Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 163–189 | Cite as

Cross-Classified Multilevel Models: An Application to the Criminal Case Processing of Indicted Terrorists

Original Paper


This study provides an application of cross-classified multilevel models to the study of early case processing outcomes for suspected terrorists in U.S. federal district courts. Because suspected terrorists are simultaneously nested within terrorist organizations and criminal court environments, they are characterized by overlapping data hierarchies that involve cross-nested ecological contexts. Cross-classified models provide a useful but underutilized approach for analyzing such data. Using the American Terrorism Study (ATS), this research examines case dismissals, trial adjudications and criminal convictions for a sample of 574 terrorist suspects. Findings indicate that diverse factors affect case processing outcomes, including legal factors such as the number of counts, number of co-defendants, and statute of indictment, extralegal factors such as the ethnicity of the offender, and incident characteristics such as the type of terrorism target. Case processing outcomes also vary significantly across both terrorist groups and criminal courts and are partially explained by select group and court characteristics including the type of terrorist organization and the terrorism trial rate of the court. Results are discussed vis-à-vis contemporary research on terrorism punishments and future directions are suggested for additional applications of cross-classified models in criminological research.


Terrorism Prosecution Punishment Cross-classified models Cross-nested models Multilevel models 


  1. Albonetti C (1986) Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: toward a theory of discretionary decision making in felony case processings. Criminology 24:623–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albonetti C (1987) Prosecutorial discretion: the effects of uncertainty. Law Soc Rev 21:291–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albonetti CA (1990) Race and the probability of pleading guilty. J Quant Criminol 6(3):315–334Google Scholar
  4. Berk R (1983) An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. Am Soc Rev 48:386–398Google Scholar
  5. Bradely M, Damhousse K, Smith B (2009) Punishing terrorist: a re-examination of the U.S. federal sentencing in the postguidelines era. Int Crim Justice Rev 19:433–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Britt C (2000) Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Q 17:707–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brunson RK, Miller J (2009) Schools, neighborhoods, and adolescent conflicts: a situational examination of reciprocal dynamics. Justice Q 26(2):183–210Google Scholar
  8. Bushway S, Johnson B, Slocum L (2007) Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. J Quant Criminol 23:151–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byongook M, Zager LJ (2007) Police officers’ attitudes toward citizen support: focus on individual, organizational and neighborhood characteristic factors. Polic Int J Police Strateg Manag 30(3):484–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chermak S, Gruenewald J (2006) The media’s coverage of domestic terrorism. Justice Q 23:428–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Damphousse K, Shields C (2007) The morning after: assessing the effect of major terrorism events on prosecution strategies and outcomes. J Contemp Crim Justice 23:174–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Damphousse KR, Smith BL (2004) Terrorism and empirical testing: using indictment data to assess changes in terrorist conduct. In: Deflem M (ed) The sociology of crime, law and deviance. Elksevier Ltd., San Diego, CA, pp 75–90Google Scholar
  13. Dixon J (1995) The organizational context of criminal sentencing. Am J Sociol 100:1157–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenstein J, Flemming R, Nardulli P (1988) The contours of justice: communities and their courts. University Press of America, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Emerson R (1983) Holistic effects in social control decision-making. Law Soc Rev 17:425–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldstein H (1994) Multilevel cross-classified models. Sociol Methods Res 22:364–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldstein H (2011) Multilevel statistical models. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley, West Sussex, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Gottfredson G, Gottfredson D, Payne A, Gottfredson N (2005) School climate predictors of school disorder: results from a national study of delinquency prevention in schools. J Res Crime Delinq 42(4):412–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartley R, Maddan S, Spohn C (2007) Prosecutorial discretion: an examination of substantial assistance departures in federal crack-cocaine and powder-cocaine cases. Justice Q 24:382–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heckman J (1976) The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables, and a simple estimator for such models. Ann Econ Soc Meas 5:475–492Google Scholar
  22. Hox J (2002) Multilevel analyses: techniques and applications. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  23. Jayasinghe U, Marsh H, Bond N (2003) A multilevel cross-classified approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. J R Stat Soc 166:279–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson B (2006) The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: integrating judge- and county-level influences. Criminology 44:259–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson B (2010) Multilevel analysis in the study of crime and justice. Handb Quant Criminol 6:615–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson B, Ulmer J, Kramer J (2008) The social context of guidelines circumvention: the case of federal district courts. Criminology 46:737–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kautt P (2002) Location, location location: interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses. Justice Q 19:633–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirk D (2009) Unraveling the contextual effects on student suspension and juvenile arrest: the independent and interdependent influences of school, neighborhood, and family social controls. Criminology 47(2):479–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kreft IGG, De Leeuw J (1998) Introducing multilevel modeling. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  30. Kubrin C, Stewart E (2006) Predicting who reoffends: the neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology 44(1):165–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LaFree G, Dugan L, Korte R (2009) The impact of British counterterrorist strategies on political violence in Northern Ireland: comparing deterrence and backlash models. Criminology 47:17–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. LaFree G, Morris N, Dugan L (2010) Cross-national patterns of terrorism. Br J Criminol 50(4):622–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Landes WM (1978) An economic study of U.S. aircraft hijackings, 1961–1976. J Law Econ 21:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luke DA (2004) Multilevel modeling. In: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  35. Lum C, Kennedy L, Sherley A (2006) Are counter-terrorism strategies effective?: the results of the campbell systematic review on counter-terrorism evaluation research. J Exp Criminol 2(4):489–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Myers M, Talarico S (1987) The social contexts of criminal sentencing. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Osgood W, Anderson A (2004) Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency. Criminology 42(3):519–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raudenbush S, Bryk A (2002) Three-level models. In: Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Raudenbush SW, Liu X-F (2000) Statistical power and optimal design for multisite randomized trials. Psychol Methods 5:199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shermer LON, Johnson BD (2010) Criminal prosecutions: examining prosecutorial discretion and charge reductions in U.S. federal district courts. Justice Q 27:394–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shields CA, Damphousse KR, Smith BL (2006) Their day in court: assessing guilty pleas among terrorists. J Contemp Crim Justice 22:261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith BL (1994) Terrorism in America: pipe bombs and pipe dreams. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith B, Damphousse KR (1996) Punishing political offenders: the effect of political motive on federal sentencing decisions. Criminology 34:289–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith B, Damphousse KR (1998) Terrorism, politics, and punishment: a test of structural-contextual theory and the ‘liberation hypothesis’. Criminology 36:67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith B, Damphousse KR (2002) American terrorism study: patterns of behavior, investigation and prosecution of American terrorists, Final Report. U.S. Department of Justice. 1999-IJ-CX-0005Google Scholar
  46. Smith BL, Orvis GP (1993) America’s response to terrorism: an empirical analysis of federal intervention strategies during the 1980s. Justice Q 10:661–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith BL, Damphousse KR, Jackson F, Sellers A (2002) The prosecution and punishment of international terrorists in federal courts: 1980–1998. Criminol Public Policy 1:311–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith BL, Damphousse KR, Yang S, Ginther C (2005) Prosecuting politically motivated offenders: the impact of the terrorist label on criminal case outcomes: terrorism and the modern world. Int J Contemp Soc 42:209–226Google Scholar
  49. Snijders T (2005) Power and sample size in multilevel linear models. In: Everitt BS, Howell DC (eds) Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science, vol 3. Wiley, New York, pp 1570–1573Google Scholar
  50. Snijders T, Bosker RJ (1999) Multilevel analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  51. Spohn C, Fornago R (2009) U.S. Attorneys and substantial assistance departures: testing for interprosecutor disparity. Criminology 47:813–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spohn C, Gruhl J, Welch S (1987) The impact of ethnicity and gender of defendants on the decision to reject or dismiss felony charges. Criminology 25(1):175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spohn C, Spears J (1996) The effect of offender and victim characteristics on sexual assault case processing decisions. Justice Q 13(4):649–679Google Scholar
  54. Stata Library (2011a) Analyzing correlated (clustered) data. UCLA: academic technology services, statistical consulting group. Accessed 1 June 2011
  55. Stata Library (2011b) What are the some of the methods for analyzing clustered data in Stata? UCLA: academic technology services, statistical consulting group. Accessed 1 June 2011
  56. Stith K, Cabranes J (1998) Fear of judging: sentencing guidelines in the federal courts. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ulmer JT, Johnson BD (2004) Sentencing in context: a multilevel analysis. Criminology 42:137–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ulmer JT, Eisenstein J, Johnson BD (2009) Trial penalties in federal sentencing: extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Q 27:560–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. United States Sentencing Commission (2004) Sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics. United States Sentencing Commission. U.S. Department of JusticeGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilmot KA, Spohn C (2004) Prosecutorial discretion and real-offense sentencing: an analysis of relevant conduct under the federal sentencing guidelines. Crim Justice Pol Rev 15(3):324–343Google Scholar
  61. Wooldredge J (2007) Neighborhood effects on felony sentencing. J Res Crime Delinq 44:238–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of MarylandCollge ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations