certain minority religious traditions. This study examines survey data from a national sample of 1,385 religious congregations to investigate the role of religious tradition, criminal opportunity/routine activities factors, and surrounding structural disadvantage on criminal events experienced by congregations. We examine overall, property, and violent crime. We find that opportunity factors and structural disadvantage foster overall reported crime, as well as property and violent crime separately. By contrast, religious tradition is only associated with violent crime, specifically threats of violence. Jewish and Muslim congregations are more likely to report experiencing violent incidents, and report experiencing them more often. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some recent state and federal sentencing studies have turned up an interesting puzzle: Contrary to a prominent sociological group threat theory, Latinx defendants seem to be punished most harshly relative to white defendants in court jurisdictions where Latinx populations are smallest. In this Article, we briefly review literature on punishment disparities between Latinx and white defendants (Latinx-white disparity) at the individual case level. Next, we highlight some recent studies that show how Latinx-white disparity in criminal punishment is often conditional on U.S. citizenship status. Third, we describe recent research suggesting that Latinx-white punishment disparities are conditioned by characteristics of social contexts, especially local jurisdictions' Latinx population presence and immigration characteristics. We then present findings from two current research projects: (1) a study of the relationship between Latinx-white punishment disparity in federal courts and changes in Latinx immigration in federal districts; and (2) a study of differences in the punishment of Latinx defendants in Pennsylvania state courts across counties that differ in terms of Latinx population size, immigration, and court caseload presence. A key theme of these empirical findings is that Latinx disadvantage in federal court sentencing (for non-immigration offenses) appears to concentrate among non-U.S. citizens (especially those who are undocumented) and in places that are not traditional Latinx immigration destinations. In Pennsylvania state courts, Latinx disadvantage in incarceration relative to white defendants appears to concentrate in counties with small Latinx populations, little or no Latinx population growth, or both. In fact, some of the most severe Latinx-white punishment disparities can be found in places where Latinx people are least numerous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An inhabited institutions perspective views institutions from the bottom up, as "inhabited" by individual and organizational actors who have agency, rather than as static, top-down structures. Criminal justice structures and policies, such as those that govern courts and their sentencing decisions, are dependent on court participants. From this perspective, several conclusions emerge. First, theory and methods in the study of courts and sentencing are out of balance: theories emphasize interpretation, culture, and processes, while empirical inquiries focus largely on statistical studies of aggregates and outcomes. Second, the inhabited institutions perspective blurs the lines between the discretions of specific participants such as prosecutors and judges. Rather than attempt to parse the discretion of individual actors, we should study the interactions that jointly produce discretionary decisions. Third, we should focus on specific organizational mechanisms that produce both uniformity and variation between courts. Finally, variation between courts in sentencing practices should be understood not as a nuisance in top-down imposition of sentencing policies, but as a valuable but underappreciated source of policy feedback and learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social scientists have a longstanding concern with the relationship between criminal sanctions and offenders' future behavior. This paper uses data from a sample of 528 adult felony offenders to compare the relative probability of rearrest, the severity of rearrest, and the likelihood of probation revocation for offenders with a sentence of incarceration, work release, house arrest, and traditional probation--or a combination of these sentences. Consistent with previous research, prior record, gender, offense type, and education were significantly related to the probability and severity of rearrest. Furthermore, no matter which other sanction it was paired with, house arrest was associated with reduced chances of rearrest and lower rearrest severity. The influence of one of these sanction combinations was gender-specific: incarceration followed by house arrest was associated with reduced odds of rearrest for women but not for men. However, house arrest was associated with the considerably increased likelihood of probation revocation. In addition, these effects remain after controlling for potential selection bias stemming from the sentencing decision. This paper concludes by discussing the theoretical and correctional implications of these findings and directions for future research.

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]

Religious congregations represent a target for both street and bias-motivated crimes. Addressing these risks presents a challenge, as security measures could undermine the intended social reality of the congregation. Utilizing 52 interviews with places of worship representing a variety of religious traditions,we examine how congregations balance crime concerns with their organizational mission and identity. Our interviews show that congregations are aware that their goal of being an open and welcoming member of the community also brings with it vulnerabilities. Taking security steps, though, comeswith consequences for the congregation's relationship to attendees and its identity and mission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]