Matching Items (142)
Description
Perceptions of neighborhood disorder have been studied by researchers in many ways since social disorganization theory was first introduced in the 1930s. However, few studies have focused explicitly on nonresident perceptions of neighborhood disorder. Further still, investigations regarding how race/ethnicity and gender may influence this population’s responses are also lacking in the present literature. This study intends to close some of the gap in this area of research.This study uses qualitative analysis to focus on Hispanic and Caucasian nonresidents’ responses to a single photographic stimulus. This study focuses on the following: (1) perception of neighborhood disorder, (2) gender-specific neighborhood perceptions of disorder, (3) inclusion of race-identifying words, specifically in terms of frequency among Hispanic respondents, and (4) prevalence of negative adjective use. Previous research has discovered that nonresidents have associated race with neighborhood disorder despite the absence of people in the surveying/data collection methods. By further investigating this topic, this research aims to analyze the responses more closely regarding the response affect (i.e., positive, neutral, and negative) with negative adjectives and race-identifying words. The findings from this study may encourage future investigation into implicit and explicit biases focused on the possible unconscious connection of race/ethnicity and neighborhood disorder in individual perceptions.
ContributorsAdamowicz, Ashley Lynne (Author) / Spohn, Cassia (Thesis advisor) / Wallace, Danielle (Committee member) / Mitchell, Ojmarrh (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
While sexual assault is a crime that frequently occurs, public perceptions tend to greatly differ from the reality of the act. Sexual assault is the most underreported crime in the United States. This is perhaps due to the negative stigma that surrounds victims of sexual assault and the presence of rape myths in society today. Perceptions of sexual assault can vary depending on the relationship between the victim and the offender and the presence of physical evidence, if any, that was collected at the scene of the crime. This study uses data on sex crimes reported to the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in 2008, to address the following research questions: How are sexual assault cases prosecuted when the offender is a stranger vs. non-stranger to the victim? Does physical evidence play a role in the charging decisions of stranger vs. non-stranger cases? Data are analyzed using logistic and multinomial regression. Findings show that there is little to no significance among victim-offender relationship and charging decision, but this varies among different evidence types. Implications of this study and areas of future research are discussed.
ContributorsWeaver, Cheyenne Marie (Author) / Yan, Shi (Thesis advisor) / Holtfreter, Kristy (Committee member) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2024
Description
Since the start of the war on drugs, studies have found racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes among defendants convicted of drug offenses; however, several gaps in the drug literature remain regarding disparity-producing mechanisms, the role of drug offense characteristics, disparities in understudied groups, and possible solutions to unwarranted disparities in drug case outcomes. Using felony case-level data from the state of Florida (n = 3,058 felony drug cases), this dissertation examines three interrelated studies. Study 1 examines bail and pretrial detention practices as disparity-producing mechanisms in drug offense cases. The results of Study 1 suggest that significant variations in bail schedules in Florida’s 20 judicial circuits result in jurisdictional variation in the likelihood of pretrial detention, which subsequently, results in jurisdictional variation in pretrial and sentencing outcomes among drug offenders, given the direct effect of pretrial detention on case outcomes. Study 2 examines racial, ethnic, and immigration status disparities in pretrial and sentencing outcomes across various types of drug offenses and drug substances. The results of Study 2 suggest the presence of racial and ethnic disparities in drug case outcomes in Florida’s circuit courts, as well as the moderating role of drug offense characteristics on the effects of race and ethnicity on pretrial and sentencing outcomes. Study 3 examines whether progressive chief prosecutors, who campaign on a platform to reduce and, in some cases, refuse to prosecute low-level drug offenses, handle drug offenses differently than traditional prosecutors. The results of Study 3 indicate support that progressive chief prosecutors in Florida reduce mass incarceration and unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities in case processing and sentencing outcomes in drug offenses; however, there is still room for improvement in the progressive prosecution movement in Florida. The results of each study have direct implications for theory and policies aimed at creating a more effective and fair criminal justice system.
