Gender differences among fear of victimization have been well-established such that women are generally more afraid of all types of victimization than men. This is paradoxical given that women historically have been less likely to be victimized than men with few exceptions (i.e., interpersonal violence crimes, such as sexual assault and domestic/dating violence). This difference is supported by the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data, although data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has more recently shown that the difference between male and female violent victimization is statistically nonsignificant (Thompson & Tapp, 2022). The ‘shadow of sexual assault’ hypothesis suggests that women’s heightened fear is due to their increased likelihood for sexual victimization. While there is empirical support for this hypothesis, there is a gap in knowledge pertaining to whether fear of victimization is due to a gendered effect or if the scales being used to measure fear are non-invariant. In other words, are the questions about fear of victimization viewed the same way by both men and women? Using a fear of victimization scale from a dataset that surveyed a jail sample, invariance testing was conducted to determine if the scale would reveal invariance between men and women. Findings show that the fear of victimization scale from this survey, once fear of sexually-motivated crimes was removed, is appropriate for continued use, at least in determining differences between males and females. Implications of these findings are discussed along with directions for future research.
This essay examines the systematic marginalization of legal scholarship within criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) and argues that the phenomenon is structural. Although CCJ presents itself as an interdisciplinary field, its evaluative architecture, including tenure and promotion standards that rely on journal impact factors and citation metrics derived from selective databases, privileges certain publication models while disadvantaging doctrinal, interdisciplinary, and translational legal scholarship. Drawing on analyses of faculty composition in leading doctoral programs, citation patterns across multiple databases, and institutional governance policies, the essay explicates how journal-level metrics and individual citation counts systematically undercount legal scholarship. The problem is compounded by the exclusion of most law reviews and judicial citations from widely used indexing systems such as Scopus. By tracing the transformation of bibliometrics from descriptive tools into instruments of institutional governance, the essay conceptualizes this process as a form of “metric governance” that embeds epistemic hierarchy into routine evaluation practices. The analysis further addresses the counter-argument that criminology is properly a social science distinct from law, demonstrating that the institutional separation of law and criminology in the United States is contingent rather than epistemically necessary. The essay concludes with concrete policy recommendations designed to recalibrate evaluative standards, broaden evidentiary definitions of scholarly impact, and foster genuinely transdisciplinary engagement between legal scholars and criminologists.
n Payne v. Tennessee, the right for victims to present victim impact statements, and to be heard, was granted as an avenue to remind jurors that victims exist as unique individuals. Despite concerns that victim impact statements may potentially impede the rights of defendants, their legal utilization has gone largely unchecked. To better understand this legal landscape, this article explores legislation across all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and the federal government to determine how victim impact statements are formalized across the country. These findings show that victim impact statements lack consistent implementation, providing unequal access for victims and defendants alike.
As the United States has shifted to “a system of pleas,” the role of defense attorneys has swung from trial litigator to plea negotiator. To further investigate how this shift has impacted defense attorneys, we surveyed a nationwide sample (N = 134) to assess the duration and frequency of client meetings, information clients frequently lack and misconceptions they espouse concerning the plea and trial process, and how attorneys convey advice to accept or reject plea offers to clients. The results indicated that defense attorneys spend a significant amount of time meeting with clients (an average of 5.7 meetings for an average of 44.9 minutes). They also cited substantial deficits in criminal defendants’ knowledge of the legal system, as well as many misconceptions regarding legal procedures. Attorneys provided a diversity of responses regarding the most important advice they offer their clients with many mentioning facts related to the case resolution process (56.0%), the direct and collateral consequences associated with a criminal conviction (29.4%), the role of the defense attorney (32.1%), and the importance of the right to silence (24.8%). Further, over half of the attorneys surveyed indicated a general hesitance (54.0%) and others an outright refusal (15.0%) to provide an explicit plea recommendation to their clients. In sum, these findings provide valuable insight into the challenges faced by defense attorneys who must be adviser, negotiator, and apparently, educator. Further, many appear to draw a sharp line between counseling their clients and moving them to a decision.
This paper examines the emerging role of artificial intelligence (AI) as a unique “new actor” in criminology and criminal justice, challenging traditional frameworks that focus solely on perpetrators, victims, and the criminal justice system. Through a targeted literature synthesis drawing on sources from 2020-2024, the research analyzes AI’s multifaceted presence across the criminal landscape: as a sophisticated tool that enhances criminal capabilities, as a vulnerable target of exploitation, and, potentially, as an autonomous agent capable of independent criminal behavior. The methodology employs a purposive selective sampling selection approach, integrating diverse scholarly sources to examine AI-enabled criminal behavior, AI applications in criminal justice systems, and AI moral alignment frameworks. The findings reveal significant concerns about AI’s impact on criminal justice, especially the emergence of new criminal methodologies, and the philosophical and legal challenges of attributing criminal responsibility to AI systems. The research concludes that while AI-enabled crimes currently operate within existing criminological frameworks, the rapid evolution of AI capabilities necessitates proactive adaptation of theoretical models and investigative approaches, emphasizing prevention, detection, and system resilience over purely punitive measures.
