Why have incarceration rates and racial disparities fallen in the USA? Using data on recorded crimes, arrests and prison admissions from 2000 to 2019, we decompose declines in imprisonment by race and offence category. Whereas the rise of mass incarceration primarily reflected increased punitiveness in policing and case processing, recent declines in imprisonment for violent and property offences can be attributed almost exclusively to reductions in recorded crime rates, particularly to declines in violence among Black Americans. For drug offences, however, the pattern appears different. There is little evidence of declining drug use. Rather, drug prison admissions appear to have fallen owing to reductions in the likelihood of arrest and imprisonment. For Black individuals arrested for drug-related offences, the probability of imprisonment was cut in half since 2000. Overall, we find clear evidence that the forces that produced mass incarceration differ substantially from those associated with the contraction of America's carceral state.

We leverage the rollout of Secure Communities (S-Comm)-the largest effort in US history to integrate local criminal justice authorities into immigration enforcement-to examine whether immigration enforcement exacerbates racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Using detailed case information on all arrests in California and Texas from 2006-12, we test conflicting theoretical views as to whether S-Comm altered arrest and case processing practices. We find that the implementation of S-Comm had little impact on the arrest patterns of Latinos and non-US citizens in either state. However, the case processing of non-US citizens became considerably more punitive following S-Comm, but only in Texas, where the justice system was closely coupled with immigration enforcement. These findings recalibrate our understanding of the scope, target, and impact of national immigration enforcement programs and suggest that the organizational context plays a consequential role as to whether immigration enforcement alters local criminal justice practices.

Although minor forms of criminal justice contact are increasingly used to identify immigration violators, little research has been conducted at the intersection of immigration and misdemeanor justice. As a result, citizenship remains undertheorized in punishment research and fundamental questions remain unanswered. In this article, we introduce the "crimmigrant" punishment framework to conceptualize the unique case processing consequences for non-U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants. We then draw on rich case data from all misdemeanor arrests in Texas and California between 2006 and 2018 to establish four notable findings. (1) Misdemeanors are common and consequential. We observe more than 1.4 million misdemeanor arrests involving non-U.S. citizens, the overwhelming majority of which resulted in criminal charges and formal punishments. (2) The offenses that funnel noncitizens into the misdemeanor system are similar to those of U.S. citizens; however, we do observe an appreciable number of arrests linked to noncitizens' legal status (e.g., giving false information). (3) Once in the misdemeanor system, noncitizens, and especially undocumented immigrants, are significantly more likely to be convicted and incarcerated compared with similarly situated U.S. citizens. (4) These disparities are more severe in Texas than in California.

Disparities in life expectancy between Black and White Americans increased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the same period, the US experienced the largest increase in homicide on record. Yet, little research has examined the contribution of homicide to Black-White disparities in longevity in recent years. Using mortality data and population estimates, we conduct a comprehensive decomposition of the drivers of Black-White inequality in life expectancy and lifespan variability between 2019 and 2021 among men. We find that homicide is one of the principal reasons why lifespans have become shorter for Black men than White men in recent years. In 2020 and 2021, homicide was the leading contributor to inequality in both life expectancy and lifespan variability between Black and White men, accounting for far more of the racial gap in longevity and variability than deaths from COVID-19. Addressing homicides should be at the forefront of any public health discussion aimed at promoting racial health equity.

It is widely speculated that prejudicial attitudes and implicit biases are fundamental to understanding racial disparities in criminal punishment. Yet surprisingly little research links measures of racial bias to data on criminal court decision-making. This article fills this gap by combining multiple aggregate measures of implicit and explicit racial bias with data from U.S. federal courts to examine whether racial disparities in sentencing are associated with prejudicial attitudes within the surrounding court context. We find no evidence that racial biases, whether implicit or explicit, significantly influence racial sentencing disparities across U.S. district courts. Nor do we find evidence that racial biases yield greater sentencing disparities in supplementary analyses using county-level court data. We do, however, find suggestive evidence that the prosecutorial application of mandatory minimums is sensitive to the level of racial bias within a court’s jurisdiction. Specifically, we find that Black defendants are disproportionately charged in districts with greater explicit racial animus.

Despite substantial legal and policy debates, whether immigrant arrest rates changed during the Trump presidency remains surprisingly understudied. This is partially because immigration status is rarely available in crime data. We address this gap by applying difference-in-differences (DD) and difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) estimations to detailed arrest data from Texas and California from 2015 to 2018. We find little evidence, descriptive or otherwise, to suggest that the transition from the Obama to the Trump administration had a meaningful impact on immigrant arrests, whether measured as violence, property, drug, or traffic offenses. These results suggest that the immigration enforcement initiatives under President Trump did not deliver on their crime reduction pledges, but they also provide little evidence of over-policing of immigrants in discretionary actions such as traffic arrests.

