Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Punishing the Wicked: Examining the Correlates of Sentence Severity for Convicted Sex Offenders

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To examine the correlates of sentence severity for convicted sex offenders under sentencing guidelines, contrasted with individuals convicted of non-sexual, violent offenses.

Methods

Drawing on 7 years of data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, we utilize a logit-negative binomial hurdle model to examine the predictors of incarceration and sentence length, and an accompanying Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition of the gap in sentencing outcomes between the groups. We then implement a quantile regression framework to examine variation in effects across the distribution of sentence lengths. All analyses are contrasted with a matched sample of violent offenders to consider the extent to which estimated associations are unique to sex offenders.

Results

The analyses suggest several predictors of sentence severity for sex offenders, and that these predictors vary between the incarceration and sentence length decisions. In comparing effects for sex and matched violent offenders, divergent effects were observed for both case and offender characteristics. An Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition suggests that differences in the coefficient estimates account for less than one-fifth of the gap in average sentencing outcomes between sex and violent offenders. Subsequent quantile regressions indicate that these effects vary considerably over the sentence length distribution in ways that are not captured or obscured by the hurdle models.

Conclusions

The predictors of sentence severity for sex offenders, and points of divergence from violent offenders, are congruent with the notion that judges utilize crime-specific stereotypes in arriving at sentencing decisions. Further, the application of quantile regression following point-based estimation can reveal meaningful patterns in sentencing disparities.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although other variables such as offense seriousness and trial disposition could conceivably be included in the matching procedure, our goal was to produce a sample of violent offenders who were similar to the sample of sex offenders. Because case characteristics such as offense gravity and trial disposition are a function of group membership, rather than a predictor of group membership, matching on these variables would dramatically cut down the sex offender sample as the procedure sought to identify violent and sex offenders who were similar to each other, rather than violent offenders similar to the sex offenders. Additionally, because a coarsened exact matching procedure segmenting the age distribution only retained an additional 62 sex offenders for analysis we opted to match on exact integer values.

  2. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Bales and Piquero 2012; Hester and Hartman 2017; Johnson 2006; Wooldredge 2010) we do not distinguish between jail and prison sanctions. Although some research (e.g., Spohn and Holleran 2004) has found this distinction to be relevant for certain covariates, a multinomial logit model utilizing a trichotomous non-custodial, jail, and prison sentence observed consistent effects between the jail and prison incarceration decisions, with only legally relevant variables significantly different between the models, and in predictable directions. Separate hurdle regressions using jail and prison sentence lengths also produced consistent conclusions, but resulted in unstable errors due to sparse jail sentences in certain counties. To this extent, jail and prison sentences are aggregated for ease of presentation.

  3. The choice of this victim age cutoff is somewhat arbitrary, but consistent with previous sentencing literature (e.g., Amirault and Beauregard 2014; Hilinski-Rosick et al. 2014) and reflective of legal definitions utilized in Pennsylvania. This measure was triangulated from multiple variables in the PCS, including whether the offense label identified the offense as against a child (e.g., “rape of a child < 13 years”), a specific mandatory minimum was applied (e.g., “victim under 13 years old”), or the victim age variable identified the victim as being under 13. As the victim age variable is an optional indicator in the PCS, we presume that any victim not identified as under 13 was over the age of the 13, unless otherwise specified by a different variable.

  4. As it exists in the guidelines, the prior record score is an eight-point scale with the two highest categories on the representing special designations for repeat felony and repeat violent offenders. These were combined into a single category due to the small number of cases falling into the repeat violent category (n = 240, 0.8%).

  5. Violent offenders with previous adjudications or convictions for sexual offenses (n = 178) or were previously designated as sexual violent predators (n = 96) were removed from the analysis.

  6. For the current sample we observed that for offenders that were not eligible for a custodial sentence under the PCS guidelines matrix (i.e., presumptive incarceration = “No”), 69% received a prison sentence. Indeed, even for the offenders with the lowest offense gravity and lowest prior record scores, 43% received a prison sentence. Conversely, a zero-inflated model would be more appropriate when the zero-value data generating process is such that there are cases which cannot receive anything but a zero-value (Zeileis et al. 2008).

