Criminology & Criminal Justice
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/2227
Browse
7 results
Search Results
Item Federal Probation Officers and Sentencing Disparity: Examining the Role of Extralegal Factors in Guidelines Calculations(2024) Mullaly, Cara; Johnson, Brian; Criminology and Criminal Justice; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Over the years, the relationship between extralegal factors and federal sentencing disparity has attracted a significant amount of research attention. Much of this work, however, has focused on judicial and prosecutorial decision-making, largely ignoring other influential actors. One such actor is the federal probation officer. Using data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, this study explores the relationship between extralegal factors and federal probation officer’s guidelines calculations. This study uses a theoretical framework that combines focal concerns and causal attributions to argue that federal probation officers attribute the causes of criminal activity differently across demographic groups, shaping their perception of the defendant’s blameworthiness and dangerousness and ultimately resulting in differing guidelines calculations. Findings showed mixed support for the hypotheses in this study. After discussing the results and limitations of the current study, I provide direction for future study of federal probation officers and their influence on federal sentencing outcomes.Item Refocusing on Gender: Can Focal Concerns Theory Explain Gender Disparities in Sentencing Outcomes?(2015) Richardson, Rebecca; Johnson, Brian D; Criminology and Criminal Justice; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Focal concerns theory argues that sentencing decisions reflect judges' beliefs about three primary considerations: blameworthiness of the defendant, protection of the community, and practical concerns. This perspective has been used as the theoretical foundation in an abundance of research and has proven particularly useful as a framework for explaining sentencing disparities related to offenders' demographic characteristics. Little work, however, has been able to incorporate perceptual measures of the three focal concerns into studies of sentencing outcomes and social inequality. This study uses a dataset that combines official county court records with case-level judicial surveys to conduct a more direct test of the focal concerns theory of judicial decision-making. It measures judicial assessments of each focal concern for each court case and then evaluates the extent to which these assessments explain gender disparities in two sentencing decisions: the decision to incarcerate, and the determination of sentence length.Item A Tale of Two Crimes: An Analysis of Criminal Sentencing of White-Collar and Street Offenders(2015) Testa, Alexander; Simpson, Sally; Criminology and Criminal Justice; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Though a long-standing history of scholarship has sought to understand the potential for disparities in criminal punishment based on ascribed status characteristics, contemporary research has largely ignored the ways in which punishment outcomes varies across offenders convicted of offenses traditionally viewed as either white-collar or street crimes. Using data from United States federal district courts from fiscal years 2008-2010, this research expands upon current knowledge by comparing embezzlement and larceny offenders in federal criminal courts across a variety of punishment processes and outcomes. The findings suggest a substantial degree of variation in punishment severity between embezzlement and larceny offenders across modes of punishment. Generally, the question of whether white-collar offenders are treated severely, leniently, or about the same as compared to non-violent property offenders is largely dependent upon the outcome of interest and the specific types of offenses included in the analysis.Item The Effect of Collateral Consequence Laws on State Rates of Returns to Prison(2013) Sohoni, Tracy WP; Paternoster, Ray; Criminology and Criminal Justice; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Formal restrictions on a person following arrest or conviction are referred to as "collateral consequence laws" and exist in all states in the US. In recent years, scholars, policy makers and advocacy groups have expressed concern that many of these laws hinder reintegration, increasing the likelihood of future crime. In addition, these laws may interfere with the ability of former offenders to meet conditions of release following incarceration, such as maintaining stable employment and housing or paying child support. In this dissertation I examine the effect of states' collateral consequence laws in the categories of voting, access to public records, employment, public housing, public assistance, and driver's licenses. I examine the impact of these laws on state rates of returns to prison, as measured by percent of prison admissions that were people on conditional release when they entered prison, the percent of exits from parole that were considered unsuccessful due returning to incarceration; the percent of exits from parole that were returned to incarceration for a new sentence, and the percent of exits from parole that were returned to incarceration for a technical violation. I also run an additional fixed effects analysis on the effect of restrictions on Temporary Assistance for Needy Children (TANF) over a seven year period. Ultimately, limitations in the data restrict the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the impact of these laws. Results from the analysis are mixed, indicating that these laws may not have a uniform impact. Surprisingly, these analyses give some indication that collateral consequences may be related to lower rates of returns to prison for technical violations, however future research is needed to confirm this relationship. Possible explanations for these relationships are discussed, as are future research possibilities that would address limitations in the data. Data from the fixed-effects analysis does indicate preliminary support that states that imposed harsh restrictions on TANF saw an increase in state rates of returns to prison, however the analysis will need to be expanded to include state-level controls in order to draw any firm conclusions.Item Racial Disparities in Pre-Sentencing Courtroom Outcomes(2011) Salpino, Anthony; Wellford, Charles; Criminology and Criminal Justice; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)The foundation of the American criminal justice system rests on the idea that all offenders should be treated equally before the law. However, prior research has shown that an offender's race may result in differential treatment. Despite extensive literature examining sentencing and race, very little attention has been given to the courtroom processes that occur after arrest but prior to sentencing (primarily executed at the discretion of the prosecutor). This study examines three of those pre-sentencing processes (dismissals, diversions, and charge reductions) that drastically affect the treatment an offender receives during later stages of the proceedings. Results indicate that minorities are significantly more likely to receive dismissals while being significantly less likely to receive diversions or charge reductions. Findings regarding geographic location and other variables are also discussed as well as limitations and suggestions for further research.Item THE MARYLAND PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW PROJECT(2006-08-30) Philofsky, Rachel B.; Paternoster, Ray; Criminology and Criminal Justice; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Prior research demonstrated that the death penalty is administered in a discriminatory fashion. This is a problem both legally and morally. There is a precautionary measure called a proportionality review included in several state death penalty statutes which compares death sentence cases with similar cases to determine if the sentence is proportional to the crime based on other crimes with similar characteristics. From 1978-1992, the Maryland State Supreme Court was statutorily mandated to identify and eliminate disproportionate death sentences. Yet, they have not vacated even one disproportionate death sentence. This project evaluates the court's attempt to measure comparative excessiveness among Maryland death sentences. Results support the notion that the proportionality review conducted by the court does not single out and eliminate disproportionate cases as it was intended to do. Conclusions are based on an independent proportionality review of Maryland death sentences in comparison with the findings of the court.Item Does the group make a difference? A look at the factors that impact perceptions of group deliberations and sentencing outcomes in capital trials(2006-08-02) Connell, Nadine Marie; Paternoster, Raymond; Criminology and Criminal Justice; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Traditional research into the mechanisms by which jurors in capital cases make punishment decision focuses on one of two relationships: the relationship between a juror's individual characteristics and a sentencing outcome or the relationship between trial level characteristics and a sentencing outcome. Many significant findings have come from this type of research, most notably that arbitrariness still exists in the application of capital punishment. This arbitrariness takes on various forms, including poor comprehension of sentencing instructions (Bowers and Foglia, 2003; Foglia, 2003), racial bias in sentencing decisions (Baldus et al,. 1998; Bowers et al., 2001; Bowers et al., 2004), and a homogenization of the jury pool through the process of death qualification (Haney. 1984). What this research has failed to address, however, is the role that the act of deliberation may have on the relationship between these individual and trial level characteristics and their ensuing impact on sentencing outcomes. The current study addresses this shortcoming by focusing on the role that the process of deliberation has on the juror's perception of the group functioning, measured here through the construct of group climate. The predictors of group climate are examined and the subsequent impact of group climate on sentencing outcomes is explored. The results suggest individual juror level characteristics do not have a direct effect on sentencing outcome; rather, the level of group climate acts as a mediating variable between individual characteristics and sentencing outcomes. Trial level characteristics, however, both directly predict to sentencing outcome and indirectly operate through the level of group climate. Group climate is the strongest predictor of sentencing outcome, with juries who have more positive perceptions of group climate more likely to return the death penalty. These results and their implications are discussed in detail, as are suggestions for both future research and the future of capital punishment.