Suchergebnisse

Compared to some other areas of governmental activity, the federal presence in the realm of sentencing law and policy has remained insignificant. Setting aside the growth in federal criminal jurisdiction per se, which still accounts for less than 8 percent of all incarcerated offenders, Congress historically has shown little interest in influencing the goals or the particulars of state sentencing systems and has done little to help fund those systems. This may, however, be changing. There are now calls to expand the federal government's role in both paying for and controlling the contours of criminal punishment at the state level. These developments raise long-term questions concerning the appropriate allocation of federal, state, and local authority over sentencing law. Surprisingly, very little consideration has been given to these issues. This article suggests a pragmatic analysis for addressing them. It posits that, for the foreseeable future, it would be a mistake to move toward a federally dominated national sentencing policy.

In recent years, various determinate sentencing models have been proposed to promote equity in sentencing and prisoner release certainty. This article examines the implementation of Minnesota's determinate sentencing law as it relates to prisoners and the state correctional system, It reviews the extent of the reform's success in achieving predictability in prisoner release dates and equity in sentencing. Organizational, political, and transitional problems in the implementation of the determinacy concept are discussed. In particular, resistance to change among parole board and correctional treatment staff members and a prisoner movement for retroactivity are highlighted. Conditions that could lead to replications of Minnesota's experience in other states are reviewed.

Threat theory argues that states toughen criminal laws to repress the competitive power of large minority groups. Yet, research on threat suffers from a poor understanding of why minority group size contributes to social control and a lack of evidence on whether criminal law is uniquely responsive to the political interests of majority racial groups at all. By compiling a unique state-level dataset on 230 sentencing policy changes during mass incarceration and using data from 257,362 responses to 79 national surveys to construct new state-level measures of racial differences in punitive policy support, I evaluate whether criminal sentencing law is uniquely responsive to white public policy interests. Pooled event history models and mediation analyses support three primary conclusions: (1) states adopted new sentencing policies as a nonlinear response to minority group size, (2) sentencing policies were adopted in response to white public, but not black public, support for punitive crime policy, and (3) minority group size and race-specific homicide victimization both indirectly affect sentencing policy by increasing white public punitive policy support. These findings support key theoretical propositions for the threat explanation of legal change and identify white public policy opinion as a mechanism linking minority group size to variation in criminal law.