Immigration enforcement is increasingly dependent on local criminal justice authorities, yet basic questions on the criminal case processing of non-US citizens (documented or undocumented) in state and local jurisdictions remain unanswered. Leveraging uniquely rich case information on all felony arrests in California and Texas between 2006 and 2018, this article provides a detailed examination of the legal treatment of non-US citizens from booking through sentencing. In both states, the authors find that non-US citizens arrested for the same crime and with the same prior record are significantly more likely to be convicted and incarcerated than US citizens. These citizenship gaps often exceed the observed disparities between white and minority defendants, but the results were not identical in both states. In line with the more rigid views toward migrant criminality in Texas, the case processing of non-US citizens is notably more severe there than in California at nearly every key decision point. These findings suggest that even in local criminal justice settings, citizenship is a unique and consequential axis of contemporary legal inequality.

Mass incarceration fundamentally altered the life course for a generation of American men, but sustained declines in imprisonment in recent years raise questions about how incarceration is shaping current generations. This study makes three primary contributions to a fuller understanding of the contemporary landscape of incarceration in the United States. First, we assess the scope of decarceration. Between 1999 and 2019, the Black male incarceration rate dropped by 44%, and notable declines in Black male imprisonment were evident in all 50 states. Second, our life table analysis demonstrates marked declines in the lifetime risks of incarceration. For Black men, the lifetime risk of incarceration declined by nearly half from 1999 to 2019. We estimate that less than 1 in 5 Black men born in 2001 will be imprisoned, compared with 1 in 3 for the 1981 birth cohort. Third, decarceration has shifted the institutional experiences of young adulthood. In 2009, young Black men were much more likely to experience imprisonment than college graduation. Ten years later, this trend had reversed, with Black men more likely to graduate college than go to prison. Our results suggest that prison has played a smaller role in the institutional landscape for the most recent generation compared with the generation exposed to the peak of mass incarceration.

An increase in the mobility of persons across national borders coincides with an overrepresentation of foreign nationals in the penal systems of Western Europe, though this phenomenon is not yet well understood. This paper positions itself at the intersection of migration and criminology by examining citizenship disparities in pretrial detention and whether said disparities affect incarceration outcomes. Leveraging a mixed-methods strategy, we make use of individual-level criminal case and interview data from the Netherlands. Our quasi-experimental quantitative analyses show significant and substantive differences in the assignment of pretrial detention to foreign citizens, which affects the risk of future incarceration. Our interviews reveal that citizenship disparities manifest themselves through multiple mechanisms: (i) foreign defendants are viewed as flight risks, (ii) fewer non-prison sanctions are assigned in cases involving foreign defendants, and (iii) pretrial detention is seen as an efficient method for punishment.

Amsterdam University Press is a leading publisher of academic books, journals and textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Our aim is to make current research available to scholars, students, innovators, and the general public. AUP stands for scholarly excellence, global presence, and engagement with the international academic community.

Abstract:Racial inequality in sentencing has decreased substantially over the last decade. In 2009, the average sentencing difference between black and white defendants in federal court was nearly 3 yrs. By 2018, this difference was less than 6 mos. Among drug offenders over this same period, the black–white gap went from 47 mos. down to zero. Yet, despite the fact that racial inequality in the legal system remains at the fore of sociological discourse, these developments remain conspicuously underevaluated and the underlying processes driving these changes remain unknown. This article fills this gap by applying longitudinal decomposition methods to US District Court data between 2009 and 2018. Three notable findings emerge. First, the declining racial gap was driven, in equal parts, by decreasing black sentences and increasing white sentences. Second, black and white sentences became more equal almost entirely due to changes in observable case characteristics and not due to changes in the treatment of offenders. Third, shifts in the prosecutorial use of mandatory minimums played a critical role in decreasing black–white sentencing inequality.

We make use of uniquely comprehensive arrest data from the Texas Department of Public Safety to compare the criminality of undocumented immigrants to legal immigrants and native-born US citizens between 2012 and 2018. We find that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses. Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. In addition, the proportion of arrests involving undocumented immigrants in Texas was relatively stable or decreasing over this period. The differences between US-born citizens and undocumented immigrants are robust to using alternative estimates of the broader undocumented population, alternate classifications of those counted as "undocumented" at arrest and substituting misdemeanors or convictions as measures of crime.

Foreign nationals are increasingly encountering the criminal justice institutions of many European countries. Yet, basic questions about how they are punished within these institutions, particularly at the early stages of case processing, remain unanswered. This article combines linked case information from arrest through sentencing with interviews of Dutch judges and prosecutors to fill this gap. Our findings reveal considerable unexplained citizenship disparities in multiple case outcomes. Compared to Dutch citizens arrested for the same crimes and with similar criminal records, foreign nationals are more likely to have their cases referred to court, to be detained, convicted, and imprisoned. The interviews identified several mechanisms that explicate these differences, including (i) annoyance when foreign nationals are perceived to be in the country for the purpose of committing crime; (ii) logistical issues when noncitizens do not have a permanent residence, and; (iii) undermining the need for reintegration because many defendants are unlikely to remain in the Netherlands.

