Search

In 2016, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors permanently repealed fees charged to youth in the county’s juvenile justice system. Unlike other types of monetary sanctions, like fines and restitution, fees are not intended to punish defendants or repair survivors. Instead, fees are imposed to recoup administrative costs. Increasingly, advocates are highlighting the harm that monetary sanctions can inflict on justice-involved youth and their families, and are calling for fees to be repealed. This study examines whether removing these fees has an appreciable effect on families’ overall financial burden by applying a rigorous causal-inference approach to data on 2,401 youth placed on probation before and after the fee repeal.This work has been supported, in part, by the University of California Multicampus Research Programs and Initiatives grants MRP-19-600774 and M21PR3278.

The article examines the complex relationship between civil and criminal legal systems and their joint impact on individuals. Topics discussed include the pervasive challenges of civil and criminal justice overlap, the systemic inequalities affecting marginalized groups, and the need for integrative approaches to enhance justice outcomes across both systems.

By treating criminal justice ballot propositions as race-implicit policies that disproportionately harm racial minorities, this article explores the hypothesis that a change in social context increases support for punitive criminal justice policies. To do so, it draws on insights from two related specifications of Social Identity Theory: Racial Threat Hypothesis and Contact Theory. The analysis offers two methodological innovations: first, it uses longitudinal rather than cross-sectional data to more precisely capture the effect of individuals’ experience; second, it draws upon a broader conceptualization of social context that includes not only racial composition of a county, but SES and education. The primary finding is that change in income and education levels by race/ethnicity and county-level political affiliation are significant predictors of support for race-implicit policies. The article concludes with a proposal for a mid-range theory of political behavior that takes into account the power of implicit messages about race in the political domain.

Fiscal contrition refers to the phenomenon of policy‐makers becoming aware of the social costs of fines and fees, recognizing a need to reduce those costs, and taking action to do so. In order to reveal the occurrence of fiscal contrition, this analysis examines detailed budget data from three U.S. counties. Findings indicate a dominance of predatory over punitive monetary sanctions in county budgets. That is, fines and fees that extract revenue from a justice‐involved population are more common than those with social control objectives. The analysis also reveals patterns and nuances in fine and fee usage and the revenue they produce, which illuminates pathways for reducing reliance on fine and fee revenue. This approach provides useful context for the burgeoning scholarship focused on the role of monetary sanctions in fueling social inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study measured implicit and explicit racial bias about women and handguns and addressed important perceptions and stereotypes about gun competence and victimization that vary based on race and gender. We administered a national survey to 1,000 US adults using a new Race–Women–Handguns Implicit Association Test (IAT). Survey weighting was used to generate nationally representative estimates on the prevalence of implicit racial bias about women with handguns. The majority of participants (62.5%) associated Black women with handguns and White women with smartphones (weighted-mean IAT = 0.252; 95% CI [0.227, 0.276]) reflecting an anti-Black bias among US adults that is stereotype consistent associating Black women with handguns and White women with smartphones. The proportion that indicated Black and White women were competent with handguns was low (21.6% and 22.4%, respectively), and the proportion of US adults who indicated Black women are more likely to experience intimate partner violence (range: 19.4%−22.9%) and sexual harassment/assault (range: 11.4%−20.4%) was low compared to the prevalence of both forms of violence US among Black women that may impact the decision to possess a handgun. These findings suggest there is an anti-Black implicit bias about women with handguns (associating Black women with handguns) among US adults and support the need for further research measuring racism in systems and structures that intersect with gun possession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monetary sanctions in the criminal legal system are legally and procedurally complex. If not paid in a timely manner, a single conviction can result in multiple legal financial obligations, varying in kind, payment procedure, and consequences. This study examines how, and the extent to which, criminal legal debtors understand monetary sanctions. Based on interviews with 60 individuals who owed criminal legal debt in New York, we propose a typology of debtor understanding. Proximal understanding pertains to individual, case-level factors and is instrumentally oriented. Distal understanding concerns system-level matters and is oriented toward normativity and fairness. We examine how debtors develop each type of understanding, how these dimensions interact, and the implications of debtor understanding for compliance behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Racial equity scholars and advocates confront a defining paradox in contemporary racial inequality. Explicit prejudice has declined, while outcome disparities persist, a disconnect previously referred to as the Attitude, Inequality Mismatch (AIM) problem (Goff, 2013). This article helps explain the AIM problem by distinguishing different forms of prejudice - both conceptually and predictively - and focusing on dehumanization, which predicts the worst of intergroup outcomes. Pinpointing the distinct causes and consequences of dehumanization as a distinct category rather than simply an extreme form of prejudice is important for future social psychology research and action regarding intergroup conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monetary sanctions are an integral and increasingly debated feature of the American criminal legal system. Emerging research, including that featured in this volume, offers important insight into the law governing monetary sanctions, how they are levied, and how their imposition affects inequality. Monetary sanctions are assessed for a wide range of contacts with the criminal legal system ranging from felony convictions to alleged traffic violations with important variability in law and practice across states. These differences allow for the identification of features of law, policy, and practice that differentially shape access to justice and equality before the law. Common practices undermine individuals' rights and fuel inequality in the effects of unpaid monetary sanctions. These observations lead us to offer a number of specific recommendations to improve the administration of justice, mitigate some of the most harmful effects of monetary sanctions, and advance future research.