Expanding Our Understanding of Focal Concerns: Alternative Sentences, Race, and “Salvageability”

References

• Albonetti, C. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/800532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct. Anderson.
   Google Scholar
• Beckett, K., Reosti, A., & Knaphus, E. (2016). The end of an era? Understanding the contradictions of criminal justice reform. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664(1), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716215598973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boerner, D., & Lieb, R. (2001). Sentencing reform in the other Washington. Crime and Justice, 28, 71–136. https://doi.org/10.1086/652209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bostwick, L., Kleiman, M., & Parks, M. (2020). Pennsylvania’s State Intermediate Punishment Program Part I.
   Google Scholar
• Bridges, G. S., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657267
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucklen, K. B., Bell, N., & Lategan, D. (2017). State Intermediate Punishment Program 2017 Performance Report.
   Google Scholar
• Cano, M. V., & Spohn, C. (2012). Circumventing the penalty for offenders facing mandatory minimums: Revisiting the dynamics of “sympathetic” and “salvageable” offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(3), 308–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811431419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. S. (1978). Causal attributions in expert parole decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1501–1511. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. S., & Payne, J. W. (1977). Crime seriousness, recidivism risk, and causal attributions in judgments of prison term by students and experts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(5), 595–602. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clear, T. R., & Frost, N. A. (2014). The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America: The punishment imperative. New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cochran, J. C., & Mears, D. P. (2015). Race, ethnic, and gender divides in juvenile court sanctioning and rehabilitative intervention. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(2), 181–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427814560574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engen, R. L., Gainey, R. R., Crutchfield, R. D., & Weis, J. G. (2003). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 41(1), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00983.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firth, D. (1993). Bias Reduction of Maximum Likelihood Estimates. Biometrika, 80(1), 27 https://doi.org/10.2307/2336755
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frase, R. S. (2013). Just sentencing: Principles and procedures for a workable system. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gainey, R. R., Steen, S., & Engen, R. L. (2005). Exercising options: An assessment of the use of alternative sanctions for drug offenders. Justice Quarterly, 22(4), 488–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820500219219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, D. F. (1981). Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior, 2(3), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1981.9967554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, B. D. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology, 41(2), 449–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00994.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, B. D. (2018). In search of the missing link: Examining contextual variation in federal charge bargains across U.S. Justice Quarterly, 35(7), 1133–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1523447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, B. D., & DiPietro, S. M. (2012). The power of diversion: Intermediate sanctions and sentencing disparity under presumptive guidelines. Criminology, 50(3), 811–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00279.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kempinen, C. A., & Tinik, L. (2011). Pennsylvania’s motivational boot camp: Program what have we learned over the last seventeen years?
   Google Scholar
• Kohler-Hausmann, I. (2018). Misdemeanorland: Criminal courts and social control in an age of broken windows policing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (1996). Sentencing disparity and departures from guidelines. Justice Quarterly, 13(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829600092831
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (2009). Sentencing guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania. Lynne Rienner.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, M. (2018). Prosecutorial discretion, drug case selection, and inequality in federal court. Justice Quarterly, 35(7), 1309–1336. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1535083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, M. (2019). Focally concerned about focal concerns: A conceptual and methodological critique of sentencing disparities research. Justice Quarterly, 36(7), 1148–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1686163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marlowe, D. B., Hardin, C. D., & Fox, C. L. (2016). Painting the current picture: A national report on drug courts and other problem-solving courts in the United States.
   Google Scholar
• May, D. C., & Wood, P. B. (2005). What influences offenders’ willingness to serve alternative sanctions? The Prison Journal, 85(2), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mears, D. P. (1998). The sociology of sentencing: Reconceptualizing decisionmaking processes and outcomes. Law & Society Review, 32(3), 667–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/827760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milzcik, E., Kleiman, M., & Bostwick, L. (2020). Pennsylvania State Intermediate Punishment Program: Part II.
   Google Scholar
• Mize, T. D., Doan, L., & Long, J. S. (2019). A general framework for comparing predictions and marginal effects across models. Sociological Methodology, 49(1), 152–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175019852763
   Google Scholar
• Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumola, C. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (1998). Substance abuse and treatment of adults on probation, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Nagel, I. H., & Schulhofer, S. J. (1992). A tale of three cities: an empirical study of charging and bargaining practices under the federal sentencing guidelines. Southern California Law Review, 66(1), 501–566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicosia, N., MacDonald, J. M., & Arkes, J. (2013). Disparities in criminal court referrals to drug treatment and prison for minority men. American Journal of Public Health, 103(6), e77–e84. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301222
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2014). ADAM II 2013 annual report.
