Abstract
The body of research illustrating the effects of extralegal factors, most notably offender race and ethnicity, on a variety of sentencing outcomes is vast. However, fewer researchers have examined the relationship between citizenship status and sentencing decisions. That is, to what extent does an offender’s status as a citizen or noncitizen of the United States affect judicial decision making? This is a particularly important question to explore in an era in which previously mandated sentencing guidelines were deemed advisory following the Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v Booker (2005). Additionally, considering the influx of noncitizen offenders in the criminal justice system in recent years, the focus on legislation targeting illegal immigration, and the pervasive stereotypical depictions of noncitizens’ involvement in crime (e.g., terrorism, drug trafficking), research in this area is certainly warranted. In addition to examining interactions with other pertinent legal and extralegal factors, Jawjeong Wu’s research reported in, Citizenship Status, Race, Ethnicity, and Their Effects on Sentencing, attempts to partially fill this void. Analyses of official data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission reveal a number of interesting findings and calls for further research on this topic.
The book follows the traditional format of a dissertation beginning with an introduction to the general topic of study and a brief overview of the methodology that was employed. This first chapter focuses specifically on the possible link between citizenship status and sentencing outcomes. To that end, Wu makes a convincing argument as to why this relationship demands further study. In addition to the aforementioned influx of noncitizen offenders in the criminal justice system over the past few decades, he also highlights the paucity of research on this topic, as well as the need for an integrative theoretical framework. Drawing from the large body of research examining the effects of race and ethnicity on sentencing outcomes, Wu argues not only that citizenship status is likely to affect these judicial decisions, but also for the possibility of interactions among these factors. One of the primary research questions examined addresses the potential of a double disadvantage for some offenders. That is, do offenders facing double marginalization (i.e., social, economic, and/or political disadvantage) as a result of racial/ethnic characteristics and noncitizenship status receive more punitive sentencing outcomes than offenders facing only one form of marginalization? Moreover, are certain combinations of these characteristics more disadvantaged than others when it comes to sentencing? Although the interactions among only a few select variables are examined (e.g., citizenship status, race/ethnicity, sex), Wu’s research attempts to incorporate an intersectionality perspective more so than much of the previous research on extralegal factors and sentencing has done.
Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive history of sentencing practices throughout the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries. In addition to discussing criticisms of the various sentencing practices (e.g., indeterminate vs. determinate), Wu also highlights many of the important differences between state and federal guidelines, as well as previous research on unwarranted disparities throughout the oscillation of judicial discretion in U.S. sentencing practices. Although his discussion of Supreme Court cases challenging the constitutionality of these practices is somewhat excessive, the chapter could nevertheless provide a valuable resource for those interested in learning more about the progression and effects of sentencing practices.
In Chapter 3, the integrated theoretical framework utilized for the present study is described. Whereas early conflict theorists focused primarily on social class and macro-level analyses, more recent conflict theorists have incorporated race and ethnicity as well. Going one step further, the extension of conflict theory to include individual-level analyses of citizenship status is proposed. Though conflict theory provides a solid foundation for the effects of extralegal factors on sentencing, Wu argues for the integration of additional frameworks (i.e., typification theory and threat hypotheses) to account for the fact that the effects of race and ethnicity on sentencing are not necessarily equal. That is, some races and ethnicities are more disadvantaged than others due to stereotypical notions about the typical criminal offender and the potential social threat posed by certain groups (e.g., noncitizens). Thus, this framework posits that citizenship status will exacerbate the effects of these variables on sentencing. The chapter concludes with a discussion of previous research examining race, ethnicity, and the direct and indirect effects of citizenship status on sentencing.
The next chapter goes on to outline the methodology employed, including a detailed description of all variables examined. In addition to the commonly examined sentencing outcomes of the decision to incarcerate and prison sentence length, Wu makes an important contribution to the body of literature on this topic by incorporating the length of probation as one of the dependent variables as well. Though most variables are clearly explained, the race/ethnicity variable, with attributes of Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White warrants further consideration. In the United States, race and ethnicity are deemed separate categories. While both are indeed social constructions, race typically refers to physical attributes (e.g., skin color), whereas ethnicity refers to culture, language, and customs (Walker, Spohn, & Delone, 2007). The U. S. Census Bureau conceptualizes ethnicity as Hispanic or non-Hispanic and it is independent of an individual’s race. Thus, there are a number of possible racial and ethnic combinations. However, in accordance with the U. S. Sentencing Commission’s data, offenders identified as Hispanic are coded as such irrespective of race. Regardless of how offenders self-identify, a more important question, particularly for research examining sentencing disparity, might be how judges perceive these characteristics. In other words, are distinctions made between race and ethnicity or are they perceived as one characteristic? Future researchers should endeavor to disentangle the effects of these variables in regard to sentencing decisions.
