Prediction and Incapacitation

Predictions of future violence by individuals are substantially more often wrong than right. Minority offenders are more often incorrectly predicted to be violent than are white offenders. White offenders are more often incorrectly predicted to be nonviolent than are minority offenders. Use of socioeconomic status variables is per se unjust and disproportionately affects minority offenders. Use of criminal history variables exaggerates differences between minority and white offenders, and increases racial and ethnic disparities. It is unjust ever to punish someone more severely than he or she deserves because of a prediction of dangerousness (or for any other reason). Increasing the severity of a sentence on the basis of risk prediction punishes offenders in advance for crimes they would not have committed. Judges and others using prediction instruments more often disregard low-risk predictions for poor and black offenders than for affluent ones.

Race, Ethnicity, Crime Type, and the Sentencing of Violent Felony Offenders

Within the large body of literature on racial/ethnic disparities in criminal sentencing, some research has demonstrated that these relationships are conditional upon various legally relevant case characteristics, including the type of offense for which the defendants are sentenced. To date, however, few studies have explored the potential moderating effects of different violent crimes. Using data from Florida ( N = 186,885), the findings from these analyses indicate that Black–White sentencing disparities are particularly pronounced for manslaughter, robbery/carjacking, arson, and resisting arrest with violence. While Hispanic ethnicity exerts limited effects on sentencing outcomes generally, Hispanics are particularly disadvantaged in manslaughter cases. Relative to minority defendants, White offenders receive harsher sentences for sexual battery, other sex offenses, and abuse of children.

An Examination of the Impacts of Gender, Race, and Ethnicity on the Judicial Processing of Offenders in Family Violence Cases

Using the focal concerns perspective, the present study examined possible gender, race, and ethnic disparities on judges’ pretrial release, incarceration, and sentence length decisions in family violence cases. The results indicate that males were more likely to receive an order of bail (as opposed to release on own recognizance), received higher bail amounts, were less likely to make bail, were more likely to receive prison opposed to jail, and were incarcerated for significantly longer periods of time than women. Hispanic defendants were more likely than White defendants to receive higher bail amounts and were more likely to be detained until sentencing. Black defendants, on the other hand, were more likely to receive prison as opposed to jail than White offenders.

Do Ecological Effects on Recidivism Vary by Gender, Race, or Housing Type?

Several studies show that recidivism is influenced by the context of neighborhoods in which offenders live after leaving prison. However, the research on this topic is mixed, with many studies finding inconsistent or null neighborhood effects. This study addresses this inconsistency by examining whether neighborhoods affect recidivism differently based on offenders’ housing situation or personal characteristics (i.e., gender, race). The results of the multilevel logistic regression analyses show that neighborhood characteristics were significantly related to rearrest among minority offenders but not White offenders, and among offenders living in private residential housing but not those living in community-based facilities. These results help to explain the mixed findings in the literature and highlight the complexity of the relationship between neighborhood context and recidivism.

One Day Makes All the Difference: Denying Federal Offenders Access to “Good Time” Through Sentencing

The race/sentencing literature has focused on imprisonment and sentence length decisions to the exclusion of other relevant outcomes. The present study extends this research by examining a previously overlooked decision—that is, the decision to deny federal offenders access to “good time” through sentencing. The current study uses data from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC; fiscal years [FYs] 2010-2012) to examine the potential influence of race and ethnicity on this previously unstudied outcome. Results indicate that relative to White offenders, Latino and Native American offenders are more likely to be denied good-time access, while Asian offenders are less likely to be denied access. African American offenders are treated no differently than White offenders. Implications for research and practice are discussed in detail.

Assessing the Impact of Statutory Change: A Statewide Multilevel Analysis of Restitution Orders in Pennsylvania

This research analyzed decisions in 170,260 restitution-eligible cases in Pennsylvania from 1990 to 1998 to infer the policies underlying the imposition of restitution when it was discretionary and to assess whether a 1995 statutory change making restitution mandatory changed those policies. Multilevel analyses of restitution decisions from the 1990-1994prestatutory change period suggested that judges considered restitution to be both a victim-focused sanction, in that restitution was ordered more for offenders who committed more serious crimes and for property offenders (whose crimes could be more easily quantified), and an offender-focused sanction, in that restitution was ordered more for offenders who pleaded guilty, offenders with no prior record, White offenders, and female offenders. The statutory change increased the proportion of restitution orders statewide from 1996 to 1998. Moreover, it appeared to meet the policy goal of greater focus on victims.

The Prediction of Adjustment to Prison by Means of an MMPI-Based Classification System

The predictive validity of an empirically derived, MMPI-based offender classification system was evaluated in a medium-security state facility. Incoming MMPI data were obtained for 495 male inmates, who were then assigned to one of ten categories or to an unclassified group using the computer program and clinical guidelines developed by Megargee and his colleagues. Behavioral measures of institutional adjustment (e.g., nights spent in correctional cell) during the first six months of incarceration served as the dependent variables, and a 2 × 7 (race by Megargee group) multivariate analysis was employed to investigate adjustment differences between the seven largest MMPI-based groups. Consistent with the results of previous studies, the classification system proved to be generalizable to a state population, with 92% of the inmates assigned to one of the ten categories. While between-groups differences in adjustment were observed, the most noteworthy finding was that these manifested themselves only among the white offenders, raising questions regarding the system's applicability to nonwhite populations.

Cross-Cultural Validity of the Depression Adjective Check List with a Sample of Black and White Juvenile Offenders

The validity of the Depression Adjective Check List and a specially developed check list were assessed with 48 black and 53 white juvenile offenders (70 boys, 31 girls) against self-ratings and ratings of 2 black and 2 white teachers. Both check lists correlated significantly with self- (−.29, −.30) and teachers' ratings (.36, .26) for white offenders, although teachers' ratings were correlated unexpectedly negatively with self-ratings (−.41). Only the special check list scores correlated with the two ratings for black offenders. The necessity of limiting use of tests to populations for which they have been validated is discussed.