Originating as a keynote address delivered at the Western Society of Criminology, this article focuses on the complex and fraught relationship between LGBTQ communities and law enforcement, historically and in the present. Situating current LGBTQ–police relations in a historical context as revealed by pivotal events occurring in New York and Los Angeles, it first emphasizes a history of police violence against LGBTQ people. Thereafter, this article draws on original survey data to reveal that LGBTQ people are more likely to see the police as “foe” rather than “friend,” are less willing to call the police for help, and are more supportive of three types of policing reform (defunding the police, reallocating funds for police, and disbanding the police) compared to non-LGBTQ people. In addition to these disparities between LGBTQ people and non-LGBTQ people, there are differences within the LGBTQ community. These and other findings are situated in a larger context in which studies reveal that LGBTQ people are overpoliced and underserved. The implications of these historical legacies, empirical findings, and calls for policy reform are presented as the basis for future research that can enrich theory, policy, and practice.
Appellate courts can be active participants in the development of sentencing law and policy within sentencing guideline systems through their review of appealed departures. The present study examines departure review by the Michigan Court of Appeals in a sample of 124 opinions through the lens of focal concerns theory. A thematic analysis offers insight into the ways in which the Court has affirmed and/or challenged local interpretations of the focal concerns of blameworthiness, dangerousness, and redeemability through its decisions to accept or reject upward departures and their given rationales. Findings highlight several areas of potential concern for legal practitioners and contribute to scholarship on focal concerns theory and the role of appellate courts in sentencing guideline systems.
This study investigates how prosecutor gender impacts perceptions of defendant culpability in the criminal court system. While factual guilt and evidence should determine culpability, anecdotal beliefs and research suggest that extra-legal factors, such as attorney gender, may influence legal outcomes. Past studies have shown that female attorneys may face disadvantages in negotiations, but little research has explored whether prosecutor gender affects perceptions of defendants. This issue becomes increasingly relevant as more women enter the legal profession. Using a nationwide sample of 471 American adults, this study explores three key questions: 1) whether a prosecutor’s gender influences perceptions of defendant culpability, 2) how respondent gender affects these perceptions, and 3) whether respondent gender moderates the influence of prosecutor gender. To evaluate the impact of prosecutor gender on defendant culpability, this study uses an experimental vignette design manipulating prosecutor gender. Ordered-logistic analysis shows that cases involving female prosecutors result in higher perceptions of defendant culpability relative to cases with male prosecutors. Notably, female respondents are more likely to attribute higher culpability to defendants when the prosecutor is female or when no prosecutor gender is indicated, compared to male respondents. Policy implications and future directions for research are also discussed.
Objective: to study issues related to the lawyer and client interaction regarding building a legal position on the case and the plea process.Methods: the article uses the universal dialectical method of cognition, as well as general (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction) and specific scientific research methods (formal-legal method).Results: As the United States has shifted to “a system of pleas,” the role of defense attorneys has swung from trial litigator to plea negotiator. The study results indicated that defense attorneys spend a significant amount of time meeting with clients. Attorneys also cited substantial deficits in criminal defendants’ knowledge of the legal system, as well as many misconceptions regarding legal procedures. The respondents provided a diversity of responses regarding the most important advice they offer their clients with many mentioning facts related to the case resolution process, the direct and collateral consequences associated with a criminal conviction, the role of the defense attorney, and the importance of the right to silence. Further, over half of the attorneys surveyed indicated a general hesitance and 15.0% – an outright refusal to provide an explicit plea recommendation to their clients.Scientific novelty: The plea process is complex, and defense attorneys play a critical role in this process. The current work highlights how that role has potentially evolved – moving from adviser to educator and evaluator. More qualitative data collection like this is needed to illuminate how attorneys influence defendants’ decision-making rather than just whether they do and by how much. This type of research on “expanded criminal defense lawyering” often goes above and beyond typical outcomes, and instead focuses more on the process, such as plea negotiations and effective attorney-client communication, and often incorporates the defendants’ perspectives. Such studies will inform future avenues for research and how best to operationalize attorney-client communication. The research substantiates the need to reduce the burden on defense attorneys by making it easier for them to ensure that their clients are meeting the knowing and intelligent requirements for plea decisions.Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering issues related to building a legal position on the case and the plea process.