ContributorsOramas Mora, Daniela (Author) / Mitchell, Ojmarrh (Thesis advisor) / Spohn, Cassia (Thesis advisor) / Pizarro, Jesenia (Committee member) / Peguero, Anthony (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2024
Description
Prosecutors played an important role in the rise of mass incarceration and the perpetuation of racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal legal system in the United States. The progressive prosecution movement emerged as a response to those issues and, although the movement has sparked significant debate, there has been relatively little empirical research examining whether progressive lead prosecutors reduce excess punishment and alleviate disparities. In this dissertation, I partnered with two prosecutors’ offices with progressive lead prosecutors to help fill that gap. Using case processing records obtained from both offices (all adult criminal cases initiated between 2017-2022), I found that prosecutors under progressive lead prosecutors tended to be less punitive in charging and plea-bargaining, but their less punitive approach did not eliminate disparities. While larger plea-discounts under one of the progressive lead prosecutors eliminated the racial disparity in that decision point, disparities in case declination/dismissal, diversion, and felony downgrade decisions remained, even under the more progressive administrations. From interviews with line prosecutors, supervisors, and the lead prosecutors in both jurisdictions (N=43), I found that prosecutors in these offices faced barriers to implementing reform both from within their office, in the form of the principal-agent and mid-level manager problems, and from outside of the office, in the form of resistance from judges, law enforcement, and some segments of the public, as well as a lack of cooperation from defense attorneys. Broadly, my findings highlight the fluid nature of power within courts and the tendency of court communities to seek homoeostasis and minimize reforms, even when those reforms originate from within the court community.
ContributorsBowman, Rachel (Author) / Gould, Jon (Thesis advisor) / Spohn, Cassia (Thesis advisor) / Mitchell, Ojmarrh (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2024
Description
The #MeToo Movement has sparked debate across the world as to how prevalent sexual assault is and what can be done to help survivors. Although sexual assaults are the least likely crime to be reported to police, it is important to examine the criminal justice system’s treatment of these cases. The focus of this thesis is on the prosecution of sexual assault cases. Specifically, the goal is to uncover the factors that impact prosecutorial decision-making in sexual assault cases across three different timepoints. This study examines qualitative interviews conducted in 2010 with 30 Deputy District Attorneys from Los Angeles, California. Results reveal that prosecutors’ largely rely on their “gut feelings” about whether a case will be successful based on a combination of factors, including: victim credibility, availability of evidence, and corroboration of the victim’s story, just to name a few. The study concludes with an examination of these results, a discussion on the limitations of the study and a guide for future research, and what policy changes can come from these findings.
ContributorsHale, Julianna (Author) / Talbot, Kathleen (Thesis advisor) / Stolzenberg, Stacia (Committee member) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Inmate misconduct, and the formal disciplinary proceeding that follow official misconduct, is a common occurrence within correctional institutions. Decisions regarding punishment sanction post-disciplinary proceeding are important because they have direct implications for inmate freedom of movement within the institutional setting, yet this decision point has rarely been the subject of empirical research. Research that does look at this decision point commonly focuses on the presence or absence of a single category of disciplinary punishment – that being solitary confinement or disciplinary segregation. As such, prior research fails to observe the full range of post-disciplinary punishment options.
Addressing this gap in the literature, this study provides the first rigorous empirical examination of the inmate-level characteristics that influence punishment outcome following guilty institutional misconduct proceedings. Guided by criminal sentencing literature, the inmate- level characteristics are divided into groups of legal factors, quasi-legal factors, and extra-legal factors. Representing a significant advancement beyond prior research, this study operationalizes punishment outcome in two ways – as an interval-level ordered sanction severity scale and as individual punishment categories. A series of multivariate models with sample selection corrections are estimated to model the direct and interactive effects of the legal, quasi-legal, and extra-legal inmate characteristics on punishment outcome.
Results of the fully-saturated direct effects models reveal a consistent pattern across both operationalizations of the punishment outcome. The legal factor of misconduct offense and the prosocial behavior quasi-legal factors of working a prison job and program involvement are significantly related to punishment outcomes. The quasi-legal factor representing criminogenic risk and the extra-legal factors of inmate gender and race/ethnicity are not significantly related to punishment outcomes. When the direct effects models re-estimated on samples split by inmate gender and race/ethnicity, however, the extra-legal factors of gender and race/ethnicity condition the effects of some of the legal and quasi-legal factors on punishment outcome. Results of this study suggest that, holding constant the effect of legal misconduct-related factors, disparities exist in post-disciplinary sanctioning based on inmate race/ethnicity and gender.
