Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Policy distraction: sentencing reform adoption as a diversion from rising social inequality

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the mid-1970s, more than two-thirds of U.S. states adopted some combination of sentencing reforms. This paper assessed the possibility that reforms were, at least, partly a reflection of a concerted effort of policymakers to divert attention away from social and economic inequalities. Event History Analysis was used to measure the relative change in the odds of adoption for four main reforms based on changes in several state-level economic, social, political, and demographic indicators. With some mixed findings, the analysis suggests that a number of state characteristics, including higher economic inequality (Gini coefficient), prior reform history, increased percent black, increased percent Hispanic (most models), increased unemployment, and, to a lesser extent, poverty rates significantly increased the rate of adoption for some reforms. The results suggest, among other things, that reforms were more likely to be passed when economic inequality increased.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beckett, K. (1997). Making crime pay : Law and order in contemporary American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barker, V. (2006). The politics of punishing - building a state governance theory of American imprisonment variation. Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology, 8, 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Oliver, W. M., & Marion, N. E. (2008). Political party platforms: Symbolic politics and criminal justice policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 397–413.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lynch, M. J. (2013). Political economy and crime: An overview. Journal of Crime and Justice, 36(2), 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Griffin, T., & Wooldredge, J. (2006). Sex-based disparities in felony dispositions before versus after sentencing reform in Ohio. Criminology, 44, 893–923.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson, B. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology, 41, 449–489.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson, B., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (2008). The social context of guidelines circumvention: The case of Federal District Courts. Criminology, 46, 737–783.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kramer, J., & Ulmer, J. (1996). Sentencing disparity and departure from guidelines. Justice Quarterly, 13, 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763–797.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wooldredge, J., Griffin, T., & Rauschenberg, F. (2005). (Un)anticipated effects of sentencing reform on the disparate treatment of defendants. Law & Society Review, 39, 835–873.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Griset, P. L. (1995). Determinate sentencing and agenda building - a case-study of the failure of a reform. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 349–362.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Griset, P. L. (1996). Determinate sentencing and administrative discretion over time served in prison: A case study of Florida. Crime and Delinquency, 42, 127–143.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Harmon, M. G. (2011). The imprisonment race: Unintended consequences of ‘fixed’ sentencing on people of color over time. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 9, 79–109.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Harmon, Mark G. 2013. ‘Fixed’ sentencing: The effect on imprisonment rates over time. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 29(3):369–397.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Harmon, M. G., & O’Brien, R. (2011). Gendered arrests or gendered sentencing: Explaining the narrowing of the gender gap in imprisonment over time: 1970–2008. Sociological Perspectives, 54, 641–664.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2004). The impact of sentencing guidelines on state-level sanctions: An analysis over time. Crime & Delinquency, 50, 395–411.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stemen, Don. 2007. Impact of state sentencing policies on incarceration rates in the United States, 1975–2002.

  19. Stemen, D., Rengifo, A., & Wilson, J. (2006). Of fragmentation and ferment: Impact of state sentencing policies on incarceration rates in the United States, 1975–2002. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tonry, M. (1995). Twenty years of sentencing reform: Steps forward, steps backward. Judicature, 78, 169–172.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang, Y., Maxwell, C. D., & Vaughn, M. S. (2009). The impact of state sentencing policies on the US prison population. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 190–199.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schneider, A. (2006). Patterns of change in the use of imprisonment in the American states: An integration of path dependence, punctuated equilibrium and policy design approaches. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 457–470.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gottschalk, M. (2006). The prison and the gallows : The politics of mass incarceration in America. In New York. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Warr, M. (1995). Public opinion on crime and punishment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 296–310.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hagan, J. (2010). Who are the criminals? : The politics of crime policy from the age of Roosevelt to the age of Reagan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tonry, M. (2011). Punishing race: A continuing American dilemma. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mays, G. L., & Ruddell, R. (2008). Making sense of criminal justice : Policies and practices. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0619/2006027029.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2016.

  28. Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. In Oxford. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bohm, R. M. (2006). ‘McJustice’: In the McDonaldization of criminal justice. Justice Quarterly, 23, 127–146.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Beckett, K., & Sasson, T. (2004). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge.

    Google Scholar 

  31. O’Brien, R. M. (2003). UCR violent crime rates, 1958-2000: Recorded and offender-generated trends. Social Science Research, 32, 499–518.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Scheingold, S. A. (1991). The politics of street crime: Criminal process and cultural obsession. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear : Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things (1st ed.). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  34. U.S. (2006). Bureau of the Census, historical poverty tables, 2004 (on-line). Washington DC.

  35. Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a rational society. New York: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimationsprobleme in Spätcapitalismus. Trans. Thomas Mccarthy as Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Western, B. (2005). Black-White wage inequalities, employment rates, and incarceration. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 553–578.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Freudenburg, W., & Alario, M. (2007). Weapons of mass distraction: Magicianship misdirection, and the dark side of legitimation. Sociological Forum, 22, 146–173.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. M. (1993). Social construction of target populations - implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334–347.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schneider, A., & Sidney, M. (2006). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? The Policy Studies Journal, 37, 103–119.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow : Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: New Press Distributed by Perseus Distribution.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tonry, M. (2009). Explanations of American punishment policies a national history. Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology, 11, 377–394.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Xie, Y. (1994). Log-multiplicative models for discrete-time discrete-covariate event-history data. Sociological Methodology, 30, 301–340.