There is a current call to action among researchers and others emphasizing the need for continued evolution of the concept of “success” in corrections (e.g., Returning Citizens, 2020; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022). While there have been positive developments in corrections over the years, the predominant risk-need-responsivity model (RNR; Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Andrews et al., 1990; Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Ward et al., 2007) for correctional assessment and rehabilitation in the United States’ prison system has proved insufficient. Key barriers to progress have included over-reliance upon a problematic definition and measure of success (i.e., recidivism), over-confidence in a reductionist and risk-focused model, and ignorance of the importance of the form and quality of prison culture upon prison outcomes. Amid the recommendations for innovation and alternatives to overcome identified weaknesses in the status quo approach, we posit a new, values-based, culture-focused framework for success in corrections. The Good Citizenship Model (GCM), in its most recent iteration, emerged out of over 45 years of collaborative outreach and fieldwork activity by researchers, returned citizens, specialists, and volunteers serving incarcerated people, returned citizens, and their families. The GCM targets the development of positive values and prosocial character development rather than risk-related deficits; emphasizes human flourishing over non-recidivism; and construes prison culture as a conduit through which prosocial values and character attributes are attained, reinforced, and sustained.
Few studies have examined racial or other disparities in terrorism sentences. Unlike previous research, this study incorporates all types of terrorism, several severity levels, and both state and federal cases. Using a database including all US terrorism cases between 2001 and 2018 (n = 825), we test for sentencing disparities based on race/ethnicity, gender, citizenship, state/federal court, and type of terrorism. Our results show some evidence for disparities, with foreign nationals and White supremacists receiving longer sentences and foreign non-jihadi terrorists receiving shorter sentences. We find limited evidence for racial disparities, including longer sentences for minority defendants within some severity levels. The “liberation hypothesis” predicting greater disparities for less-serious crimes was mainly unsupported. Whether prosecution occurred in state or federal court had little effect, suggesting that states are well-equipped to prosecute terrorists. Compared to jihadi defendants, anti-government defendants received larger “discounts” between initial allegations and charges of conviction, dramatically affecting sentence length.
In the United States, the vast majority of chief prosecutors are elected, and existing literature demonstrates that electoral pressure impacts the decisions that candidates make (e.g., Brace & Hall, 1997; Cox & McCubbins, 1993; Mayhew, 1974). Prosecutorial discretion puts prosecutors in a unique position to shape outcomes in our criminal justice system. This paper explores how electoral pressure impacts prosecutorial decision-making. This analysis utilizes a novel dataset of chief prosecutor elections in Florida from 2008–2016 to test the impact of electoral pressure on three dependent variables: the proportion of cases not prosecuted, the proportion of cases convicted by jury trial, and the proportion of cases disposed by plea agreements. The models demonstrate no relationship between electoral pressure and case declination decisions. The results hold across several operationalizations of electoral pressure. However, individual prosecutor characteristics, such as sex and ideology, shape the decision to prosecute. Electoral pressure also has no effect on plea bargaining. However, during the time span of the data, jury trials decrease during election years.
Children in contact with the law are especially vulnerable to misunderstandings due to their lack of knowledge about judicial proceedings and contexts that are complex for their level of development. This study examined whether children understand legal terminology commonly used at Portuguese courts. Three hundred twenty-two Portuguese-speaking schoolchildren aged 6 to 13 years participated in this study and were randomly distributed into two groups. We asked the children to define a list of 18 legal terms (9 for each group), which were previously identified after analyzing 33 children’s statements in cases of alleged sexual abuse. Their answers were categorized into five categories that reflect the mistakes children made when defining legal terms and the different strategies used in this task. As expected in light of the results of previous works, our results show that children do not understand the legal terms used at court: 47.2% do not show comprehension about any of the 9 terms presented. No child has been able to define all of them correctly. Age and school grade show a significant relationship with the level of understanding. No differences were found based on gender and children's contact with justice. Findings have implications about a necessary adaption of courts to children.
While the public debates whether law enforcement has a problem with mis- or over-using force, the field lacks critical information concerning how often officers use force when interacting with citizens. Moreover, researchers have not examined how differences in how states restrict officers’ ability to use force affect the frequency of force used. Consequently, the various reforms proposed have little evidence supporting them. Using data from Mapping Police Violence combined with census data, we examined the impact of the incorporation of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence and the overall restrictiveness each state placed on law enforcement’s ability to use force when making an arrest and what constituted reasonable force within each state. We found that while the state’s population size and violent crime rate were strong predictors of the number and rate of officer-involved deaths (OIDs), state statutory restrictions on use of force had negligible effects. This has important implications for reforming state and national discussions around reforming use of force.
The article argues for a more robust incorporation of law in the criminological study of sentencing and punishment.
