College of Behavioral & Social Sciences
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/8
The collections in this community comprise faculty research works, as well as graduate theses and dissertations..
Browse
17 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 Essays on Institutions, Culture and Economic Outcomes(2017) Karalashvili, Nona; Murrell, Peter; Economics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)This dissertation examines how institutions and culture shape each other and affect individuals’ behavior. Chapter 1 analyzes the interplay between the law and prevailing values to understand the origins of legal order in an environment where neither legal nor non-legal institutions, taken separately, are capable of supporting agreements. These institutional imperfections give rise to a distinct way in which the law and prevailing values reinforce each other, and subsequently facilitate transactions. The model gives rise to multiple stable equilibria where identical societies in terms of laws and values may exhibit fundamentally divergent behavioral patterns with significant welfare implications. Analysis of the dynamics of laws and values reveals that the continued congruence of the legal system with the prevailing values may determine the steady-state culture and the equilibria that emerge along the way. Chapter 2 builds on a widespread notion that culture is acquired through learning and explores ways in which institutions, social structure, and human capital influence culture through a process of learning. In the model, institutions determine the uncertainty of the payoffs from cultural traits, social structure determines the strength of information flows from family and peers, and human capital determines the productiveness of individual deliberations. A unique and stable equilibrium culture emerges from this learning process. Institutions and social structure may influence the spread of values even without affecting the expected payoffs associated with these values. Institutions, social structure, and human capital frequently mute each other’s effects on culture. Finally, Chapter 3 develops a behavioral experiment to investigate effects of institutions on an important cultural trait – individuals’ tendency to trust in others – even in those contexts where these institutions are irrelevant to the particular trust behavior. In contrast with the previous experimental results but consistent with the literature on the importance of others’ intentions for decisions to reciprocate, I find evidence that institutions facilitating cooperation may decrease an individual's tendency to trust in others in a seemingly unrelated context. Identifying a systematic bias prompted by the institutional environment helps in understanding the potential ways in which institutions may impact individuals’ behavior.Item Culture Warriors Go To Court: The Supreme Court and the Battle for the "Soul" of America(2015) Spivey, Michael; McIntosh, Wayne; Government and Politics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: CULTURE WARRIORS GO TO COURT: THE SUPREME COURT AND THE BATTLE FOR THE "SOUL" OF AMERICA Michael O. Spivey, Doctor of Philosophy, 2015 Dissertation Directed by: Professor Wayne McIntosh Department of Government and Politics The notion of a "culture war" has become a fixture in the academic writing about current American politics, in the popular press and in the cultural zeitgeist. Theorists have suggested that there is a cultural fault line dividing cultural progressives and religious traditionalists. This fault line, it is argued, stems from a basic epistemological disagreement as to whether there is transcendent "truth." According to James Davidson Hunter, these different worldviews lead to policy polarization and cultural warfare. Hunter goes on to suggest that courts (and especially the Supreme Court) are focal points for this conflict. This work analyzes the nature and scope of battles over culture war issues in the United Supreme Court. It relies on a popular description of key culture war issues: God, guns and gays. The Supreme Court's treatment of each of these issues is analyzed in turn. In addition, the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence is also examined. With respect to each issue, key Supreme Court cases are identified. The briefs filed by the parties are then summarized and coded, identifying key "modalities" of arguments and specific arguments themselves. All amicus briefs are similarly analyzed and coded. The key Supreme Court decisions are then analyzed in light of arguments raised by parties and amici. Based upon this analysis, it appears that there is not one culture war but rather an interrelated set of cultural battles. Relatedly, there has been an evolution of cultural warfare over time. Some issues have become largely settled (at least within the Court's jurisprudence; others are on their way to being settled and still others present continuing opportunities for cultural clashes. The work concludes by suggesting that the sexual revolution lies at the heart of cultural warfare. Moreover, cultural battles are over the "meaning" of America, that is, what social values will be protected under law.Item LEGAL ARGUMENT, ISSUE FRAMING, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW ON THE SUPREME COURT(2015) Hensley, Jonathan; McIntosh, Wayne; Government and Politics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Abstract Title of Dissertation: LEGAL ARGUMENT, ISSUE FRAMING, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW ON THE SUPREME COURT Jonathan B. Hensley, Doctor of Philosophy, 2015 Dissertation Directed By: Dr. Wayne McIntosh Department of Government and Politics Supreme Court advocates seek to influence the Supreme Court through the arguments made in briefs filed with the Court. This dissertation examines the extent to which language used in attorneys' briefs is adopted by the Supreme Court, and whether the arguments made by attorneys affect the content and outcome of Court decisions. I focus on the Court's campaign finance jurisprudence, as the focus on a particular area of law allows the tracing of language related to similar issues over time. In Chapter Two, I demonstrate that the Court's campaign finance decisions can be divided into four eras that are distinguishable by the Court's relative deference or skepticism toward legislative determinations regarding campaign finance regulation. Chapter Three examines instances in which justices have changed their minds on important issues and searches for evidence that arguments in briefs influenced these changes, but finds that there is little evidence that these changes can be directly attributed to arguments found in briefs. Chapter Four examines legal argument through issue framing, analyzing the issue frames employed in both court opinions and attorney's briefs. I conclude that the four eras of campaign finance law can also be distinguished by differences in issue framing. I further conclude that advocates can affect the way the Court views an issue by adding new frames at the Supreme Court level that were not present in the lower courts, especially in the transitional cases that mark the beginning of a new era.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 Foundations of Juristocracy(2014) Paik, Sung-Wook; Soltan, Karol E.; Elkin, Stephen L.; Government and Politics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Differences in institutional architecture and political culture notwithstanding, constitutional democracies worldwide are increasingly relying on courts for their maintenance, most notably in regards to the settlement of conflicts involving fundamental rights and values. This dissertation explores the foundations of juristocracy and argues that its intellectual roots lies in the proliferation of a depoliticized understanding of democracy that emerged as a reaction to the experience of totalitarianism. By examining the historical, institutional, and ethical shifts that shaped constitutional development after World War II, it reveals how contemporary democracies have accepted the diagnosis that the rise of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes was caused by an inherent flaw within democracy, particularly its inability to counteract subversive movements that harness legitimacy from plebiscitarian methods and mass mobilization. The anxiety towards unconstrained collectivities and majoritarian power has led intellectuals in both the United States and Europe to re-conceptualize democracy as the distribution of fundamental rights, as opposed to the distribution of self-governing power amongst citizens to collectively determine public affairs. As a result of this emerging consensus, the participatory dimension of democratic politics was attenuated in the name of preserving the idea of democracy safeguarded through judicial or quasi-judicial means. Although this conceptual shift has been obscured by its use of familiar jargons from early modern political thought, this dissertation offers a critical inquiry into understanding how the core premises of constitutional democracy has been historically reconstructed in a way that informs the rise of juristocracy across different parts of the world.Item Reconstituting the War Powers: Towards a Deliberative Constitutional System for War(2014) Janow, Jeremy A.; Elkin, Stephen L.; Government and Politics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)This study of American constitutional theory and practice offers a distinctive perspective on the interminable war powers debate, a view away from formal constitutional settlement and towards a deliberative constitutional politics for war. Contemporary war powers scholarship centers on the question of how the rise of discretionary executive power and receding legislative influence over the use of military force should be constitutionally evaluated and addressed. This dissertation shows that underlying the conventional divide between congressionalist and presidentialist interpretations of the Constitution are competing theories about how such a balance of powers is to be politically constituted that have important implications for the interbranch politics of warmaking. The predominate framing of the war powers debate has been from the vantage point of legal constitutionalism--centering on constitutional interpretation, statutory clarification, and ultimately judicial review to clearly establish the authority over the use of military force. After describing the theoretical promises of the formal entrenchment of the separation of powers, an examination of constitutional practice reveals this approach to be a contemporary construction that has tended to undermine the purposes to which it aspires. The dissertation then turns to consider a more fully political constitutionalism, a conception with roots in the American founding and which has seen a revival in recent scholarly discussions. Political constitutionalism accommodates continual discord over the proper boundaries of institutional authority in war and the inevitability of some executive discretion as inherent and potentially salutary elements of the political order. The analysis shows that the warmaking order that emerges from such a constitutional politics should not entail anything goes, but instead can be judged by the extent the branches engage in recurring interactions that amount to systemic deliberation, a standard drawn from the political form of the constitution itself. This study concludes with a sketch of how processes of legal constitutionalism might be integrated into the deliberative interbranch warmaking politics aspired to by political constitutionalism and a view towards the broader political foundations of a deliberative constitutional system for war.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 WHO IS A PERSON AND WHY? A STUDY OF PERSONHOOD IN THEORY AND THE LAW(2012) Chandler Garcia, Lynne Marie; McIntosh, Wayne; Government and Politics; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)This study concerns what it means to be a person and the role the law plays in bestowing the status of person. The purpose of this dissertation is to further our understanding of how courts in the U.S., and especially the U.S. Supreme Court, have defined "person" as a legal construct within Constitutional law. In order to achieve this, court decisions concerning the personhood of key entities with a claim to personhood are analyzed and compared in order to yield a more meaningful understanding of the word "person." The entities studied include slaves, corporations, fetuses, and higher-order animals. To focus the study, several theoretical dichotomies are presented that unite the scholarship of personhood as it pertains to each of these entities. These include the dichotomy between a human being and person; property and person; and inclusion or exclusion in a community of persons. Each of these entities is then thoroughly examined in terms of the theories of personhood that are applicable to that entity, the particular historical and political circumstances that surround each entity, and finally the court decisions that determined that entity's status as a person. Through careful analysis of court documents, the study tests to see if the legal decisions reflect the dichotomies between person and human being or person and property. Further, these legal decisions are compared in order to determine if the courts have been consistent in the bestowal of personhood. Through a thorough analysis of judicial decisions concerning personhood combined with a theoretical foundation of the interdisciplinary discussions that inform and affect judicial and moral personhood, this study seeks a more concrete answer to the question, "Who is a person and why?"