Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 77–100 | Cite as

Conditional Race Disparities in Criminal Sentencing: A Test of the Liberation Hypothesis From a Non-Guidelines State

  • Rhys Hester
  • Todd K. Hartman
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

To test the liberation hypothesis in a judicial context unconstrained by sentencing guidelines.

Methods

We examined cross-sectional sentencing data (n = 17,671) using a hurdle count model, which combines a binary (logistic regression) model to predict zero counts and a zero-truncated negative binomial model to predict positive counts. We also conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations to demonstrate that the hurdle count model provides unbiased estimates of our sentencing data and outperforms alternative approaches.

Results

For the liberation hypothesis, results of the interaction terms for race x offense severity and race x criminal history varied by decision type. For the in/out decision, criminal history moderated the effects of race: among offenders with less extensive criminal histories blacks were more likely to be incarcerated; among offenders with higher criminal histories this race effect disappeared. The race x offense severity interaction was not significant for the in/out decision. For the sentence length decision, offense severity moderated the effects of race: among offenders convicted of less serious crimes blacks received longer sentences than whites; among offenders convicted of crimes falling in the most serious offense categories the race effect became non-significant for Felony D offenses and transitioned to a relative reduction for blacks for the most serious Felony A, B, and C categories. The race x criminal history interaction was not significant for the length decision.

Conclusions

There is some support for the liberation hypothesis in this test from a non-guidelines jurisdiction. The findings suggest, however, that the decision to incarcerate and the sentence length decision may employ different processes in which the interactions between race and seriousness measures vary.

Keywords

Sentencing Racial disparities Criminal sentencing Liberation hypothesis Hurdle model 