  7. For the negative binomial portion of the hurdle model, and the quantile regressions later on, we utilize coefficient equality Z-tests to compare coefficients across sex and violent offenders (Paternoster et al. 1998). However, recognizing the inappropriateness of this test for logit models (Allison 1999), we utilize the heterogenous choice model described by Williams (2009).

  8. Multicollinearity was assessed for the individual logit and negative binomial regressions for both sex and violent offenders. Based on the square root of the variance inflation factors (VIF), no problematic values were detected.

  9. These analyses are restricted to defendants for which the minimum sentence is greater than zero. There also exists censored quantile regression methods which account for zero values (i.e., non-custodial sanctions) in a variety of ways. The method most applicable to the current inquiry (Powell 1986) has difficulty converging on an optimal solution for individual conditional quantiles when there is a large number of dummy covariates (Freeborn and Hartmann 2010), and the other means (e.g., Portnoy 2003) have difficulty converging for very low or very high quantiles, disabling the researcher from estimating the entire quantile distribution (Koenker 2008). For the conditional quantiles that were estimated by the Portnoy method, the coefficients were very similar to those produced by the standard quantile regression approach, but no method for cluster bootstrapping is currently implemented for this method. As such, we report results from standard quantile regression methods here.

  10. The specification of the quantile regression models was identical to the negative binomial component of the hurdle model, with the exception of the presumptive sentence, which was removed. Per Britt (2009), the inclusion of the presumptive sentence improves the predictions provided by mean-based estimation, but is unnecessary when effect estimates can be produced at different points in the outcome distribution.

References

  • Albonetti C (1991) An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Soc Probl 38(2):247–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison PD (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociol Methods Res 28(2):186–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison PD (2002) Missing data: quantitative applications in the social sciences. Br J Math Stat Psychol 55(1):193–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amirault J, Beauregard E (2014) The impact of aggravating and mitigating factors on the sentence severity of sex offenders: an exploration and comparison of differences between offending groups. Crim Justice Policy Rev 25(1):78–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JM, Kling JR, Stith K (1999) Measuring interjudge sentencing disparity before and after the federal sentencing guidelines. J Law Econ 42(S1):271–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auerhahn K (2007) Just another crime? Examining disparity in homicide sentencing. Sociol Q 48(2):277–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bales WD, Piquero AR (2012) Racial/ethnic differentials in sentencing to incarceration. Justice Q 29(5):742–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blinder AS (1973) Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. J Hum Resour 8(4):436–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein A (1982) On the racial disproportionality of the United States prison population. J Crim Law Crimimol 73:1259–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt CL (2000) Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Q 17(4):707–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt CL (2009) Modeling the distribution of sentence length decisions under a guidelines system: an application of quantile regression models. J Quant Criminol 25(4):341–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock HA (1961) Significance of the racial factor in the length of prison sentences. J Crim Law Criminol Police Sci 52(4):411–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bumby KM, Maddox MC (1999) Judge’s knowledge about sex offenders, difficulty presiding over sexual offense cases, and opinions on sentencing, treatment, and legislation. Sex Abuse J Res Treat 11(4):305–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushway S, Piehl AM (2001) Judging judicial discretion: legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law Soc Rev 34:733–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center for Sex Offender Management (2017). Understanding sex offenders: an introductory curriculum. Retrieved from http://csom.org/train/etiology/overview/content.htm

  • Champion DJ (1988) Child sexual abusers and sentencing severity. Fed Prob 52:53

    Google Scholar 

  • Craun SW, Theriot MT (2009) Misperceptions of sex offender perpetration considering the impact of sex offender registration. J Interpers Violence 24(12):2057–2072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crow MS (2008) The complexities of prior record, race, ethnicity, and policy: interactive effects in sentencing. Crim Justice Rev 33(4):502–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry TR, Corral-Camacho G (2008) Sentencing young minority males for drug offenses testing for conditional effects between race/ethnicity, gender and age during the US war on drugs. Punishm Soc 10(3):253–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerner JK, Demuth S (2010) The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, age on sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts. Justice Q 27(1):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W, Hensley C (2001) Contextualizing sex offender management legislation and policy: evaluating the problem of latent consequences in community notification laws. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 45(1):83–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellman IM, Ellman T (2015) Frightening and high: the Supreme Court’s crucial mistake about sex crime statistics. Const. Comment 30:495–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Engen RL, Gainey RR (2000) Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: the rules have changed. Criminology 38:1207–1229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell RA, Holmes MD (1991) The social and cognitive structure of legal decision-making. Sociol Q 32(4):529–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeborn BA, Hartmann ME (2010) Racial and ethnic disparities in federal sentencing: a quantile regression approach. 5th annual conference on empirical legal studies paper. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1635446

