Criminal Justice Policy Review

Levenson, Jill S.; Shields, Ryan T.; Singleton, David A.

doi: 10.1177/0887403412462385pmid: N/A

Residence restrictions, which prohibit sex offenders from living within close proximity to places where children congregate, have grown popular. Participants (n = 255) were asked to participate in a survey rating and comparing their perceptions of residence restrictions for drunk drivers and sex offenders. Residence restrictions were seen as more punitive for DUI offenders than for sex offenders, though a majority of the sample viewed making either offender leave their home as punishment. Those who believed that most sex offenders would reoffend were significantly less likely to view these policies as punitive. Older respondents and those who knew someone convicted of a crime were also less likely to view residence restrictions as punitive. The results of the current study indicate that although many of the respondents were not optimistic about the effectiveness of residence restrictions in reducing victimization, those policies still garnered considerable support.

Johnson, Brian D.

doi: 10.1177/0887403412463933pmid: N/A

Extant research on the effects of judicial background characteristics suggests minimal influence from the race or gender of the sentencing judge in criminal cases. This raises at least two possibilities: (1) the combined influence of judicial recruitment, indoctrination, and socialization into the judgeship results in a homogenous body of criminal court judges; or (2) current approaches to identifying judge effects in criminal sentencing have methodological and conceptual flaws that limit their ability to detect important influences from judicial background characteristics. The current article examines this issue with data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing that is augmented to include information on sentencing judges and criminal court contexts. It argues that the mode of conviction shapes the locus of sentencing discretion in ways that systematically underestimate judge effects for pooled estimates of incarceration and sentence length. The empirical results support this interpretation, especially for incarceration in trial cases, where older, female, and minority judges are substantially less likely to sentence offenders to jail or prison terms. The article concludes with a discussion of future research directions and policy implications for judge effects and disparity in sentencing.

Huck, Jennifer L.; Lee, Daniel R.

doi: 10.1177/0887403412465309pmid: N/A

Judicial sentencing decision research most often examines the legal, defendant, and judicial characteristics that predict incarceration and sentence length decisions. Often ignored are the social worlds of the courtroom and judge in how these relate to sentencing decision processes and outcomes. The general framework of symbolic interactionism, through the theories of expectation states and situated identity, provides a foundation to understand the social processes of sentencing. A self-report survey administered to Wisconsin Circuit Court judges (n = 74) gathered information about these social processes that might be used to predict sentencing patterns. The results strengthen the position that judges’ decisions are not outside of social pressures, and judges develop sentencing decisions that align with the viewpoints of others as well as interpretations of the legal code.

Koeppel, Maria D H

doi: 10.1177/0887403412465308pmid: N/A

During recent decades, sentencing patterns of offenders based on gender have been the topic of criminological and sociological research. Particular attention has been given to the lenient sentencing of female offenders compared to male offenders. Several research studies have found that gender affects the sentencing process in ways that are advantageous to female offenders, such as lower incarceration rates and shorter prison sentences. Despite the existing research on gender and sentencing, there are still several specific areas that need to be studied regarding this topic, such as property crimes and rural areas. The current research adds to the existing literature by using data collected from five rural counties in Iowa to examine sentencing patterns of nonviolent property crimes in rural areas. Contrary to existing literature, results found gender did not have an effect on the decision to incarcerate, the sentence length, or the fine amount.

Brown, Joe M.; Sorensen, Jon R.

doi: 10.1177/0887403412465431pmid: N/A

This study sought to determine whether legal and extra-legal factors such as type and severity of offense, prior criminal history, age, gender, and race influence decision making in juvenile court. Specifically, the study focused on the imposition of a blended, “determinate” sentence rather than a traditional indeterminate sentence, controlling for adult court transfers. Data for this study were obtained from the largest county in the state of Texas. The results indicated that juveniles sentenced to a blended sentence had committed more serious offenses than those sentenced to traditional indeterminate sentences. Unlike with transfers to adult court, however, minority juveniles (Black and Hispanic) were no more likely than non-Hispanic White youth to receive a blended sentence. Although findings from the current study generally support the imposition of blended sentences, the true test of their utility lies further downstream in the implementation process.

Doerner, Jill K.; Demuth, Stephen

doi: 10.1177/0887403412466877pmid: N/A

Using data from the United States Sentencing Commission (2001-2003), we examine the role of gender in the sentencing of defendants in federal courts. We address two questions: First, can we explain the gender gap in sentencing by taking into account differences in legal and extralegal factors? And second, do legal and extralegal factors have the same impact for male and female defendants? Overall, we find that female defendants receive more lenient sentence outcomes than their male counterparts. Legal factors account for a large portion of the gender differences, but even after controlling for legal characteristics a substantial gap in sentencing outcomes remains. Also, despite their influence on sentencing outcomes in some instances, extralegal characteristics do not help to close the gender gap. Finally, when male and female defendants are examined separately, we find that not all legal and extralegal factors weigh equally for male and female defendants.