This study examines the complex relationships among stereotypes about crime, the offender’s race/ethnicity, and sentencing decisions. Using data on White, Black, and Hispanic male drug offenders sentenced in three U.S. district courts and a definition of the dangerous drug offender appropriate to the federal sentence system, the authors explore the degree to which stereotypes about dangerous drug offenders influence sentence length. The results reveal that fitting the stereotype of a dangerous federal drug offender (i.e., a male drug trafficker with a prior trafficking conviction who used a weapon to commit the current offense) affected the length of the prison sentence for Black offenders but not for White or Hispanic offenders. Further analysis revealed that this effect was confined to Black offenders convicted of drug offenses involving crack cocaine. The results provide further evidence that the focal concerns guiding judicial decision making may vary depending on the offender’s race or ethnicity.
AlbonettiC. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38, 247-266.
2.
AlbonettiC. A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992. Law and Society Review, 31, 789-822.
3.
AlbonettiC. A. (2002). The joint conditioning effect of defendant’s gender and ethnicity on length of imprisonment under the federal sentencing guidelines for drug trafficking/manufacturing offenders. Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, 6, 39-60.
4.
BerkR. A. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48, 386-398.
5.
BlalockH. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority group relations. New York: John Wiley.
6.
BontragerS.BalesW.ChiricosT. (2005). Race, ethnicity, threat and the labeling of convicted felons. Criminology, 43, 589-622.
BridgesG.SteenS. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63, 554-570.
9.
ChiricosT.CrawfordC. (1995). Race and imprisonment: A contextual assessment of the evidence. In HawkinsD. (Ed.), Ethnicity, race, and crime: Perspectives across time and space (pp. 281-309). Albany: State University of New York Press.
10.
ChiricosT.WelchK.GertzM. (2004). Racial typification of crime and support for punitive measures. Criminology, 42, 359-389.
11.
DemuthS.SteffensmeierD. (2004). Ethnicity effects on sentencing outcomes in large urban courts: Comparisons among White, Black, and Hispanic defendants. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 991-1011.
12.
DixonJ. (1995). The organizational context of sentencing. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1157-1198.
13.
EisensteinJ.FlemmingR.NardulliP. (1988). The contours of justice: Communities and their courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
14.
EngenR. L.GaineyR. R. (2000). Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: The rules have changed. Criminology, 4, 1207-1229.
15.
EverettR. S.NienstedtB. C. (1999). Race, remorse, and sentence reduction: Is saying you’re sorry enough?Justice Quarterly, 16, 99-122.
16.
EverettR. S.WojtkiewiczR. A. (2002). Difference, disparity, and race/ethnic bias in federal sentencing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 189-211.
17.
FarrellR.HolmesM. (1991). The social and cognitive structure of legal decision-making. Sociological Quarterly, 32, 529-542.
18.
GainesL. K. (2003). The psychopharmacology and prevalence of drugs. In GainesL. K.KraskaP. B. (Eds.), Drugs, crime, & justice (pp. 50-86). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
19.
HawkinsD. (1981). Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior, 2, 207-230.
20.
HeckmanJ. J. (1974). Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply. Econometrics, 42, 679-694.
21.
HillG. D.HarrisA. R.MillerJ. L. (1985). Etiology of bias: Social heuristics and rational decision making in deviance processing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 135-162.
22.
HoferP. J.BlackwellK. R.RubackR. B. (1999). The effect of the federal sentencing guidelines on inter-judge disparity. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90, 239-321.
23.
HowellJ. C. (2004). Youth gang homicides: A literature review. In PetersonR. D. (Ed.), Understanding contemporary gangs in America (pp. 205-232). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
HowellJ. C.DeckerS. H. (2003). The youth gangs, drugs, and violence connection. In GainesL. K.KraskaP. B. (Eds.), Drugs, crime, & justice (pp. 150-174). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
25.
KauttP. M. (2002). Location, location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses. Justice Quarterly, 19, 633-672.
26.
Kempf-LeonardK.SampleL. L. (2001). Have federal sentencing guidelines reduced severity? An examination of one circuit. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 111-144.
27.
KennedyR. (1997). Race, crime and the law. New York: Vintage Books.
28.
LaCasseC.PayneA. A. (1999). Federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences: Do defendants bargain in the shadow of the judge?Journal of Law and Economics, 42, 245-269.
29.
LaFrentzD.SpohnC. (2006). Who is punished more harshly in federal courts? The interaction of race/ethnicity, gender, age, and employment status in the sentencing of drug offenders. Justice Research and Policy, 8, 25-56.
30.
LiskaA. E. (1992). Social threat and social control. Albany: State University of New York Press.
31.
MaxfieldL. D.KramerJ. H. (1998). Substantial assistance: An empirical yardstick gauging equity in current federal policy and practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission.
32.
MustardD. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. federal courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44, 285-314.
33.
NardulliP. F.FlemmingR. B.EisensteinJ. (1988). The tenor of justice: Criminal courts and the guilty plea process. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
34.
National Drug Intelligence Center. (2006). National drug threat assessment 2006. Washington, DC: Author.
35.
NobilingT.SpohnC.DeLoneM. (1998). A tale of two counties: Unemployment and sentence severity. Justice Quarterly, 15, 459-485.
36.
PaskoL. (2002). Villain or victim: Regional variation and ethnic disparity in federal drug offense sentencing. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13, 307-328.
37.
PortillosE. L. (2006). Latinos, gangs, and drugs. In MannC. R.ZatzM. S.RodriguezN. (Eds.), Images of color, images of crime (3rd ed., pp. 212-220). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
38.
SlomanL. (1998). Reefer madness: The history of marijuana in America. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.
39.
SpitzerS. (1975). Toward a Marxian theory of deviance. Social Problems, 22(5), 638-651.
40.
SpohnC. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. In HorneyJ. (Vol. Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Vol. 3. Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (pp. 427-501). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institution of Justice.
41.
SpohnC. (2005). Sentencing decisions in three U.S. district courts: Testing the assumption of uniformity in the federal sentencing process. Justice Research and Policy, 7, 1-27.
42.
SpohnC.HolleranD. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed Black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38, 281-306.
43.
StaceyA. M.SpohnC. (2006). Gender and the social costs of sentencing: An analysis of sentences imposed on male and female offenders in three U.S. district courts. Boalt Journal of Criminal Law, 11, 43-76.
44.
SteenS.EngenR. L.GaineyR. R. (1999). The impact of race and ethnicity on charging and sentencing processes for drug offenders in three counties of Washington state. Final report, Olympia, Washington.
45.
SteenS.EngenR. L.GaineyR. R. (2005). Images of danger and culpability: Racial stereotyping, case processing, and criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43, 435-468.
46.
SteffensmeierD.DemuthS. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts: Who is punished more harshly?American Sociological Review, 65, 705-729.
47.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. H. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, Black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763-798.
48.
SudnowD. (1965). Normal crimes: Sociological features of the penal code in a public defender’s office. Social Problems, 12, 255-276.
49.
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (1993). Federal sentencing guidelines manual. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
50.
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2004). Fifteen years of guidelines sentencing: An assessment of how well the federal criminal justice system is achieving the goals of sentencing reform. Washington, DC: Author.
51.
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2005). 2004 sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
52.
WeisselbergC. D.DunworthT. (1993). Inter-district variation under the guidelines: The trees may be more significant than the forest. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 6, 25-28.
53.
ZatzM. S. (1987). The changing forms of racial/ethnic biases in sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25, 69-92.
