Matching Items (12)
Filtering by
- Genre: Doctoral Dissertation
Description
The study of non-U.S. citizens in criminal justice system outcomes has often been neglected in the sentencing literature. When citizenship is considered, there are generally no distinctions made within this group. The research fails to consider differences according to legal status, race/ethnicity, nationality and other distinctive markers that might play a role in sentencing outcomes. Using federal sentencing data collected by the United States Sentencing Commission for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008, this study examines the effect of offender citizenship status, legal status, and national origin on the likelihood of imprisonment and length of imprisonment for offenders convicted of drug offenses. The current study considers differences among foreign-born and Latino immigrant subgroups (e.g., Colombian, Cuban, Dominican, and Mexican nationals). The key findings in this dissertation include: (1) non-U.S. citizens have greater odds of imprisonment than U.S. citizens. However, non-U.S. citizen offenders receive significantly shorter prison terms relative to U.S. citizen offenders; (2) undocumented immigrants are more likely to be incarcerated compared to similarly situated authorized immigrants and U.S. citizens. However, legal status does not have an effect on sentence length; and (3) with respect to national origin, Mexican nationals are significantly more likely than Colombians to be incarcerated and are given significantly longer prison sentences than Dominican nationals. The implications of these findings and future research are addressed in the concluding chapter.
ContributorsValadez, Mercedes (Author) / Spohn, Cassia (Thesis advisor) / Wang, Xia (Committee member) / Wright, Kevin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
The dissertation examines treatment services received by youth on probation in the Maricopa County, Arizona. The project focuses on three primary issues: 1) the factors associated with receiving treatment services while on probation, 2) the factors associated with receiving treatment services through different funding streams, and 3) whether treatment services and specific characteristics of treatment services, particularly the funding source, influence recidivism outcomes of youth. To answer these questions the research used data obtained from the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department from July 2012 thru August 2014. Multivariate regression, along with statistical techniques to control for selection bias, were used to identify the factors associated with receiving treatment services, the factors associated with the funding source of treatment services, and the effect of treatment services on recidivism. The findings from the current dissertation suggest that the receipt of treatment services is not equal across groups, and particularly that minorities are less likely to receive treatment services compared to their White counterparts. Additionally, the findings reveal that certain characteristics of youth and the type of treatment service received influence the funding source, but the source of funding does not influence the effectiveness of the treatment services. Finally, using propensity score matching, the current dissertation found that treatment services were effective in reducing recidivism while under probation supervision and 6 months after probation supervision has ended. Implications for policy and research are discussed in light of these findings.
ContributorsWhite, Clair, Ph.D (Author) / Shafer, Michael (Thesis advisor) / Ready, Justin (Committee member) / Wang, Xia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
Since the 1990s, stop and frisk activities have been a cornerstone of the New York Police Department (NYPD). The manner in which the NYPD has carried out stop, question, and frisks (SQFs), however, has been a focal point of discussion, resulting in public outrage and two major lawsuits. Recently, the Federal District Court Judge ruled that the NYPD was engaging in unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices that targeted predominately Black and Latino New Yorkers. Questions surrounding the NYPD’s SQF practices have almost exclusively focused on racial and ethnic disproportionality in the rate of stops without necessarily considering what transpired during the stop. This study will fill that void by examining the prevalence and nature of use of force during those stops, along with testing the minority threat hypothesis. By combining micro-level measures from the NYPD’s 2012 “Stop, Question, and Frisk” database with macro-level variables collected from the United States Census Bureau, the current study examines police use of force in the context of SQF activities. The results should help judges, policy makers, police officers, and scholars understand the nature of police use of force in the context of SQFs.
ContributorsMorrow, Weston (Author) / White, Michael D. (Thesis advisor) / Wallace, Danielle M (Committee member) / Wang, Xia (Committee member) / Fradella, Henry F. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
Gender disparity in sentencing outcomes has a long tradition in sentencing literature, with a substantial body of evidence indicating that women offenders are treated with greater leniency over male counterparts. The prior literature on gender and sentencing, however, has ignored broader social contexts within which judicial decision-making occurs. This dissertation attempts to address this limitation by dissecting the nature of gender disparity through ecological lenses. Using federal sentencing data for FY 2001 through 2010 and other complementary data sets, this dissertation, divided into two major sub-studies, has examined the roles of two social contextual variables, such as religioius and political conservatism, in producing gender differentials in sentencing outcomes.
