Criminal Justice Policy Review

The United States currently imprisons more citizens than any other Western nation. Over the last few decades, the trend across the United States has been to increase penalties for many offenses. This increase in state punitiveness has likely contributed to the existing state of mass incarceration. If there are certain factors that enhance a state’s penchant for punitiveness, identifying these factors can offer a better understanding of mass incarceration and why certain policy choices are made. Drawing from theories of social control and racial threat, we test social and economic explanations for variations in state punitiveness across several dimensions. We find the effect of the independent variables is not uniform across the dimensions, suggesting there is a difference in how criminal justice policy decisions are made depending on the policy area in question. This finding begs for further investigation into the issue of state punitiveness.

This study examines the role of status differential between the involved parties and amici curiae participation in explaining variation in U.S. Supreme Court criminal justice decisions that favor the government interest over the interest of the other party (1994-2012 terms). The study finds status differential between the involved parties to be a significant predictor of outcome. Repeat player effects were found for special interests that file in support of the government entity (U.S. Solicitor General and Criminal Justice Legal Foundation), but not for special interests who file for the other party (the American Civil Liberties Union and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers). The study found that greater levels of aggregate amici curiae participation (all interest group activity) in the direction of the other party significantly reduce the likelihood of a case outcome that favors the government. Implications are discussed.

This study examines the potential impacts on public safety of a sentencing policy focused on offense, as opposed to risk. We utilize a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2005-2006 recidivism dataset to simulate recidivism patterns of newly realigned state and local supervision groups under California’s “Public Safety Realignment.” The distinction between high- and low-stakes (offense-based) offenders is analyzed through arrest and conviction rates, as well as returns-to-prison. We find that corrections policies based on stakes, as opposed to risk, may produce adverse results regarding public safety. The findings from this study suggest that policy makers should consider risk to recidivate before making large changes to sentencing or supervision policies. Most low-stakes offenders are not at low risk to reoffend, and the types of offenses for which released offenders recidivate are not predictable based on current offense. Thus, risk assessment using criminal histories may be necessary to protect the public and produce better recidivism results.