   Google Scholar
• Painter-Davis, N., & Ulmer, J. T. (2020). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines revisited: The interrelationship between structured sentencing alternatives and guideline decision-making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 57(3), 263–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427819874862
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. (2012). Sentencing guidelines implementation manual (7th ed.). Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.
   Google Scholar
• Quinsey, V. L., & Cyr, M. (1986). Perceived dangerousness and treatability of offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(4), 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626086001004005
   Google Scholar
• Savelsberg, J. J. (1992). Law that does not fit society: Sentencing guidelines as a neoclassical reaction to the dilemmas of substantivized law. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1346–1381. https://doi.org/10.1086/229904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaver, K. G. (1975). An introduction to attribution processes. Winthrop Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Shermer, L. O., & Johnson, B. D. (2010). Criminal prosecutions: Examining prosecutorial discretion and charge reductions in U.S. Federal District Courts. Justice Quarterly, 27(3), 394–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902856972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, S. S., Yahner, J. L., & Dugan, L. (2008). Understanding women’s pathways to jail: Analysing the lives of incarcerated women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.41.1.84
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slobogin, C. (1999). Treating kids right: Deconstructing and reconstructing the amenability to treatment concept. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 10, 299–333.
   Google Scholar
• Spohn, C. (2015). Race, crime, and punishment in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Crime and Justice, 44(1), 49–97. https://doi.org/10.1086/681550
   Google Scholar
• Spohn, C., & Brennan, P. K. (2011). The joint effects of offender race/ethnicity and gender on substantial assistance departures in federal courts. Race and Justice, 1(1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368710396228
   Google Scholar
• Spohn, C., & Fornango, R. (2009). U.S. attorneys and substantial assistance departures: Testing for interprosecutor disparity. Criminology, 47(3), 813–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00163.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffensmeier, D., Kramer, J., & Streifel, C. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31(3), 411–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1993.tb01136.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffensmeier, D., Kramer, J., & Ulmer, J. T. (1995). Age differences in sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 12(3), 583–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829500096151
   Google Scholar
• Steffensmeier, D., & Painter-Davis, N. (2018). Focal concerns theory as a conceptual tool for studying intersectionality in sentencing disparities: Focus on gender and race along with age. In J. T. Ulmer & M. S. Bradley (Eds.), Punishment decisions: Locations of disparity (pp. 189–210). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Steffensmeier, D., Painter-Davis, N., & Ulmer, J. T. (2017). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, and age on criminal punishment. Sociological Perspectives, 60(4), 810–833.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stemen, D., & Rengifo, A. F. (2009). Mandating treatment for drug possessors: The impact of Senate Bill 123 on the criminal justice system in Kansas. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stemen, D., Rengifo, A. F., & Amidon, E. (2015). The focal concerns of sentencing and mandatory sentencing laws: Circumvention in the context of mandatory probation and treatment. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2014.883573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens-Martin, K., Oyewole, O., & Hipolito, C. (2014). Technical revocations of probation in one jurisdiction: Uncovering hidden realities. Federal Probation, 78, 16–20.
   Google Scholar
• Taxman, F. S., Perdoni, M. L., & Harrison, L. D. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2016). Use of electronic offender-tracking devices expands sharply.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Tonry, M. (1998). Intermediate sanctions in sentencing guidelines. Crime and Justice, 23, 199–253. https://doi.org/10.1086/449271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulmer, J. T. (2012). Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Quarterly, 29(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.624115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (1996). Court communities under sentencing guidelines: Dilemmas of formal rationality and sentencing disparity. Criminology, 34(3), 383–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01212.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulmer, J. T. (1997). Social Worlds of Sentencing: Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines. Albany: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ulmer, J. T., Kurlychek, M. C., & Kramer, J. H. (2007). Prosecutorial discretion and the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(4), 427–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427807305853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, J. M. J. (1993). Loosening the administrative handcuffs: Discretion and responsibilty under the guidelines. Brooklyn Law Review, 59(2), 551–572.
   Google Scholar
• Wheeler, S., Mann, K., & Sarat, A. (1988). Sitting in judgment: The sentencing of white-collar criminals. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, P. B., & May, D. C. (2003). Racial differences in perceptions of the severity of sanctions: A comparison of prison with alternatives. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 605–631. 10.1080/07418820300095631
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar