Revisiting the Normal Crime and Liberation Hypotheses

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jawjeong Wu ◽  
Miriam A. DeLone
Keyword(s):  
Federal District ◽  
Sentence Length ◽  
Interactive Effects ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Citizenship Status ◽  
Research Gap ◽  
Liberation Hypothesis ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Primary Variable ◽  
Federal District Courts

The established sentencing scholarship focusing on race/ethnicity and sentencing disparity indicates that the effect of race/ethnicity on sentencing severity varies across offense types. However, it is not clear whether this argument holds true when race/ethnicity is replaced with offender citizenship status as the primary variable of interest. In light of the research gap, this study extends beyond the existing literature exclusively on race/ethnicity by investigating the nexus between citizenship status, offense types, and sentencing outcomes through the normal crime hypothesis and the liberation hypothesis. Using the Monitoring of Federal Criminal Sentences data that include information on all offenders sentenced in 17 federal district courts for fiscal years 2006–2008, the present study assesses the independent and interactive effects of citizenship status and offense types on the judicial sentence length decision. Findings reveal that although models fail to support the normal crime hypothesis, there is robust support for the liberation hypothesis.

Extralegal Disparity in the Application of Intermediate Sanctions: An Analysis of U.S. District Courts

2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 839-874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Travis W. Franklin ◽  
Layne Dittmann ◽  
Tri Keah S. Henry
Keyword(s):  
Educational Attainment ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Sentence Length ◽  
Interactive Effects ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Potential Influence ◽  
Offender Characteristics ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Intermediate Sanctions

The sentencing literature is replete with studies that have examined the influence of extralegal offender characteristics on two key sentence outcomes: the imprisonment and sentence length decisions. Yet the study of other outcomes, such as the application of intermediate sanctions, is rarely addressed. To date, no studies have been conducted in the federal courts to examine the potential influence of race/ethnicity, age, gender, and educational attainment on the decision to apply intermediate sanctions. Consequently, the present analysis employs U.S. Sentencing Commission data to examine direct and interactive effects of these extralegal characteristics on this understudied outcome. Findings indicate that extralegal effects may play an important role in the use of intermediate sanctions. The implications of this research are discussed in detail.

Presidential Proclamation Indefinitely Restricting Entry of Individuals from Designated Countries Is Fully Implemented Amid Ongoing Legal Challenges

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-117
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Recent Version ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

On December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the most recent version of President Trump's executive action restricting the entry of nationals from certain countries to take effect. The decision stayed nationwide injunctions granted by two federal district courts on constitutional and statutory grounds. This version of Trump's “travel ban,” (EO-3), issued on September 24, 2017, restricts the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen—all of whom had been restricted under previous orders—as well as North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad. While litigation continues in the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, the Trump administration fully implemented EO-3 by December 8.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document