An additional variable that warrants further examination is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the offender’s country of origin. From a threat hypothesis perspective, Wu argues that offenders from higher GDP countries may be deemed a greater social threat and thus more deserving of harsh punishment. Therefore, the country of origin of all noncitizen offenders is coded as high GDP or low GDP and is included in several analyses. The major issue with this variable is that it is argued to serve as a proxy for class identification. This not only suggests an ecological fallacy in which an individual’s class is contingent upon a dichotomous measure of their country of origin’s GDP, but also that judges are cognizant of these classifications. The chapter also includes a detailed description of each hypothesis and extensive discussion of how the data were analyzed. While the statistical analysis discussion is quite thorough, and certainly appropriate for a dissertation, some readers may be overwhelmed by the depth of this section.
Chapter 5 begins with the presentation of univariate and bivariate analyses. As previously mentioned, federal sentencing data obtained from the U.S. Sentencing Commission were utilized for this study. With the exception of a number of cases removed for missing information, this dataset of 63,775 cases essentially represents the population of federal cases sentenced between October of 2005 and September of 2006. Apart from the Asian category which represented only 2.2% of the cases, the data were well-distributed among the race/ethnicity categories and citizenship status variable allowing for a valid statistical analysis of the impact of these factors. Wu discusses a number of significant correlations in the text, though the correlation matrix provided is not reader-friendly as all variables are coded with an abbreviated schema making it difficult to interpret. This chapter continues with testing of Wu’s six hypotheses. Overall, the findings provided mixed support. Consistent with previous research, prior record score and offense gravity score were found to have the greatest impact on sentencing decisions, regardless of extralegal factors. However, the findings also indicated that Black and Hispanic offenders were sentenced more harshly than Whites. Although noncitizens were twice as likely to be incarcerated as citizens, they received significantly shorter probation and prison sentences. Within-group analyses suggested that race/ethnicity had a significant effect on the decision to incarcerate for citizens only while it affected probation length for both groups. Interestingly, education was found to mitigate the decision to incarcerate for noncitizens only. The double disadvantage hypothesis mentioned earlier was not supported by the data. Other hypotheses examined (e.g., the effects of GDP, jurisdiction) garnered some support though not consistently in the expected directions.
In the final chapters of the book, Wu offers additional interpretations of the findings, as well as implications for policy and future research on this topic. In reference to the finding that noncitizens were much more likely to be incarcerated than citizens but received significantly shorter sentences, Wu posits that the likely deportation of noncitizen offenders and widespread prison crowding epidemic might account for this phenomenon. These findings support the notion that judges utilize a two-step process during sentencing, which is certainly pertinent for the body of research on this topic. That is, the factors influencing the decision to incarcerate appear to be separate from those that influence sentence length. In regard to judges’ harshness in the decision to incarcerate noncitizens, and apparent leniency in sentencing due to probable deportation and corrections costs, Wu poses a controversial question of whether unwarranted disparity at the initial stage of sentencing is acceptable for the greater social good. That is to say, can seemingly evident discrimination in the decision to incarcerate noncitizens be excused knowing that these offenders will likely receive shorter sentences and near certain deportation, thereby saving American taxpayers money?
Overall, Citizenship Status, Race, Ethnicity, and Their Effects on Sentencing provides an important contribution to the body of research on sentencing. In addition to support for a two-step model of judicial decision making, this study was one of few to directly examine the effects of citizenship status on federal sentencing. It also provided additional support for the body of research illustrating the impact of legal and extralegal factors on judicial decision making. While there were some limitations, such as those noted above, the findings can be used to inform future research on this topic. However, due to the intense detail of some of the sections (e.g., statistical analysis) some may find this book more useful as a reference tool, particularly those interested in sentencing practices and disparities, and the various theoretical frameworks utilized.