    Google Scholar 

  44. U.S. (1996). Bureau of Justice Assistance. National survey of state sentencing structures. Washington, D.C.

  45. Frase, R. S. (2005). State sentencing guidelines: Diversity, consensus, and unresolved policy issues. Columbia Law Review, 105, 1190–1232.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Dickey, W. J., & Hollenhorst, P. (1999). Three-strikes laws: Five years later. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  47. U.S. (1970). “Bureau of Labor Statistics. Geographic profile of employment and unemployment, 1965 (through 2008).” U.S. Department of Labor.

  48. Frank, M. W. (2009). Inequality and growth in the United States: Evidence from a new state-level panel of income inequality. Economic Inequality, 47, 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  49. U.S. (1970). Bureau of the census, population estimates (on-line). Washington DC.

  50. U.S. (1970). Bureau of the Census. United States census (corresponding year). Washington D.C.

  51. U.S. (1970). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Prisoners in state and federal institutions on December 31, 1972 (Through 1983). Washington DC.

  52. U.S. (1984). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Correctional populations in the United States, 1984 (Through 1998). Washington DC.

  53. U.S. (1999). “Bureau of Justice Statistics. Prisoners, 1999 (through 2008).” Washington D.C.

  54. U.S. (2003). “Bureau of Justice Statistics. State prison expenditures, 2003.” Washington D.C.

  55. U.S., Federal Bureau of Investigation (1972). Uniform crime reporting program data, 1965 (through 2008). Washington DC.

  56. Hershey, Marjorie Randon. (2007). Party politics in America. 12th ed. New York: Pearson Longman. Retrieved (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip067/2006002846.html). Accessed 15 Feb 2016.

  57. Dubin, M. J. (2007). Party affiliations in the state legislatures : A year by year summary, 1796–2006. Jefferson: McFarland.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Edelman, L. (1990). Legal environments and organizational governance. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1401–1440.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Carroll, G. R. (1982). Dynamic analysis of discrete dependent variables: A didactic essay. Quality and Quantity, 17, 425–460.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wu, L. (2008). Cohort estimates of nonmarital fertility. Demography, 45, 193–207.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Rohwer, G. (2002). Techniques of event history modeling: New approaches to causal analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Zimring, F. E. (2001). The new politics of criminal justice. In D. Garland (Ed.), Mass imprisonment in the USA (pp. 145–149). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Jacobs, D., & Helms, R. (1996). Toward a political model of incarceration: A time-series examination of multiple explanations for prison admission rates. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 323–357.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Marvell, T. B. (1995). Sentencing guidelines and prison population-growth. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 85, 696–709.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Radosh, P. F. (2008). War on drugs: Gender and race inequities in crime control strategies. Criminal Justice Studies, 21, 167–178.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Beckett, K., & Western, B. (2001). Governing social marginality: Welfare, incarceration, and the transformation of state policy. Punishment and Society, 3, 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Frase, R. S. (1995). State sentencing guidelines - still going strong. Judicature, 78, 173–180.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Boerner, D., & Lieb, R. (2001). Sentencing reform in the other Washington. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 28, 71–136.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Von Hirsch, A. (1985). Past or future crimes: Deservedness and dangerousness in the sentencing of criminals. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Gottschalk, M. (2009). Money and mass incarceration: The bad, the mad, and penal reform. Criminology and Public Policy, 8, 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Jacobs, D., & Carmichael, J. T. (2001). The politics of punishment across time and space: A pooled time-series analysis of imprisonment rates. Social Forces, 80, 61–89.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Tonry, M., & Hatlestad, K. (1997). Building sentencing reform in overcrowded times: A comparative perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Tonry, Michael. (1995). Malign neglect: Race, crime, and punishment in America.

  74. Beckett, K., Nyrop, K., Pfingst, L., & Bowen, M. (2005). Drug use, drug possession arrests, and the question of race: Lessons from Seattle. Social Problems, 52, 419–441.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Tonry, M. (2004). Thinking about crime: Sense and sensibility in American penal culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Western, B. (2001). Race to incarcerate. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 575–576.

    Google Scholar 

  77. LaFree, G. (1998). Losing legitimacy: Street crime and the decline of social institutions in America. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Russell, K. (1999). The color of crime: Racial hoaxes, white fear, black protectionism, police harassment, and other macroaggressions. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR, 97207-0751, USA

    Mark G. Harmon

Authors
  1. Mark G. Harmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark G. Harmon.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harmon, M.G. Policy distraction: sentencing reform adoption as a diversion from rising social inequality. Crime Law Soc Change 73, 275–295 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-019-09861-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-019-09861-6

Search

Navigation