  • Freedman EB (1987) Uncontrolled desires: the response to the sexual psychopath, 1920–1960. J Am Hist 74(1):83–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman-Longo RE, Wall RV (1986) Changing a lifetime of sexual crime. Psychol Today 20(3):58–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Galeste MA, Fradella HF, Vogel B (2012) Sex offender myths in print media: separating fact from fiction in US newspapers. West Criminol Rev 13(2):4–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland B, Wodahl E, Schuhmann R (2013) Value conflict and public opinion toward prisoner reentry initiatives. Crim Justice Policy Rev 24(1):27–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham JW (2009) Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol 60:549–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin T, Wooldredge J (2006) Sex-based disparities in felony dispositions before versus after sentencing reform in Ohio. Criminology 44(4):893–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan J (1974) Extra-legal attributes and criminal sentencing: an assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law Soc Rev 8:357–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagemann A (2016) Cluster robust bootstrap inference in quantile regression models. J Am Stat Assoc. doi:10.1080/01621459.2016.1148610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser W, Peck JH (2017) The intersection of crime seriousness, discretion, and race: a test of the liberation hypothesis. Justice Q 34(1):166–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins DF (1986) Race, crime type and imprisonment. Justice Q 3(3):251–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hester R, Hartman TK (2017) Conditional race disparities in criminal sentencing: a test of the liberation hypothesis from a non-guidelines state. J Quant Criminol 33(1):77–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbe JM (2014) Modeling count data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hilinski-Rosick CM, Freiburger TL, Verheek A (2014) The effects of legal and extralegal variables on the sentences of sex offenders. Vict Offenders 9(3):334–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hlavac M (2016) Oaxaca: Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition in R. R package version 0.1.3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=oaxaca

  • Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA (2011) MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J Stat Softw 42(8):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honaker J, King G, Blackwell M (2011) Amelia II: a program for missing data. J Stat Softw 45(7):1–47. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v45/i07/

  • Jenkins P (2004) Moral panic: changing concepts of the child molester in modern America. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BD (2006) The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: integrating judge and county level influences in the study of courtroom decision making. Criminology 44:259–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BD (2014) Judges on trial: a reexamination of judicial race and gender effects across modes of conviction. Crim Justice Policy Rev 25(2):159–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BD, DiPietro SM (2012) The power of diversion: intermediate sanctions and sentencing disparity under presumptive guidelines. Criminology 50(3):811–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BD, Ulmer JT, Kramer JH (2008) The social context of guidelines circumvention: the case of federal district courts. Criminology 46:737–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser K, Spohn C (2014) “Fundamentally flawed?” Exploring the use of policy disagreements in judicial downward departures for child pornography sentences. Criminol Public Policy 13(2):241–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kautt PM, Mueller-Johnson K (2009) Cross-jurisdictional disposition variability under sentencing guidelines: the example of equivalent sex offenses. Crim Justice Rev 34(3):350–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kautt P, Spohn C (2002) Crack-ing down on black drug offenders? Testing for interactions among offenders’ race, drug type, and sentencing strategy in federal drug sentences. Justice Q 19(1):1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsnorth RF, MacIntosh RC, Wentworth J (1999) Sexual assault: the role of prior relationship and victim characteristics in case processing. Justice Q 16(2):275–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleck G (1981) Racial discrimination in criminal sentencing: a critical evaluation of the evidence with additional evidence on the death penalty. Am Sociol Rev 46:783–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenker R (2005) Quantile regression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koenker R (2008) Censored quantile regression redux. J Stat Softw 27. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v27/i06

  • Koenker R (2016) Quantreg: quantile regression. R package version 5.26. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=quantreg