ContributorsKim, Byung Bae (Author) / Spohn, Cassia (Thesis advisor) / Wang, Xia (Committee member) / Wright, Kevin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
In this dissertation, I examine the treatment and sentencing of American Indian defendants. This work contributes to research on cumulative disadvantage and the role race and social context play to influence federal sentencing outcomes. Disparities in federal sentencing for racial and ethnic minorities are an important concern to scholars and policy makers. Literature suggests that blacks and Latinos are sentenced more harshly than similarly situated white offenders. These findings are concerning because they suggest that minorities are treated unfairly by the criminal justice system, questions the legitimacy of how offenders are processed and treated, and defendants of color who are meted out tougher punishments face substantial social and economic difficulties thereafter. Although the black-white and Latino-white disparities have been identified and highlighted, less is known about whether disparities extend to other minority groups, and consequently little is known about the treatment of these neglected groups.
I investigate whether American Indian defendants experience cumulative disadvantages at multiple decision points, disadvantage over time, and the effect of social context on drawing on American Indian disadvantage, the focal concerns and minority threat perspectives. The focal concerns perspective is used to develop hypotheses about how American Indian defendants will receive harsher punishments at multiple decision points. I also use this perspective to predict that American Indian disadvantages will increase over time. Lastly, I examine social context and its effect on punishment decisions for American Indians using the minority threat perspective. I hypothesize that social context impacts how American Indian defendants are sentenced at the federal level.
Data come from the Federal Justice Statistics Program Data Series, the US Census, and the Uniform Crime Report, with a focus on data gathered from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the United States Sentencing Commission. A range of modeling strategies are used to test the hypotheses including multinomial logistic regression, ordinary least squares regression, and multilevel modeling.
The results suggest that cumulative disadvantages against American Indian defendants is pronounced, American Indian disparity over time is significant for certain outcomes, and social context plays a limited role in American Indian sentencing disadvantage.
I investigate whether American Indian defendants experience cumulative disadvantages at multiple decision points, disadvantage over time, and the effect of social context on drawing on American Indian disadvantage, the focal concerns and minority threat perspectives. The focal concerns perspective is used to develop hypotheses about how American Indian defendants will receive harsher punishments at multiple decision points. I also use this perspective to predict that American Indian disadvantages will increase over time. Lastly, I examine social context and its effect on punishment decisions for American Indians using the minority threat perspective. I hypothesize that social context impacts how American Indian defendants are sentenced at the federal level.
Data come from the Federal Justice Statistics Program Data Series, the US Census, and the Uniform Crime Report, with a focus on data gathered from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the United States Sentencing Commission. A range of modeling strategies are used to test the hypotheses including multinomial logistic regression, ordinary least squares regression, and multilevel modeling.
The results suggest that cumulative disadvantages against American Indian defendants is pronounced, American Indian disparity over time is significant for certain outcomes, and social context plays a limited role in American Indian sentencing disadvantage.
ContributorsRedner-Vera, Erica N. (Author) / Wang, Xia (Thesis advisor) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / Wallace, Danielle (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
In recent decades, the United States has experienced a wave of immigration, an economic recession, and several terroristic attacks. In response, the government has scapegoated and blamed undocumented immigrants of color for recent social ills. As a result, a large share of government resources has been allocated to the enforcement and processing of immigration violations. Consequently, the number of immigration cases processed in U.S. federal courts has spiraled to nearly 50% of bookings and 34% of federal sentencing cases. Yet, immigration offenses have received little empirical attention in the courts and sentencing literature due in part to differences in the way immigration offenses are processed compared to other federal offense types, and relatedly, the empirical difficulties immigration offenses pose for analysis. Nevertheless, the increased representation of immigration offenses in federal courts, along with the punitive rhetoric and heightened social control targeting undocumented immigrants of color, warrants a comprehensive assessment of how immigration cases are processed in U.S. federal courts. Accordingly, this dissertation seeks to identify inequality in the processing of immigration cases by examining: 1) cumulative disadvantage within immigration cases; 2) contextual disparity and how social context interacts with ethnicity to influence multiple federal court outcomes within immigration cases; and 3) ethnic disparity within immigration cases over time.
Data come from the Federal Justice Statistics Program Data Series, the U.S. Census, the Uniform Crime Reports, Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, the National Judicial Center, and the U.S. Department of Justice. The quantitative analysis addresses the first question by employing a cumulative disadvantage approach where multiple decision points are considered and the effects of prior stages on subsequent outcomes. The quantitative analysis proceeds to address the second question by using multilevel modeling for multiple court outcomes. The longitudinal analysis is separately conducted on sentence length for 18-year data, from 1994 through 2012, to assess racial and ethnic disparity over time.
The results indicate that cumulative disadvantage is present within immigration cases, that social context influences certain decision points, and that ethnic disparity has diminished over time in some districts.
