scholarly journals The Criminalization of Immigration and Intellectual Disability in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 18-40
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Ricciardelli ◽  
Larry Nackerud ◽  
Adam E. Quinn

Public attitudes, negative stereotypes, and stigma are essential to cultural narratives about the membership status of people with intellectual disability and people who have immigrated to the United States. With a concern for the exclusion of people from participation in democratic societies, this mixed methods study explores conceptual links between the criminalization of intellectual disability and immigration. The overlay of criminal justice norms and practices onto civil law without parallel adoption of safeguards results in the misallocation of risk to individuals with out-group membership status. This study offers conceptual analysis by applying to the policy issue, standard of proof of intellectual disability in death penalty cases, the framework of membership theory and related constructs present in the scholarly literature on immigration policy. Exact measures logistic regression is used to predictively link states’ standards of proof of intellectual disability with immigration status. It was found that the best model predicting the probability of a Higher than Preponderance standard of proof of intellectual disability in death penalty cases was a two-variable model consisting of Prior Ban and Unauthorized Immigration. This study presents recommendations for research and policy practice.

Author(s):  
Tara Straka ◽  
Heather Ellis Cucolo ◽  
Merrill Rotter ◽  
Jeremy Colley

Chapter 26 describes the cases that have defined the evolution of the United States’ relationship with the death penalty. Over time, the country has gradually narrowed the pool of those eligible to be executed, prohibiting the infliction of death on individuals the mental retardation, mental illness, and most, recently, adolescents. These cases are important for forensic professionals who may be involved in the evaluation or treatment of capital defendants. The cases in this chapter are Estelle v. Smith, Ake v. Oklahoma, Ford v. Wainwright, Payne v. Tennessee, State v. Perry, Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons and Panetti v. Quarterman. The new cases further refine issues related to intellectual disability standards and procedural protections. These include Ryan v. Gonzales, Hall v. Florida, Moore v. Texas and Mcwilliams v. Dunn.


Author(s):  
Kathryn L. Schwaeble ◽  
Jody Sundt

The United States is unique in its reliance on incarceration. In 2018 the United States had the largest prison population in the world—more than 2.1 million people—and incarcerated 655 per 100,000 residents, the highest incarceration rate in the world. The U.S. public also holds more punitive attitudes in comparison to citizens of other Western, developed countries. For example, when presented with the same description about a hypothetical criminal event, Americans consistently prefer longer sentences compared to residents of other countries. Attitudes about the death penalty are also instructive. Although international support for the death penalty has declined dramatically over time, the majority of Americans are still in favor of capital punishment for certain crimes. In comparison, Great Britain abolished the death penalty in 1965, and only 45% of its citizens continue to support capital punishment. This raises an important question: Can understanding the will of the public help explain how governments respond to crime? The answer to this question is more complicated than expected upon first consideration. The United States generally starts from a more punitive stance than other countries, in part because it experiences more violent crime but also because Americans hold different moral and cultural views about crime and punishment. U.S. public officials, including lawmakers, judges, and prosecutors, are responsive to trends in public attitudes. When the public mood became more punitive during the 1990s, for example, U.S. states universally increased the length of prison sentences and expanded the number of behaviors punishable by incarceration. Similarly, the public mood moderated in the United States toward the end of the 2000s, and states began reducing their prison populations and supporting sentencing reform. It is also true, however, that public officials overestimate how punitive the public is while citizens underestimate how harsh the justice system is. Moreover, the public supports alternatives to tough sentences including prevention, treatment, and alternatives to incarceration, particularly for juveniles and nonviolent offenders. Thus public opinion about punishment is multifaceted and complex, necessitating the exploration of many factors to understand it. Looking at public attitudes about punishment over time, across culture and societies, and in a variety of ways can help explain why social responses to crime change and why some people or groups of people are more punitive than others. Two ideas are helpful in organizing motivations for punishment. First, public support for punishment may be motivated by rational, instrumental interests about how best to protect public safety. Public concern about crime is a particularly important influence on trends in the public mood, but fear of crime and victimization are inconsistently related to how individuals feel about punishment. Second, attitudes about punishment are tied to expressive desires. Attitudes are influenced by culture and moral beliefs about how to respond to harm and violations of the law. Thus attitudes about punishment are relevant in understanding how the public thinks about the problem of crime, as how people think and feel about crime influences what they think and feel should be done about it.


Author(s):  
Alexander H. Updegrove

Few studies have explored how the intersection of vastly different cultures, like those of the United States and Mexico, influences death penalty support. The present study uses the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II to examine whether individuals who are more closely aligned with U.S. culture are more likely to support the death penalty than individuals more closely aligned with Mexican culture. Findings support this conclusion. Findings also reveal that the significance of predictors for death penalty support varies between Mexican- and U.S.-oriented subsamples. Thus, this study reaffirms the importance for researchers to consider cultural context when examining public attitudes toward the death penalty, especially when using samples from a single, multicultural country such as the United States.


2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 22-56
Author(s):  
Ashley J. Provencher ◽  
Josh Gupta-Kagan ◽  
Mary Eschelbach Hansen

We measure the extent to which the standard of proof the CPS must meet at trial in a child abuse or neglect case influences the outcomes in the case. In the United States, the government of each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia sets its own standard of proof. We measure the influence of the standards of proof using survey data. We find that a higher standard of proof – one requiring the government to present clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect rather than only requiring a preponderance of the evidence of abuse or neglect—decreases the probability that the judge rules in favor of CPS. A clear and convincing standard also affects decisions before trial: it increases the number of visits made by CPS during an investigation; it lowers the odds that CPS substantiates the case; and it lowers the odds that a case reaches trial. After trial, it increases the probability of an out-of-home placement.


1989 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 546-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Evans Skovron ◽  
Joseph E. Scott ◽  
Francis T. Cullen

The United States is one of the few nations that permits the execution of offenders for murders committed while under the age of 18. The juvenile death penalty has received considerable media and public attention both nationally and internationally. Yet despite the extensive literature on public attitudes toward the death penalty, little research exists on public attitudes toward the juvenile death penalty. This article examines attitudes toward this penalty, using data collected in a telephone survey of two midwestern cities. A substantial majority of those surveyed opposed the death penalty for juveniles above the age of 14 convicted of murder. The implications of these findings are discussed.


Significance The possibility of Japan joining the alliance is now seriously discussed in Tokyo and the capitals of the Five Eyes members -- the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Joining Five Eyes would signal Japan’s even deeper integration into US alliance structures, regionally and globally, and raise expectations for Japan to act as a fuller ally in all sorts of contingencies. Impacts Japan’s greatest potential contribution to allies is probably in signals and imagery intelligence, especially vis-a-vis China. The prime minister will avoid opening up a controversial foreign policy issue so close to a general election; his successor may be bolder. Japan’s partners still run a risk of leaks due to Japan’s lag in cybersecurity and institutional arrangements, but this is decreasing.


1969 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter C. Reckless

Undoubtedly the most important trend in capital punishment has been the dramatic reduction in the number of offenses statutorily punishable by the death penalty. About two hundred years ago England had over two hundred offenses calling for the death penalty; it now has four. Some countries have abolished capital punishment completely; a few retain it for unusual offenses only. The trend throughout the world, even in the great number of countries that retain the death penalty, is definitely toward a de facto, not a de jure, form of abolition. In the United States, where the death penalty is possible in three-fourths of the states, the number of executions has declined from 199 in 1935 to an average of less than three in the last four years. This change is related to public sentiment against the use of the death penalty and even more directly to the unwillingness of juries and courts to impose a first-degree sentence. The increasing willingness of governors to commute a death sentence and of courts to hear appeals also contributes to this decline. A review of the evidence indicates that use of the death penalty has no discernible effect on the commission of capital offenses (especially murder).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document