  • Koenker R, Xiao Z (2002) Inference on the quantile regression process. Econometrica 70(4):1583–1612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer JH, Ulmer JT (2002) Downward departures for serious violent offenders: local court “corrections” to Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines. Criminology 40(3):897–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer JH, Ulmer JT (2009) Sentencing guidelines: lessons from Pennsylvania. Lynne Rienner, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Leon CS (2011) Sex fiends, perverts, and pedophiles: understanding sex crime policy in America. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenson JS, Cotter LP (2005) The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 49(2):168–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson JS, Brannon YN, Fortney T, Baker J (2007) Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy 7(1):137–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Levesque RJ (2000) Sentencing sex crimes against children: an empirical and policy analysis. Behav Sci Law 18(2–3):331–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKune v. Lile (2002) 536 U.S. 24

  • Mancini C, Pickett JT (2016) The good, the bad, and the incomprehensible: typifications of victims and offenders as antecedents of beliefs about sex crime. J Interpers Violence 31(2):257–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell CD, Robinson AL, Post LA (2003) The impact of race on the adjudication of sexual assault and other violent crimes. J Crim Justice 31(6):523–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miethe TD (1987) Stereotypical conceptions and criminal processing: the case of the victim-offender relationship. Justice Q 4(4):571–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2009) Top 10 issues of 2010. Retrieved 26 June 2016 from http://www.ncsl.org/press-room/ncsls-top-10-issues-of-2010.aspx

  • Nhan J, Polzer K, Ferguson J (2012) “More dangerous than hitmen”: judicial perceptions of sexual offenders. Int J Criminol Sociol Theory 5(1):823–836

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowacki JS (2015) Race, ethnicity, and judicial discretion the influence of the United States v. Booker decision. Crime Delinq 61(10):1360–1385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oaxaca R (1973) Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. Int Econ Rev 14(3):693–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R, Brame R, Mazerolle P, Piquero A (1998) Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology 36(4):859–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) (2016) Sentencing guidelines manuals. http://pcs.la.psu.edu/guidelines/sentencing/sentencing-guidelines-and-implementation-manuals. Retrieved from 17 Sept 2016

  • Pickett JT, Mancini C, Mears DP (2013) Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology 51(3):729–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portnoy S (2003) Censored quantile regression. J Am Stat Assoc 98:1001–1012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell JL (1986) Censored regression quantiles. J Econom 32(1):143–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JF, Forsyth CJ, Mullen-Quinn C (2004) Societal reaction to sex offenders: a review of the origins and results of the myths surrounding their crimes and treatment amenability. Deviant Behav 25(3):215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  • Ragusa-Salerno LM, Zgoba KM (2012) Taking stock of 20 years of sex offender laws and research: an examination of whether sex offender legislation has helped or hindered our efforts. J Crime Justice 35(3):335–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sample LL, Bray TM (2003) Are sex offenders dangerous? Criminol Public Policy 3(1):59–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler JC, Freeman NJ, Socia KM (2008) Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychol Public Policy Law 14(4):284–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen B (2014) Using the Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition as an empirical tool to analyze racial disparities in obesity. Obesity 22(7):1750–1755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sentences for Second and Subsequent Offenses (2014) 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 9714(g)

  • Sexual Offenses (2014) 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 3121–3131

  • Shelby RM, Hatch AR (2014) Obscuring sexual crime: examining media representations of sexual violence in Megan’s law. Crim Justice Stud 27(4):402–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields RT (2013) Sex crime and punishment: an analysis of sex offender sentencing in Florida. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 8019. Retrieved 11 Apr 2016 from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/8019

