The Impact of Characteristics of Immigrant Offenders on Attitudes Towards Immigrant Crime

Minority threat theory and existing research show that public attitudes towards certain types of offenders (e.g. ethnic and racial minorities) are often more punitive. Research also reveals that a significant proportion of the public associates the increase of immigration with higher crime rates. Negative attitudes, as well as an overall anti-immigration sentiment, have been increasing internationally. Therefore, we hypothesise that the public will have more negative and punitive attitudes towards immigrant offenders than towards citizens. Using a sample of students from the University of Zagreb, this research tested the above-mentioned hypothesis and explored whether factors like immigration status, ethnic identity, type of offense, and the age of the hypothetical offender impact student attitude on immigrant crime. To test this proposition, we used online surveys with factorial vignettes. The results show that participants ask for harsher sentences for undocumented immigrants, but immigrant status and the national origin of the immigrant are not associated with the perception of recidivism, dangerousness, or criminal typicality of offender.

The Sociopolitical Context of Abortion Bill Authorship in Texas

This study examines abortion bills proposed in the Texas legislature between 1993 and 2015 to explore how legislators respond to the power resources of minorities versus the (supposed) threat that they pose and how these responses vary across partisan lines to hamper or further pro-life interests. To test competing hypotheses about the influences of women’s socioeconomic and political resources, and the representation of poor, Black, and Hispanic constituents, multilevel models analyze a key behavior that strategically demonstrates issue-positions, that is, authorship of abortion bills. The findings largely support power resources accounts but also detect minority threat processes, and they reveal that beyond mean differences in support for restrictions on legal abortions, Democrats and Republicans respond distinctly to their constituent contexts. This detailed look at an early stage of the legislative process in a major battleground state highlights the multifaceted nature of abortion politics and the importance of considering both partisan and minority interests, especially in the face of sociodemographic shifts within the state and beyond.

Attribution of Blame Toward Offenders: Victim and Offender Ethnicity, and Observer Ethnic and Religious Background

This study focuses on the effects of victim/offender ethnic affiliation and cultural background of observers on attitudes toward offenders. To examine the effect of cultural background, we compared offender attribution among Christian Arabs ( n = 51), Muslim Arabs ( n = 249), and Jews ( n = 285). The participants were students from several Israeli universities and colleges. The age range was 18 to 33 years ( M = 20.23, SD = 2.67), and the majority were female (75.6%). The participants read a version of a vignette describing a case of a stabbing, and then rated the offender’s blame. In different versions of the crime scenario, we manipulated victim and offender ethnicity: two victim (Arab/Jewish) and three offender (African/Arab/Jewish) types. The results indicate that, in general, participants blamed African offenders more than Arab or Jewish offenders. Although the results show that differences in offender blaming between Arab and Jewish participants were not statistically significant, there is an interaction between participant cultural background and victim ethnicity in regard to offender blaming: Participants attributed more blame to offenders who stabbed a victim belonging to the same ethnic group as the participants. Overall, the results support defensive attribution theory, suggesting that observer attitudes toward offenders tend to be affected by similarity in ethnic affiliation. The discussion addresses the findings through the perspectives of cultural reciprocity, defensive attribution theory, and minority threat theory. It also acknowledges the limitations related to the specific cultural and geopolitical context of this research. Practical implications for practitioners and policymakers include training and increased ethnic diversity among professionals and experts working within the criminal justice system.

A Successive Threat Theory of Police Expenditures

Ethnic succession theory is concerned with the process and consequences of racial and ethnic migration into and out of cities. Minority threat theory is a branch of conflict theory that is concerned with the extent to which racial and ethnic minorities are perceived as threatening to the powerful. In this article, we propose a blend of these theories called successive threat theory which posits that racial and ethnic groups are perceived as threatening when they first move into a city, but as they assimilate, the perceived threat dissipates. The primary contribution of this theory is the previously undeveloped and untested notion that different minority groups may serve as threats in different time periods. Using time series analysis of annual data on Chicago from 1893 to 1965, we find support for the theory.