References

  1. Albonetti CA (1991) An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Soc Probl 38:247–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JM, Kling JR, Stith K (1999) Measuring interjudge sentencing disparity: before and after the federal sentencing guidelines. J Law Econ 42:271–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldus DC, Pulaski C, Woodworth G (1983) Comparative review of death sentences: an empirical study of the Georgia experience. J Crim Law Criminol 74:661–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldus DC, Woodworth G, Pulaski CA (1990) Equal justice and the death penalty: a legal and empirical analysis. Upne, LebanonGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball JD (2006) Is it a prosecutor’s world? Determinants of count bargaining decisions. J Contemp Crim Justice 22(3):241–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barkan SE, Cohn SF (1998) Racial prejudice and support by whites for police use of force: a research note. Justice Q 15(4):743–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumer EP (2013) Reassessing and redirecting research on race and sentencing. Justice Q 30(2):231–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumer H (1969) Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumstein A (1982) On the racial disproportionality of United States’ prison populations. J Crim l Criminol 73:1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blumstein A (1993) Racial disproportionality of US prison populations revisited. U Colo l Rev 64:743Google Scholar
  11. Bushway SD, Piehl AM (2001) Judging judicial discretion: legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law Soc Rev 35:733–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bushway S, Johnson BD, Slocum LA (2007) Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. J Quant Criminol 23(2):151–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2013) Regression of count data, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carsey Thomas M, Harden Jeffrey J (2014) Monte carlo simulation and resampling methods for social science. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen EY (2008) The liberation hypothesis and racial and ethnic disparities in the application of California’s three strikes law. J Ethn Crim Justice 6(2):83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiricos TG, Bales WD (1991) Unemployment and punishment: an empirical assessment. Criminology 29:701–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chiricos TG, Crawford C (1995) Race and imprisonment: a contextual assessment of the evidence. In: Hawkins DF (ed) Ethnicity, race, and crime: perspectives across time and space. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  18. Doerner JK, Demuth S (2010) The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in US federal courts. Justice Q 27(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenstein J, Flemming RB, Nardulli PF (1988) The contours of justice: communities and their courts. Little, Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. Engen RL (2009) Assessing determinate and presumptive sentencing—making research relevant. Criminol Public Policy 8(2):323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engen RL, Gainey RR (2000) Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: the rules have changed. Criminology 38(4):1207–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischman JB, Schanzenbach MM (2012) Racial disparities under the federal sentencing guidelines: the role of judicial discretion and mandatory minimums. J Empir Leg Stud 9(4):729–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frase RS (2009) What explains persistent racial disproportionality in Minnesota’s prison and jail populations? Crime Justice 38(1):201–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freiburger TL, Hilinski CM (2013) An examination of the interactions of race and gender on sentencing decisions using a trichotomous dependent variable. Crime Delinq 59(1):59–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gertz MG, Price AC (1985) Variables influencing sentencing severity: intercourt differences in Connecticut. J Crim Justice 13(2):131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grattet R, Lin J (2014) Supervision intensity and parole outcomes: a competing risks approach to criminal and technical parole violations. Justice Q (epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  27. Greene WH (1994) Accounting for excess zeros and sample selection in poisson and negative binomial regression models (March 1994). NYU Working Paper No. EC-94-10. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1293115
  28. Guevara L, Boyd LM, Taylor AP, Brown RA (2011) Racial disparities in juvenile court outcomes: a test of the liberation hypothesis. J Ethn Crim Justice 9(3):200–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hilbe JM (2014) Modeling count data. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson BD (2012) Cross-classified multilevel models: an application to the criminal case processing of indicted terrorists. J Quant Criminol 28(1):163–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson BD, Ulmer JT, Kramer JH (2008) The social context of guidelines circumvention: the case of federal district courts. Criminology 46(3):737–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalven H, Zeisel H, Callahan T, Ennis P (1966) The American jury. Little, Brown, Boston, p 498Google Scholar
  33. Kautt PM, Delone MA (2006) Sentencing outcomes under competing but coexisting sentencing interventions: untying the Gordian knot. Crim Justice Rev 31(2):105–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. King G (1988) Statistical models for political science event counts: bias in conventional procedures and evidence for the exponential poisson regression model. Am J Polit Sci 32:838–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kramer J, Ulmer J (2009) Sentencing guidelines: lessons from Pennsylvania. Lynne Rienner, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  36. Kutateladze BL, Andiloro NR, Johnson BD, Spohn CC (2014) Cumulative disadvantage: examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology 52(3):514–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lambert D (1992) Zero-inflated Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics 34(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leiber MJ, Blowers AN (2003) Race and misdemeanor sentencing. Crim Justice Policy Rev 14(4):464–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leiber MJ, Johnson JD (2008) Being Young and Black what are their effects on juvenile justice decision making? Crime Delinq 54(4):560–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levin MA (1977) Urban politics and the criminal courts. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  41. Lin J, Grattet R, Petersilia J (2012) Justice by other means: venue sorting in parole revocation. Law Policy 34(4):349–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables, Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences, vol 7. SAGE PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  43. Long JS, Freese J (2014) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. Stata press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  44. MacDonald JM, Lattimore PK (2010) Count models in criminology. In: Piquero AR, Weisburd D (eds) Handbook of quantitative criminology. Springer, New York, pp 683–698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McAninch WS, Fairey FW, Coggiola LM (2007) The criminal law of South Carolina, 3rd edn. South Carolina Bar, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Mitchell O (2005) A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: explaining the inconsistencies. J Quant Criminol 21(4):439–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moulton BR (1990) An illustration of a pitfall in estimating the effects of aggregate variables on micro units. Rev Econ Stat 72:334–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mullahy J (1986) Specification and testing of some modified count data models. J Econ 33(3):341–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mustard DB (2001) Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: evidence from the us federal courts. J Law Econ 44(1):285–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nobiling T, Spohn C, Delone M (1998) A tale of two counties: unemployment and sentence severity. Justice Q 15:459–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rehavi MM, Starr SB (2014) Racial disparity in federal criminal sentences. J Polit Econ 122(6):1320–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reitz KR (2009) Demographic impact statements, O’Connor’s warning, and the mysteries of prison release: topics from a sentencing reform agenda. Fla Law Rev 61:683Google Scholar
  53. Santos Silva JMC, Tenreyo S (2006) The log of gravity. Rev Econ Stat 88(4):641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spohn C (2000) Thirty years of sentencing reform: the quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. In: National Institute of Justice: criminal justice 2000. National Institute of Justice, Washington Google Scholar
  55. Spohn C (2009) How do judges decide? The search for justice and fairness in punishment, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  56. Spohn C, Cederblom J (1991) Race and disparities in sentencing: a test of the liberation hypothesis. Justice Q 8:305–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spohn C, DeLone M (2000) When does race matter?: an analysis of the conditions under which race affects sentence severity. Sociol Crime Law Deviance 2:3–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Starr S (2015) Estimating gender disparities in federal criminal cases. Am L Econ Rev 17(1):127–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steffensmeier D, Demuth S (2000) Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in US federal courts: who is punished more harshly? Am Sociol Rev 65:705–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steffensmeier D, Demuth S (2001) Ethnicity and judges’ sentencing decisions: hispanic-black-white comparisons. Criminology 39(1):145–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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(4):763–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tonry M (1995) Malign neglect: race, crime, and punishment in America. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  63. Tonry M (1996) Sentencing matters. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  64. Ulmer JT (1997) Social worlds of sentencing: court communities under sentencing guidelines. SUNY Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Ulmer JT (2012) Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Q 29(1):1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ulmer JT, Johnson B (2004) Sentencing in context: a multilevel analysis. Criminology 42(1):137–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ulmer JT, Eisenstein J, Johnson BD (2010) Trial penalties in federal sentencing: extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Q 27(4):560–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Warren P, Chiricos T, Bales W (2012) The imprisonment penalty for young Black and Hispanic males a crime-specific analysis. J Res Crime Delinq 49(1):56–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Williams R (2012) Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata J 12(2):308–331Google Scholar
  70. Wooldredge JD (2007) Neighborhood effects on felony sentencing. J Res Crime Delinq 44(2):238–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zatz MS (2000) The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decisionmaking: looking toward the 21st century. In: Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system, vol 3. US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pp 503–552Google Scholar
  72. Zorn CJ (1996) Evaluating zero-inflated and hurdle Poisson specifications. Midwest Polit Sci Assoc 18(20):1–16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal JusticeUniversity of Minnesota Law SchoolMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Sheffield Methods InstituteThe University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations