Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-2
What Context Matters and at What Level? A Test of Racial/Ethnic Threat,Symbolic Threat,and Structural Inequality Perspectives in Juvenile Court Decision-Making
Do traditional theories of conflict influence juvenile court decision-making and explain racial/ethnic disparities? Racial/ethnic threat, symbolic threat, and structural inequality perspectives purport social controls increase when groups differ in race, ethnicity, or class. Scholarship tends to test one perspective at a time and use county as a unit of analysis. Taking a comparative approach, this study evaluates whether contextual indicators of these three theories, measured at the county- and zip code-levels, contribute to Black-White and Latino-White disparities in court decisions. Multilevel models reveal weak and partial support for each perspective. More effects appear at the zip code-level, indicating conflict may occur within rather than across courts. Macro-level theories must then be reconsidered to describe modern-day juvenile court proceedings.
ArmstrongG. S.RodriguezN. (2005). Effects of individual and contextual characteristics on preadjudication detention of juvenile delinquents. Justice Quarterly, 22(4), 521–539.
2.
BaumerE. P. (2013). Reassessing and redirecting research on race and sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 231–261.
3.
BellZ.RasquizaA. (2014). Implicit bias and juvenile justice: A review of the literature. National Center for Youth Law.
4.
BergerJ.CohenB. P.ZelditchM. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37(3), 241–255.
5.
BernardT. J. (1990). Twenty Years of Testing Theories: What Have We Learned and Why?Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27(4), 325–347.
6.
BishopD.FrazierC. E. (1988). The influence of race in juvenile justice processing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25(3), 242–263.
7.
BishopD.LeiberM.JohnsonJ. (2010). Contexts of decision making in the juvenile justice system: An organizational approach to understanding minority overrepresentation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(3), 213–233.
8.
BlalockH. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
9.
BrittC. L. (2000). Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Quarterly, 17(4), 707–732.
10.
CaravelisC.ChiricosT.BalesW. (2011). Static and dynamic indicators of minority threat in sentencing outcomes: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27(4), 405–425.
11.
CaudillJ. W.MorrisR. G.SayedS. E.YunM.DeLisiM. (2013). Pathways through the juvenile justice system: Predictors of formal disposition. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(3), 183–195.
12.
DemuthS.SteffensmeierD. (2004). The impact of gender and race-ethnicity in the pretrial release process. Social Problems, 51(2), 222–242.
13.
DollarC. B. (2014). Racial threat theory: Assessing the evidence, requesting redesign. Journal of Criminology, 2014, 1–7.
14.
DonnellyE. A. (2019). Do Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) mandate reforms change decision-making? Decomposing disparities in the juvenile justice system. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 17(3), 288–308.
15.
FaderJ. J.KurlychekM. C.MorganK. A. (2014). The color of juvenile justice: Racial disparities in dispositional decisions. Social Science Research, 44, 126–140.
16.
FeldmeyerB.CochranJ. C. (2018). Racial threat and social control: A review and conceptual framework for advancing racial threat theory. In UnneverJ. D.GabbidonS.ChouhyC. (Eds.), Building a Black criminology: Race, theory, and crime. Routledge.
17.
FeldmeyerB.UlmerJ. T. (2011). Racial/ethnic threat and federal sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(2), 238–270.
18.
FeldmeyerB.WarrenP. Y.SiennickS. E.NeptuneM. (2015). Racial, ethnic, and immigrant threat: Is there a new criminal threat on state sentencing?Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 62–92.
19.
FreiburgerT. L.JordanK. L. (2011). A multilevel analysis of race on the decision to petition a case in the juvenile court. Race and Justice, 1(2), 185–201.
20.
Hayes-SmithJ.Hayes-SmithR. (2009). Race, racial context, and withholding adjudication in drug cases: A multilevel examination of juvenile justice. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 7(3), 163–185.
21.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
22.
HirschiT. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
23.
InfanteA. A.WangX.PardiniD. (2019). The development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived Latino threat. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1616539
24.
IntratorJ.TannenJ.MasseyD. S. (2016). Segregation by race and income in the United States 1970–2010. Social Science Research, 60, 45–60.
25.
JordanK. L.MarounR. (2016). Minority threat and criminal sentencing: Examining juveniles in the adult criminal justice system. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39(1), 41–54.
26.
KingR. D.WheelockD. (2007). Group threat and social control: Race, perceptions of minorities and the desire to punish. Social Forces, 85(3), 1255–1280.
27.
LeiberM. (2003). The contexts of juvenile justice decision making: When race matters. SUNY Press.
28.
LeiberM. J.JamiesonK. M. (1995). Race and decision making within juvenile justice: The importance of context. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11(4), 363–384.
29.
LeiberM. J.PeckJ. H. (2019). Clarifying the theoretical tenets of the symbolic threat perspective. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1593488
LeiberM.StairsJ. (1999). Race, contexts, and the use of intake diversion. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), 56–86.
32.
LevinsonJ. D.BennettM. W.HiokiK. (2017). Judging implicit bias: A national empirical study of judicial stereotypes. Florida Law Review, 69(1), 53.
33.
LiskaA. (1992). Social threat and social control. SUNY Press.
34.
LiskaA.ChamlinM. B. (1984). Social structure and crime control among macrosocial units. American Journal of Sociology, 90(2), 383–395.
35.
LoweryP. G. (2018). Characterizing the effects of symbolic and racial threat on charge modifications in the juvenile court. Race and Justice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368718808351
36.
LoweryP. G.BurrowJ. D. (2019). Concentrated disadvantage, racial disparities, and juvenile institutionalization within the context of attribution theory. Criminal Justice Studies, 32(4), 330–355.
37.
LoweryP. G.BurrowJ. D.KaminskiR. J. (2018). A multilevel test of the racial threat hypothesis in one state’s juvenile court. Crime & Delinquency, 64(1), 53–87.
38.
LoweryP. G.SmithJ. C. (2020). The impact of concentrated affluence and disadvantage on the pre-adjudication detention decision: A status characteristics approach:Crime & Delinquency, 66(6–7), 915–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720907581
39.
MaggardS. R. (2015). Assessing the impact of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI): Predictors of secure detention and length of stay before and after JDAI. Justice Quarterly, 32(4), 571–597.
40.
MajorB.BlodornA.Major BlascovichG. (2018). The threat of increasing diversity: Why many White Americans support Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(6), 931–940.
41.
MarounR. (2019). Contextual characteristics in juvenile sentencing: Examining the impact of concentrated disadvantage on youth court outcomes. Routledge.
42.
MasseyD.DentonN. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Harvard University Press.
43.
MessnerS. F.KrohnM. D.LiskaA. E. (1989). Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime: Problems and prospects. SUNY Press.
44.
ParkerK. F.MaggardS. R. (2005). Structural theories and race-specific drug arrests: What structural factors account for the rise in race-specific drug arrests over time?Crime & Delinquency, 51(4), 521–547.
45.
PeckJ.JenningsW. G. (2016). A critical examination of “being Black” in the juvenile justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 219–232.
46.
PopperK.R. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson & Co.
47.
RachlinskiJ.JohnsonS. (2009). Does unconscious racial bias affect trial judges?Notre Dame Law Review, 84, 1195–1246.
48.
RodriguezN. (2007). Juvenile court context and detention decisions: Reconsidering the role of race, ethnicity, and community characteristics in juvenile court processes. Justice Quarterly, 24(4), 629–656.
49.
RodriguezN. (2010). The cumulative effect of race and ethnicity in juvenile court outcomes and why preadjudication detention matters. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 391–413.
50.
RodriguezN. (2013). Concentrated disadvantage and the incarceration of youth: Examining how context affects juvenile justice. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 189–215.
51.
SampsonR. J.LaubJ. H. (1993). Structural variations in juvenile court processing: Inequality, the underclass, and social control. Law & Society Review, 27(2), 285–312.
52.
SampsonR. J.LauritsenJ. L. (1997). Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United States. Crime and Justice, 21, 311–374. https://doi.org/10.1086/449253
53.
StinchcombeA. L. (1968). Constructing social theories. University of Chicago Press.
54.
ThomasS. A.MoakS. C.WalkerJ. T. (2013). The contingent effect of race in juvenile court detention decisions: The role of racial and symbolic threat. Race and Justice, 3(3), 239–265.
55.
TittleC. R.CurranD. A. (1988). Contingencies for dispositional disparities in juvenile justice. Social Forces, 67(1), 23–58.
56.
TracyP. E. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and juvenile justice: Is there bias in post-arrest decision-making? In HawkinsD. F.KempfK. L. (Eds.), Our children, their children: Confronting racial and ethnic differences in American juvenile justice (pp. 300–350). University of Chicago Press.
UlmerJ. T.JohnsonB. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42(1), 137–178.
59.
UlmerJ. T.ParkerB. R. (2020). Federal sentencing of Hispanic defendants in changing immigrant destinations. Justice Quarterly, 37(3), 541–570.
60.
UnneverJ. D.HembroffL. A. (1988). The prediction of racial/ethnic sentencing disparities: An expectation states approach:Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25(1), 53–82.
61.
VespaJ.MedinaL.ArmstrongD. M. (2020). Population estimates and projections. U.S. Census Bureau.
62.
WangX.MearsD. P. (2010). Examining the direct and interactive effects of changes in racial and ethnic threat on sentencing decisions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(4), 522–557.
63.
WangX.MearsD. P. (2015). Sentencing and state-level racial and ethnic contexts. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 883–915.
64.
WengerM. R. (2019). Omitted level bias in multilevel research: An empirical test distinguishing block group, tract, and city effects of disadvantage on crime. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1649449
65.
WilbanksW. (1987). The myth of a racist criminal justice system. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
66.
WilsonW. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago Press.
67.
WilsonW. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
68.
ZaneS. N. (2018). Exploring the minority threat hypothesis for juveniles in criminal court: Static versus dynamic threat and diffuse versus targeted effects. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 16(4), 418–441.
69.
ZatzM. S. (2000). The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decision making: Looking toward the 21st Century. Criminal Justice 2000, 3(1), 503–552.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
