Suchergebnisse

""Cover""; ""Title""; ""Copyright""; ""Contents""; ""Notes on Contributors""; ""Introduction""; ""Part I Policy Choices and Mass Punishment""; ""1 What We Know, Do Not Know, and Need to Know About Sentencing and Mass Incarceration in the U.S. and What â#x80;#x9C;Sentencingâ#x80;#x9D; Research Could Teach Us""; ""2 Mass Probation and Inequality: Race, Class, and Gender Disparities in Supervision and Revocation""; ""3 Sowing the Seeds of Future Justice System Disparities: School Punishment and the School-to-Prison Pipeline""; ""Part II Disparities in Pre-Conviction Processes""

"Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance" is an annual series of volumes that publishes scholarly work in criminology and criminal justice studies, sociology of law, and the sociology of deviance and social control. These are very broad topics, and the series reflects this breadth. The series includes theoretical contributions, critical reviews of literature, empirical research, and methodological innovations. The series especially showcases "big picture" pieces that review and critically reconceptualize what is known and what remains to be understood about broad directions of research and theorizing about crime, justice, law, deviance, and social control. In addition, the series showcases a diversity of methodological approaches. "Volume 2" demonstrates such methodological diversity by presenting quantitative studies, ethnographies and discourse analyses. Through an application of these methodologies, the authors examine sanctions, crime and fear and legal and social control organizations and processes. The volume concludes with four chapters contributing to theory development.

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.

Criminal sentencing is, along with arresting and prosecuting, among the most important of formal social control decisions. In this study we use hierarchical modeling to test hypotheses about contextual level influences and cross level interaction effects on local court decisions. Most of the explanatory "action," our analysis shows, is at the individual case level in criminal sentencing. We also find evidence that local contextual features–such as court organizational culture, court caseload pressure, and racial and ethnic composition–affect sentencing outcomes, either directly or in interaction with individual factors. We conclude by discussing theoretical implications of our findings, and how our study points out some dilemmas among civil rights, local autonomy and organizational realities of criminal courts.

We examine the differences in the sentencing of those who plead guilty and those convicted by jury trial among defendants convicted of serious violent offenses. Drawing from a focal concerns and court communities perspective on court decision making, we develop several hypotheses about jury trial penalties for serious violent offenders, and how such penalties may vary by offense characteristics, defendant characteristics, and court contexts. Our hierarchical models using Pennsylvania sentencing data from 1997 to 2000 reveal that defendants are substantially penalized if they exercise their right to a jury trial and then lose. Furthermore, this jury trial penalty is not evenly assessed, but depends on the seriousness and type of offense, defendant criminal history, and court contextual characteristics such as caseload, court community size, local violent crime rates, and the size of local black populations.

We examine downward departures for serious violent offenders, using quantitative and qualitative data from Pennsylvania. We find that offense severity and prior record have negative direct effects on downward departures, but a positive interaction effect on them. Offenders convicted of aggravated assault, those who plead guilty, young black women, and offenders sentenced in large urban courts are more likely to receive downward departures, whereas those convicted by trial, young Hispanic males, and offenders sentenced in small rural courts are less likely to receive them. We argue that downward departures represent local "corrections" to guideline recommendations when there is a mismatch between guidelines and local court actors' definitions of key focal concerns of sentencing for serious violent offenders.