  • Simon J (1998) Managing the monstrous: sex offenders and the new penology. Psychol Public Policy Law 4(1–2):452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Socia KM (2011) The policy implications of residence restrictions on sex offender housing in upstate NY. Criminol Public Policy 10(2):351–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Socia KM, Harris AJ (2016) Evaluating public perceptions of the risk presented by registered sex offenders: evidence of crime control theater? Psychol Public Policy Law 22(4):375–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Socia KM, Stamatel JP (2010) Assumptions and evidence behind sex offender laws: registration, community notification, and residence restrictions. Sociol Compass 4(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spohn C (2000) Thirty years of sentencing reform: the quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. Crim Justice Natl Inst Justice J 3:427–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn C, Cederblom J (1991) Race and disparities in sentencing: a test of the liberation hypothesis. Justice Q 8(3):305–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spohn C, Holleran D (2004) On the use of the total incarceration variable in sentencing research. Criminology 42(1):211–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spohn C, Spears J (1996) The effect of offender and victim characteristics on sexual assault case processing decisions. Justice Q 13(4):649–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen S, Engen RL, Gainey RR (2005) Images of danger and culpability: racial stereotyping, case processing, and criminal sentencing. Criminology 43(2):435–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffensmeier D, Demuth S (2000) Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts: who is punished more harshly? Am Sociol Rev 65:705–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffensmeier D, Demuth S (2001) Ethnicity and judges’ sentencing decisions: hispanic-black-white comparisons. Criminology 39(1):145–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffensmeier D, Demuth S (2006) Does gender modify the effects of race–ethnicity on criminal sanctioning? Sentences for male and female white, black, and Hispanic defendants. J Quant Criminol 22(3):241–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffensmeier D, Ulmer JT, Kramer JH (1998) The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: the punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology 36(4):763–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudnow D (1965) Normal crimes: sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office. Soc Probl 12(3):255–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury R (2005) Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. J Contemp Crim Justice 21(1):67–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer JT (2012) Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Q 29(1):1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer JT, Johnson BD (2004) Sentencing in context: a multilevel analysis. Criminology 42(1):137–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer JT, Kurlychek MC, Kramer JH (2007) Prosecutorial discretion and the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. J Res Crime Delinq 44(4):427–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer JT, Eisenstein J, Johnson BD (2010) Trial penalties in federal sentencing: extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Q 27(4):560–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econom J Econom Soc 57(2):307–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Wacquant LJD (2009) Punishing the poor: the neoliberal government of social insecurity. Duke University Press, Durham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh A (1984) Differential sentencing patterns among felony sex offenders and non-sex offenders. J Crim Law Criminol 75(2):443–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams R (2009) Using heterogeneous choice models to compare logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociol Methods Res 37(4):531–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson P (2015) The misuse of the Vuong test for non-nested models to test for zero-inflation. Econ Lett 127:51–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldredge J (2010) Judges’ unequal contributions to extralegal disparities in imprisonment. Criminology 48(2):539–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan S (2017) Search for the hidden punishments: an alternative approach to studying alternative sanctions. J Quant Criminol 33(1):21–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeileis A, Kleiber C, Jackman S (2008) Regression models for count data in R. J Stat Softw 27(8). http://www.jstatsoft.org/v27/i08/

  • Zevitz RG (2006) Sex offender community notification: its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Crim Justice Stud 19(2):193–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zgoba K (2004) Spin doctors and moral crusaders: the moral panic behind child safety legislation. Crim Justice Stud 17(4):385–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zgoba KM, Miner M, Levenson J, Knight R, Letourneau E, Thornton D (2016) The Adam Walsh Act: an examination of sex offender risk classification systems. Sex Abuse 28(8):722–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Grant 2015-R2-CX-0039 awarded to the University of Massachusetts Lowell by the National Institute of Justice. Arguments presented in this manuscript reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the funding agency. We would like to thank Robert Apel and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. An earlier version of this research was presented at the 2016 meeting of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers in Orlando, Florida.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminology and Justice Studies, Center for Program Evaluation, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 113 Wilder Street, Health and Social Sciences Building Rm 495, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA

    Jason Rydberg

  2. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Niagara University, Lewiston, NY, USA

    Michael Cassidy

  3. School of Criminology and Justice Studies, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA

    Kelly M. Socia

Authors
  1. Jason Rydberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Cassidy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kelly M. Socia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Rydberg.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 Offenses included under sex and violent offender categories
Full size table
Table 5 Variation in effects across the sentence length distribution—location-shift, location-scale test statistics, and F tests for slope equality across quantiles
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rydberg, J., Cassidy, M. & Socia, K.M. Punishing the Wicked: Examining the Correlates of Sentence Severity for Convicted Sex Offenders. J Quant Criminol 34, 943–970 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9360-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9360-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation