Criminal Justice Review

Examinations of racial disparity in criminal justice Processing have commonly focused on sentencing. However, many earlier decisions affect an eventual case outcome. To adequately assess the impact of race on criminal processing it is therefore necessary to analyze presentence decision making. In particular, the power of the prosecutor has burgeoned with the advent of sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum statutes, and so-called three-strikes laws. A total of 68 studies are analyzed for evidence supportive of the discrimination thesis that African-Americans are subjects of racial bias in criminal processing. Bail and pretrial release decisions, the decision to prosecute or to dismiss, and capital charging decisions are examined. Shortcomings of the research are noted and the consequences of these shortcomings on the race-criminal processing nexus are discussed. The article concludes with a discussion of areas for future research, including (a) the impact of legislative mandates on the race-presentencing nexus, (b) the role of race in decisions to waive dug offenders into drug courts, (c) the impact of victim race on bail and pretrial release decisions and on offenses other than sexual assault and homicide, (d) the impact of prosecutor race on presentence decision making, (e) the impact of courtroom culture or environment on presentence decision making, and (f) the effect of "outside" influences on the decisions of courtroom actors.

This article examines the impact of desegregation on inmate-on-inmate violence in the Texas prison system. Desegregation resulted from Lamar v. Coffield (1977), a class action civil suit that forced the Texas prison system to racially integrate its double cells. We examine 10 years of data in the aftermath of desegregation to gauge the impact that Lamar had on violence in Texas prisons. This analysis is situated within two divergent literature bases that predict vastly different outcomes of inmate desegregation. This article represents the first long-term study of inmate violence following judicial intervention in general and inmate desegregation in particular.

Sex offenders are viewed a unique type of criminal offender, particularly as more "objectionable,' less treatable, more dangerous, and more likely to recidivate. In recent years, these offenders have once again become the focus of intense legal scrutiny, primarily through laws specifically targeting them for indefinite confinement, registration and community notification, polygraph testing, and chemical castration. This article examines the underlying assumptions and justifications for these sex offender laws. We ask whether treatment, punishment, and public safety can be reconciled as justifications for the laws. We conclude that, even though treatment is an implicit rationale in the laws' provisions, punishment, incapacitation, and public safety are the ostensive purposes of these special laws and policies directed toward sex offenders. Moreover, this article questions the constitutionality and rationality of sex offender laws and policies and their consequences for sex offenders, treatment professionals, the mental health and criminal justice systems, and society in general.

Although a great deal of literature pertains to male sex offenders, it is not known whether these research findings are applicable to female sex offenders because little empirical research regarding female sex offenders exists. Currently, females make up approximately one percent to two percent of all sex offenders. This article includes a case review of the 40 registered female sex offenders in the state of Arkansas. The female sex offenders are compared to the registered male sex offenders in Arkansas. The majority of the female sex offenders were found to be Caucasian with an average age of 31 at the time of the first sex offense. Most of the offenders had a history of only one sex offense with no other criminal history. Most of the offenders were arrested for rape or first-degree sexual abuse. Females were slightly younger the male sex offenders at the time of arrest for their initial sex offense. Females were significantly more likely to be first-time offeders at the time of rest for their first sex offenders. The article concludes that female sex offenders differ slightly from males, indicating the need for the development of a new sex offender typology.

The Landrum-Griffin Act (1959) emerged out of hearings held on union corruption by the U.S. Senate's Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field(1957-1959). There form law reflected many conflicting goals, including the desire of business groups to hamper new union organizing, but five of d act's seven titles concerned union governance and reflected a belief that union corruption could be solved by fostering union democracy. Though the act did bring some successes, it failed to protect democratic reform in the Teamsters Union, one of its primary targets. The history of a reform group in Teamsters Local 282 in New York City highlights the ability of corrupt incumbent officers with organized crime connections to circumvent the intentions of the law and stifle dissent. The act's short coming up have led the federal government to resort to the more intrusive, and therefore more problematic, remedies provided by the RICO Act.

In the past 25 years, the "war on drugs" has continued despite evidence that it has not been successful. One aspect of this war, civil asset forfeiture, has been used as a tool by federal, state, and local law enforcement to "take the profit out of the drug trade" and to increase the amount of revenues that law enforcement may use to carry out the "war on drugs." The purpose of this research note is to examine federal and state studies to ascertain how proceeds from for features are used by the respective governments. It was determined that a vast majority of states (88 percent) as well as the federal government explicitly allow law enforcement agencies to benefit from the "war on drugs" by keeping the proceeds from civil asset forfeitures. Likewise, only a small number of states (fewer than 20 percent) mention treatment or education as beneficiaries of proceeds, even though it has been argued that treatment and education may be more successful in reducing drug-related crime.