Data come from the Federal Justice Statistics Program Data Series, the U.S. Census, the Uniform Crime Reports, Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, the National Judicial Center, and the U.S. Department of Justice. The quantitative analysis addresses the first question by employing a cumulative disadvantage approach where multiple decision points are considered and the effects of prior stages on subsequent outcomes. The quantitative analysis proceeds to address the second question by using multilevel modeling for multiple court outcomes. The longitudinal analysis is separately conducted on sentence length for 18-year data, from 1994 through 2012, to assess racial and ethnic disparity over time.
The results indicate that cumulative disadvantage is present within immigration cases, that social context influences certain decision points, and that ethnic disparity has diminished over time in some districts.
ContributorsBeckman, Laura Owen (Author) / Wang, Xia (Thesis advisor) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / Zatz, Marjorie S. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
From a theoretical and policy perspective, little is known about the life-course development of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people in criminology. In particular, turning points for LGBTQ+ people have not received much theoretical discussion or testing. The lack of theoretical discussion persists even though LGBTQ+ people are overrepresented in the criminal legal system. To address this gap, the current dissertation seeks to queer the life-course perspective in criminology. This dissertation takes stock of the relevancy of traditional turning points (marriage and employment) for LGBTQ+ people, examines through a critical lens the cis- and hetero-normative construction of life-course and theoretical criminology, and theorizes turning points specific to LGBTQ+ people. This dissertation draws on scholarship from various disciplines to present and test an interdisciplinary framework that theorizes three queer turning points: (1) the coming-out process (Chapter 2), (2) family reaction to LGBTQ+ identity (Chapter 3), and (3) establishing a chosen family (Chapter 4). This study is among the first to collect original data via life history interviews with 25 formerly incarcerated LGBTQ+ people to offer comprehensive and in-depth examinations into the relationships between the coming out process, family reaction to LGBTQ+ identity, and chosen family on offending and desistance trajectories. Collectively, findings indicate that these queer turning points are significant life experiences that shape the development and offending/desistance trajectories among formerly incarcerated LGBTQ+ people. In particular, these queer turning points are linked to increases and decreases in offending across the life-course, which are highly contextualized by generational and structural factors. In addition, this work explores how coming out, family reaction, and chosen family shape interactions with the criminal legal system among LGBTQ+ people. Overall, this dissertation expands the queer perspective within life-course criminology through the lens of queer turning points and can shape future policies that meet the needs and best support LGBTQ+ people.
ContributorsMorgan, Skyler (Author) / Fox, Kathleen A. (Thesis advisor) / Wang, Xia (Committee member) / Sweeten, Gary (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
For 40 years, rape myth scholars have assessed the effects of rape myths on perceptions of and responses to rape, demonstrating that rape myths pose significant barriers to rape prevention efforts and contribute to attrition. Most of this research centers female victims, theorizing rape myths’ relationship to gender stereotypes and how they maintain women’s oppression. However, scholars have largely ignored the relationship between rape myths and race and how rape myths contribute to racial oppression. I used an intersectional framework to reconceptualize rape myths as tools of both gender and racial oppression. I argued that rape myths have race-specific effects on rape perceptions and case processing outcomes, that rape myths contribute to racial disparities that align with racist social hierarchies, and that their influence is structural and systemic. I used three studies to assess these assertions. First, I used a randomized vignette survey to explore how victim and perpetrator race (e.g., White, Black, and Latinx) moderate the effects of rape myths (e.g., “victim precipitation,” “accidental rape,” “women cry rape,” and the “real rape” myth), on victim and perpetrator blame in a hypothetical rape (Chapter 2). Second, I assessed how victim race (e.g., White, Black, and Latinx) moderates the effects of rape myth factors (e.g., victim precipitation, credibility issues, real rape consistency) on police case processing decisions in real sexual assault cases (Chapter 3). Third, I analyzed sex crimes detectives’ descriptions of victims, reports, and decisions to determine how rape myths influence their focal concerns (Chapter 4).
Collectively, findings indicate that rape myths contribute to racial oppression. In Chapters 2 and 3 I found that race moderated the effects of rape myths on rape perceptions and police decisions. Further, rape myths had more negative impacts for Black and Latinx victims, than White victims. Finally, in Chapter 4, I found that detectives use rape myths to evaluate victim credibility, evidence, and case viability, suggesting that rape myths’ influence is structural and systemic. In addition to implications for practitioners, these findings indicate that rape myth scholars should rearticulate rape myths and their effects intersectionally, with particular attention to intersections with race.
