A growing body of evidence shows that minorities are disproportionately the targets of police brutality, but important theoretical questions about the causes of that inequity remain unanswered. One promising line of research involves structural‐level analyses of the incidence of police brutality complaints; however, existing studies do not incorporate variables from alternative theoretical explanations. Drawing on the community accountability hypothesis and the threat hypothesis, we tested the predictions of two prominent structural‐level explanations of police brutality in a study of civil rights criminal complaints. The study included cities of 150,000+ population (n = 114). The findings reveal that two community accountability variables—ratio percent Hispanic citizens to percent Hispanic police officers and the presence of citizen review—were related positively to police brutality complaints, partially supporting that perspective. Two threat hypothesis measures of threatening people—percent black and percent Hispanic (in the Southwest)—were related positively to complaints, as predicted. The relative degree of support for the two hypotheses is assessed.

The conflict theory of law stipulates that strategies of crime control regulate threats to the interests of dominant groups. Aggregate‐level research on policing has generally supported this proposition, showing that measures of minority threat are related to legal mechanisms of crime control. Police brutality (i.e., use of excessive physical force) constitutes an extra‐legal mechanism of control that has yet to be examined in this theoretical framework. This study extends research in the area theoretically and substantively by testing the hypothesis that the greater the number of threatening acts and people, the greater the number of police brutality civil rights criminal complaints filed with the U.S. Department of Justice. The findings show that measures of the presence of threatening people (percent black, percent Hispanic [in the Southwest], and majority/minority income inequality) were related positively to average annual civil rights criminal complaints.

Numerous studies have examined political influences on communities' allocations of fiscal and personnel resources to policing. Rational choice theory maintains that these resources are distributed in accordance with the need for crime control, whereas conflict theory argues that they are allocated with the aim of controlling racial and ethnic minorities. Existing research more consistently supports the conflict argument, but important issues remain unaddressed. The authors tested that approach by examining allocations of police resources in large cities in the Southwest, the yet-to-be-studied region in which the majority of Hispanics reside. The analyses included the key variables from the rational choice and conflict perspectives, as well as proximity to the border between the United States and Mexico. Minimal effects existed for percent Hispanic, an important conflict theory variable. However, Anglo-Hispanic income inequality and proximity to the border had effects consistent with that perspective. Class divisions within the Hispanic community may explain this pattern of findings.

No abstract

This conceptual article uses an interpretive approach to legal decision-making to explain the operation of crime stereotypes in the courts. A model is proposed to address the social psychological dynamics involved in assessing both conforming and exceptional cases. Evaluated against the backdrop of prevailing stereotypes, conforming cases may be disposed of routinely, while exceptional cases present cognitive dilemmas for court actors. In that stereotypes are internalized as enduring mental structures, the latters' dispositions require a more probing search for an explanation of the crime than is necessary with more typical offenses. Legal decisions in exceptional cases are influenced by the meaning court actors attribute to the offense within the context of the offender's alternative (i.e., noncriminal) social statuses. A series of interrelated propositions based on these arguments is formulated.

Although there has been considerable research on attachment and delinquency, few studies have focused on gender differences. This study used a survey of adolescent boys and girls incarcerated in the Wyoming Boys' and Girls' Schools to examine (a) differences in boys' and girls' level of attachment to parents, peers, and school; and (b) the effects of the various attachments on the severity of boys' and girls' self-reported delinquency. The results show no differences in boys' and girls' levels of attachment. However, gender differences in the effects of the various attachments on severity of delinquency were found. Attachment to parents reduced the severity of boys' delinquency, whereas attachment to peers and school reduced the severity of girls' delinquency.

Despite an extensive literature on differential justice, relatively few studies have examined whether inequities occur in legal decisions that precede sentencing. This becomes a problem given the vast majority of criminal cases prosecuted in the United States are disposed of through guilty pleas to reduced charges. In an effort to address this issue, the current study examined legal, status, and resource determinants of both charge reductions and final dispositions in cases of burglary and robbery in two U.S. jurisdictions. While the analysis showed that social status influenced the acquisition of private counsel and pretrial release, resources that tended to favor defendants at final disposition, the expectation that charge reductions might be especially receptive to status influences was not supported. Only one direct status effect on charge reductions was obtained and no indirect influences appear to have been operating. Further, contrary to the dominant thesis, the direct effects of race/ethnicity on charge reductions and final dispositions point to less severe responses to minorities, responses that we suggest may have been the result of initial overcharging in cases of minority defendants.

This research examined jury decisions in 317 noncapital felony cases in El Paso, Texas, and assessed the impact of juror ethnicity on jury trial outcomes. Results revealed that there was no relation between defendant ethnicity and the probability of conviction. Anglo American defendants, however, received sentences that were approximately twice as severe as Hispanic defendants. Sentences imposed by juries were significantly related to defendant ethnicity and type of crime for which they were tried. Sentences were also influenced by defendant ethnicity in interaction with jury ethnic composition. Important differences appeared when there was a critical mass of 6 or more Hispanics on juries. This study, using criminal court data, provides a unique opportunity to examine the utility of social psychological theories for understanding actual trial outcomes.