This study examines how sex offenders who engage in prison sexual misconduct (PSM) compare to other sex offenders who do not offend in prison in terms of sexual, violent, and nonviolent rearrest rates upon their release. Differences in the connection between PSM and recidivism between two groups were also examined: offenders with a history of adult victims (ASO) and offenders with a history of child victims (CSO). The findings reveal that for the sample as a whole, PSM is associated with overall recidivism, but it is not associated specifically with sexual, violent, or nonviolent offending. For ASO, PSM was significantly associated with sexual rearrest but not violent rearrest, while for CSO, PSM was significantly associated with violent rearrest but not sexual rearrest. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.
Scholars know relatively little about how the location of a pedestrian police stop affects the racial distribution of post-stop outcomes, including the initiation of a search or a field interview. To address this gap, this research draws on a unique data set from San Jose, California, and underutilized spatial methods to examine the extent to which conflict theory explains post-stop enforcement patterns. We consider two iterations of the theory: (1) the racial threat hypothesis, which posits that Blacks and Hispanics are more aggressively policed in minority neighborhoods, and (2) the racial incongruity hypothesis, which holds that police tend to target minorities occupying concentrated White spaces. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) models indicate that Blacks and Hispanics face more aggressive post-stop enforcement than Whites but that stop location is not predictive. By contrast, geographically weighted regression (GWR) analysis shows that police are more likely to initiate searches and field interviews of Blacks and Hispanics in areas with high concentrations of White and minority residents. These findings illustrate the nuanced relationship between stop location, pedestrian race, and police behavior. Conflict theory is a valuable lens through which to view post-stop enforcement, yet evidence to support the minority threat and racial incongruity hypotheses was only visible at the micro level. This research adds to existing scholarship by demonstrating the utility of GWR in teasing out the nuanced, micro-level relationship between stop location and pedestrian race not captured in more traditional models.
Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines, as well as those of other jurisdictions, were enacted primarily to reduce unwarranted sentencing disparities. However, prior research asserts that the permissibility of guideline departures perpetuates or even exacerbates disparities from extralegal factors in sentencing decisions. While pretrial detention has been well-documented to have a negative impact on sentence outcomes like the decision to incarcerate and sentence length, its role in exacerbating sentencing disparities arising from sentencing guideline departures have been sorely understudied. The current study has two goals: (a) to quantify the effects that the length of pretrial detention has on the likelihood of dispositional, downward, and upward departures from Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines and (b) to examine how the length of pretrial detention interacts with race to affect the likelihood of those departures. Using data from two Pennsylvania counties, the hierarchical logistic regression models reveal that a 2.7-fold increase in pretrial detention length was associated with a 15% reduction in the odds of a dispositional departure, an 8% reduction in the odds of a downward departure, and an 11% increase in the odds of an upward departure. Moreover, Black individuals who experienced a 2.7-fold increase in pretrial detention length were 12% less likely to receive a dispositional departure than their White counterparts. Implications for the effectiveness of Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines and impacts on the criminal justice system are described.
Moral panics have been broadly discussed in the public discourse since Stanley Cohen’s (1972) seminal text on the topic. Despite copious research, we believe that the theory is in need of expansion due to the increased complexity of societal interactions. Through the lens of an increasingly polarizing American culture, we believe the original concept of moral panics is overly simplified and no longer encompasses the intricacies of American society. Using the story of the McCloskey family’s 2020 interactions with Black Lives Matter protestors and Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s (1994) definitional criteria, we propose a new, expanded theory of moral panics – Dual Panic Theory.
Parole members are tasked with deciding which incarcerated person is granted parole; however, factors such as the incarcerated person’s gender identity in combination with the crime committed could negatively affect this decision. This study investigated the effects of the incarcerated person’s gender identity (male, female, nonbinary) and crime committed (sexual assault, theft/larceny) on mock parole members’ decisions and perceptions of the incarcerated person. MTurk participants (N = 467) acted as mock parole board members. Participants read vignettes describing an incarcerated person eligible for parole, and participants rated their likelihood to release the incarcerated person and perception of the incarcerated person. We found that the incarcerated person’s gender identity affected participants’ parole decisions and perceptions of the incarcerated person, such that, in general, male incarcerated people were perceived more negatively than nonbinary and female incarcerated people, and female incarcerated people were perceived the most positively. Crime severity also affected parole decisions, such that incarcerated people who commit a crime of sexual assault were less likely to receive parole and were perceived the most negatively compared to incarcerated people who commit a crime of theft/larceny. There was no interaction between the incarcerated person’s gender identity and crime severity. This study can provide insight on perceptions of nonbinary incarcerated people, and how these perceptions compare to binary incarcerated people.