ContributorsCoble, Suzanne St. George (Author) / Spohn, Cassia (Thesis advisor) / Stolzenberg, Stacia (Committee member) / Wang, Xia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
Contemporary research has examined the relationship between determinate sentencing reforms and unwarranted punishment disparities in states and the federal criminal justice system. Recent investigations suggest that legal developments in federal sentencing—namely, the High Court’s rulings in U.S. v. Booker (2005) and Gall/Kimbrough v. U.S. (2007) which rendered and subsequently reaffirmed the federal guidelines as advisory—have not altered disparities associated with imprisonment outcomes. Punishment disparities following Booker and Gall, particularly racial and ethnic disparities, have been linked to Assistant U.S. Attorneys’ (AUSAs) use of substantial assistance departures. What remains unanswered in the literature is whether the changes in AUSAs’ decision making following the landmark cases has enduring effects and whether the effects are conditioned by defendants’ race/ethnicity and the type of case (guidelines cases or mandatory minimum cases), and whether the use of substantial assistance varies across U.S. District Courts.
Accordingly, these questions are examined using sentencing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, coupled with data from the National Judicial Center, U.S. Census Bureau, Uniform Crime Reports, and Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. This study looks at 465,476 defendants convicted from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2010 across 89 federal districts. A series of multilevel discontinuity regression models are estimated to assess the short-term and long-term effects of the Booker and Gall/Kimbrough decisions on AUSAs’ use of substantial assistance departures, accounting for contextual differences between federal district courts.
The results show that AUSAs are less likely to seek motions for substantial assistance immediately and in the long term in the post-Booker period but are more likely to seek substantial assistance in the long term in the post-Gall/Kimbrough period. These effects, however, are restricted to the models that include all cases and guidelines cases. The interaction models show that Hispanic defendants facing a mandatory minimum sentence are less likely to receive a substantial assistance departure immediately and in the long term following the Court’s Booker decision. Moreover, the use of substantial assistance varies across federal districts. The results are discussed in relation to their implications for theory, courts and sentencing policy, and future research on punishment outcomes.
Accordingly, these questions are examined using sentencing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, coupled with data from the National Judicial Center, U.S. Census Bureau, Uniform Crime Reports, and Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. This study looks at 465,476 defendants convicted from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2010 across 89 federal districts. A series of multilevel discontinuity regression models are estimated to assess the short-term and long-term effects of the Booker and Gall/Kimbrough decisions on AUSAs’ use of substantial assistance departures, accounting for contextual differences between federal district courts.
The results show that AUSAs are less likely to seek motions for substantial assistance immediately and in the long term in the post-Booker period but are more likely to seek substantial assistance in the long term in the post-Gall/Kimbrough period. These effects, however, are restricted to the models that include all cases and guidelines cases. The interaction models show that Hispanic defendants facing a mandatory minimum sentence are less likely to receive a substantial assistance departure immediately and in the long term following the Court’s Booker decision. Moreover, the use of substantial assistance varies across federal districts. The results are discussed in relation to their implications for theory, courts and sentencing policy, and future research on punishment outcomes.
ContributorsCano, Mario V., 1982- (Author) / Spohn, Cassia C (Thesis advisor) / Wang, Xia (Committee member) / Wright, Kevin A (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
The relationship between ethnicity and police-related outcomes has garnered significant attention from researchers. Although prior research has advanced scholarship, important questions still remain. First, previous studies about perceptions of police legitimacy have been conducted without examining whether this measure functions the same for different ethnic groups. Second, only a few studies have examined the effect of ethnicity on willingness to call the police, and they have produced mixed findings. Third, little attention has been paid to the effect of ethnic context on willingness to call the police. Against this backdrop, this dissertation extends prior work by providing an empirical assessment of willingness to call the police in relation to item-, individual-, and contextual-levels of ethnic effect. Specifically, Chapter 2 examines whether the perceptions of police legitimacy measure is invariant between Whites and Hispanics. Chapter 3 applies the group position thesis and Tyler’s process-based model of policing to assess the relationship between ethnicity and willingness to call the police. Chapter 4 investigates the extent to which theoretical arguments drawn from the minority threat perspective and social disorganization theory can be applied to explain the relationship between ethnic context and willingness to call the police. Using data collected from the Arizona Crime Victimization Survey (AZCVS) and the US Census, this dissertation produces three main findings. First, Chapter 2 finds that the perceptions of police legitimacy measure functions consistently across White and Hispanic subsamples. Second, Chapter 3 finds that Hispanics tended to show a lower level of trust in police compared to Whites, which in turn resulted in their unwillingness to call the police. This finding partially supports the notion that the group position thesis and Tyler’s process-based model can be combined to explain the relationship between ethnicity and willingness to call the police. Third, Chapter 4 finds that ethnic context affects individual willingness to call the police, partially through perceived risk of property crime victimization, suggesting that the minority threat perspective may be better able to explain the relationship between ethnic context and willingness to call the police than social disorganization theory. Given these findings, their implications for theory, future research, and policy are discussed.
ContributorsCheon, Hyunjung (Author) / Wang, Xia (Thesis advisor) / Katz, Charles M (Committee member) / Decker, Scott H (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021