Amid global trends of increasingly mobile populations, scholars have debated whether national citizenship status remains relevant for international migrants. Some argue that international courts have practically eliminated the differences between citizens and noncitizens through equal protection under the law, while others maintain that national membership remains an essential form of stratification in modern societies. Recent trends in immigration enforcement seem to emphasize the continuing salience of citizenship, as criminal sanctions have become increasingly commonplace in border control. With the increasing importation of criminal justice strategies into migration policy, Western societies have witnessed dramatic increases in the number of noncitizens adjudicated and punished in recent decades, a trend that has gained considerable steam in the United States under the Trump administration. For example, between the president’s inauguration (January 20, 2018) and the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2018), the number of immigration arrests increased by 42% over the same time period in 2016. Yet despite these debates and trends, the role of citizenship status has received only limited consideration within the field of criminology. In the same vein, the role of punishment has been underappreciated in the field of citizenship studies. Against this backdrop, theoretical insights from the sociology of punishment are connected with three central aspects of citizenship: (1) state sovereignty, (2) cultural understanding, and (3) group membership. Drawing these parallels to theoretical and methodological traditions within criminology will set new research paths for future scholars to understand criminology in the context of a globalizing world increasingly characterized by international migration.

How courts make decisions during national emergencies has been a key focus of legal scholarship, yet we know comparatively little about how courts respond to national crises in one of their core functions—criminal sentencing. This article addresses this gap by leveraging the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, to examine the punishment of foreign nationals before and after a national emergency. Using difference-in-difference-in-differences estimation, this article finds little evidence that the severity of sentences for non-U.S. citizens changed appreciably nationwide. This article does find, however, considerable evidence of a more local 9/11 effect, whereby the sentencing gap between citizens and noncitizens widened significantly in the New York and Washington, D.C., District Courts following the attacks. Using restricted data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, this article finds suggestive evidence that the differences in sentencing following 9/11 are likely attributable to changes in judges’ behavior, rather than policy shifts or changes in prosecutorial decisions.

Blacks and Hispanics convicted of felonies are more likely than whites to receive prison sentences for their crimes, and they receive slightly longer sentences if imprisoned. Yet the majority of prior research compares sentencing decisions at a single point in time and does not give explicit attention to whether and how racial and ethnic disparities have changed. Decades of sentencing data from Minnesota, the federal courts, and a sample of large urban counties are used to assess the degree of change in racial and ethnic sentencing disparities since the 1980s. There has been some decline in the magnitude of racial and ethnic disparities, with changes in drug laws aligning with some of the reduction in disparity at the federal level. This trend, along with the pattern of findings from related studies, poses a challenge to prominent theoretical explanations of sentencing disparities, including racial threat theory and the focal concerns perspective. Each of four influential theoretical explanations of racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing includes significant empirical or logical shortcomings. Advancing theoretical understanding of racial and ethnic disparity will require new data that follow cases from the point of arrest through to final disposition and include information about citizenship and victims.

Despite marked declines in black-white segregation over the past half century, there has been limited scholarly attention to the effects of increasing integration. This is a significant omission given that sociologists have long viewed residential segregation as a fundamental determinant of racial inequality, and extant research has produced inconsistent findings on the consequences of segregation for different racial groups. Using the case of violence, this study leverages a unique combination of race-specific information on homicide, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics for 103 major metropolitan areas across five decades (1970 to 2010) to examine the criminogenic consequences of segregation for whites and blacks. Three notable findings emerge from our inquiry: (1) racial segregation substantially increases the risk of homicide victimization for blacks while (2) simultaneously decreasing the risk of white homicide victimization. The result of these heterogeneous effects is that (3) segregation plays a central role in driving black-white differences in homicide mortality. These findings suggest the declines in racial segregation since 1970 have substantially attenuated the black-white homicide gap.

The justifications for the dramatic expansion of the prison population in recent decades have focused on public safety. Prior research on the efficacy of incarceration offers support for such claims, suggesting that increased incarceration saves lives by reducing the prevalence of homicide. We challenge this view by arguing that the effects of mass incarceration include collateral infant mortality consequences that call into question the number of lives saved through increased imprisonment. Using an instrumental variable estimation on state-level data from 1978 to 2010, this article simultaneously considers the effects of imprisonment on homicide and infant mortality to examine two of the countervailing mortality consequences of mass incarceration. Results suggest that while incarceration saves lives by lowering homicide rates, these gains are largely offset by the increases in infant mortality. Adjusted figures that count the number of increased infant deaths attributable to incarceration suggest that the mortality benefits of imprisonment over the past three decades are 82% lower than previously thought.