Race, Racial Threat, and Sentencing of Habitual Offenders*

Abstract

As legislatures proliferate novel “enhancements” to criminal sentencing, such as “three‐strikes” and related provisions, and as criminologists debate their effects, the role of existing enhancements, such as habitual offender statutes, has received little empirical attention. This article explores the effect of race in the decision to prosecute and sentence eligible defendants as “habitual” offenders. During FY 1992–93, 9,690 males admitted to prison in Florida were statutorily eligible (two prior felony convictions or one prior violent felony conviction) for sentencing as “habitual” offenders. Approximately 20% received that disposition. They will serve at least 75% of their enhanced sentence as compared with the state average of about 40%. Logistic regression, controlling for prior record, crime seriousness, and other relevant factors, shows a significant and substantial race effect. The disadvantage of black defendants is particularly strong for drug offenses and for property crimes that have relatively high victimization rates for whites (larceny, burglary). Race is less consequential for violent and weapons‐related crimes. Race effects are more often significant in sentencing contexts that are low in terms of percent black, racial income inequality, drug arrest rates, and violent crime rates. The relevance of these findings for a “racial threat” interpretation of sentencing outcomes is discussed.

Influence over school discipline policy: Variation across levels of governance, school contexts, and time

“…It is possible, then, that states and district staff are imposing greater disciplinary control over these environments. Such a scenario would be consistent with the racial threat hypothesis or the idea that institutions put in place social controls to maintain power in the presence of greater proportions of racial minorities (Crawford, Chiricos, & Kleck, 1998;Welch, 2017;. Alternatively, it could be that principals in these environments feel more bound to policies from higher levels of governance.…”

“…The results of this study suggest that this trend has continued at least into the early 2000s, though perhaps being somewhat stagnant between 2003 and 2007. It is possible that the continuance of this trend through the 1990s may reflect general pushes during that time period toward site-based management, a trend that could have countered increased federal and state legislation on discipline (Cross & Reitzug, 1996).…”

“…For instance, many urban school districts experienced a push towards site-based management during the 1980s and 1990s, a phenomenon that potentially shifted influence from the district level to that of the school (Chubb & Moe, 1990;Cross & Reitzug, 1996). Indeed, research examining hiring practices has shown significantly larger gains in principal influence over hiring in urban settings as compared to non-urban settings over the last several decades (Engel, Cannata, & Curran, 2015).…”

A multilevel analysis of juvenile court processes: The importance of community characteristics

“…Studies of criminal courts have addressed how attributions of criminal behavior are linked to racial/ethnic stereotypes (Albonetti, 1997;Bridges & Steen, 1998;Crawford, Chiricos, & Kleck, 1998;Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2000;Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998) and now a growing number of juvenile court studies are using this theoretical perspective to explain race/ethnicity disparities in juvenile court outcomes (Bortner, 1982;Bridges & Steen, 1998;Dannefer & Schutt, 1982;Leiber, 1994). Not surprisingly, the majority of studies have focused on the role of Black stereotypes in court processes and outcomes.…”

Sentencing Outcomes Under Competing But Coexisting Sentencing Interventions: Untying The Gordian Knot

“…4 Although sentencing guidelines can either be advisory or presumptive (Doob, 1995) and the rationales behind them vary, most U.S. permutations rely on a grid of offense seriousness and criminal history axes (often supplemented by a wide array of departure and adjustment criteria) to direct judges to the appropriate sentence 2001; Ulmer, 1997;Ulmer & Johnson, 2004;. On the other hand, mandatory minima research suggests that they increase rather than decrease extralegal disparity (Crawford, 2000;Crawford, Chiricos, & Kleck, 1998) and have little impact on the targeted crimes (Kovandzic, 2001;Stolzenberg & D'Alessio, 1997;Worrall, 2004).…”