Addressing this gap in the literature, this study provides the first rigorous empirical examination of the inmate-level characteristics that influence punishment outcome following guilty institutional misconduct proceedings. Guided by criminal sentencing literature, the inmate- level characteristics are divided into groups of legal factors, quasi-legal factors, and extra-legal factors. Representing a significant advancement beyond prior research, this study operationalizes punishment outcome in two ways – as an interval-level ordered sanction severity scale and as individual punishment categories. A series of multivariate models with sample selection corrections are estimated to model the direct and interactive effects of the legal, quasi-legal, and extra-legal inmate characteristics on punishment outcome.
Results of the fully-saturated direct effects models reveal a consistent pattern across both operationalizations of the punishment outcome. The legal factor of misconduct offense and the prosocial behavior quasi-legal factors of working a prison job and program involvement are significantly related to punishment outcomes. The quasi-legal factor representing criminogenic risk and the extra-legal factors of inmate gender and race/ethnicity are not significantly related to punishment outcomes. When the direct effects models re-estimated on samples split by inmate gender and race/ethnicity, however, the extra-legal factors of gender and race/ethnicity condition the effects of some of the legal and quasi-legal factors on punishment outcome. Results of this study suggest that, holding constant the effect of legal misconduct-related factors, disparities exist in post-disciplinary sanctioning based on inmate race/ethnicity and gender.
ContributorsGinsburg Kempany, Katherine (Author) / Hepburn, John R. (Thesis advisor) / Reisig, Michael D (Committee member) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
While there is a good amount of research focused on sex offenders as a whole, only a limited number of studies examine variations within these offenders, how people view the variations, and why their opinions may differ. This study focuses on the interconnections among gender norms, rape myth acceptance, and the perception of sex offenders by administering an online student survey. The survey measured rape myth acceptance and adherence to traditional gender roles to see how they affected perceptions of sex offenders. Perceptions were measured using vignettes that were varied by gender and the situation described. Results showed that higher rape myth acceptance would decrease the blameworthiness of the offender, that the offender was seen as more blameworthy when the offender was a male, and that women tended to see the offender as more blameworthy than men did. The type of sexual situation did not have an impact on blameworthiness, nor did adherence to gender roles. The findings support past research that suggests that rape myth acceptance can impact people’s opinions about offenders in sexual situations and specifically that these opinions differ depending on the gender of the offender. With some offenders being viewed as more blameworthy than others, it is necessary to examine sex offense laws to see how they may disproportionately affect some offenders and implement harsher punishments than the public may deem necessary.
ContributorsArenas, Lauren (Author) / Spohn, Cassia (Thesis advisor) / Fradella, Henry F. (Committee member) / Stolzenberg Roosevelt, Stacia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Prior sentencing research, especially research on cumulative disadvantage, has mainly focused on the treatment of male defendants, and little attention has been paid to female defendants, especially minority female defendants. Drawing on the intersectional vulnerability and focal concerns perspectives, the current study emphasizes the need to examine disparity in sentencing through an intersectional lens and across multiple decision-making points. Using the State Court Processing Statistics dataset (SCPS) from 1990-2009, this paper investigates the impact that race/ethnicity has for female defendants across individual and successive stages in the sentencing process. The results suggest that race operates through direct and indirect pathways to cause lengthier sentences for Black female defendants compared to White female defendants, thus providing evidence of cumulative disadvantage against Black female defendants. Theoretical, research, and policy implications will be discussed.
ContributorsKramer, Kelsey Layne (Author) / Wang, Xia (Thesis advisor) / Spohn, Cassia (Committee member) / Telep, Cody (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
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
Yersinia enterocolitica is a major foodborne pathogen found worldwide that causes approximately 87,000 human cases and approximately 1,100 hospitalizations per year in the United States. Y. enterocolitica is a very unique pathogen with the domesticated pig acting as the main animal reservoir for pathogenic bio/serotypes, and as the primary source of human infection. Similar to other gastrointestinal infections, Yersinia enterocolitica is known to trigger autoimmune responses in humans. The most frequent complication associated with Y. enterocolitica is reactive arthritis - an aseptic, asymmetrical inflammation in the peripheral and axial joints, most frequently occurring as an autoimmune response in patients with the HLA-B27 histocompatability antigen. As a foodborne illness it may prove to be a reasonable explanation for some of the cases of arthritis observed in past populations that are considered to be of unknown etiology. The goal of this dissertation project was to study the relationship between the foodborne illness -Y. enterocolitica, and the incidence of arthritis in individuals with and without contact with the domesticated pig.
ContributorsBrown, Starletta (Author) / Hurtado, Ana M (Thesis advisor) / Chowell-Puente, Gerardo (Committee member) / Hill, Kim (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015