Back to Basics: A Critical Examination of the Focal Concerns Framework from the Perspective of Judges

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
• Baumer, E. P. (2013). Reassessing and redirecting research on race and sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 231–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.682602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boutyline, A., & Soter, L. K. (2021). Cultural schemas: What they are, how to find them, and what to do once you’ve caught one. American Sociological Review, 86(4), 728–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224211024525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley-Engen, M., Engen, R. L., Shields, C., Damphousse, K. R., & Smith, B. (2012). The time penalty: examining the relationship between time to conviction and trial vs. plea disparities in sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 29(6), 829–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.624112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton, A., Cullen, F., Burton Jr., V., Graham, A., Butler, L., & Thielo, A. (2020). Belief in redeemability and punitive public opinion: “Once a criminal, always a criminal” revisited. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(6), 712–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820913585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerulo, K. A. (2010). Mining the intersections of cognitive sociology and neuroscience. Poetics, 38(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2009.11.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham, C. T., Quan, H., Hemmelgarn, B., Noseworthy, T., Beck, C. A., Dixon, E., Samuel, S., Ghali, W. A., Sykes, L. L., & Jetté, N. (2015). Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0016-z
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dixon, J. (1995). The organizational context of criminal sentencing. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1157–1198. https://doi.org/10.1086/230635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engen, R., & Steen, S. (2000). The power to punish: Discretion and sentencing reform in the war on drugs. American Journal of Sociology, 105(5), 1357–1395. https://doi.org/10.1086/210433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galvin, M. A., & Ulmer, J. T. (2022). Gatekeeping treatment: alternative sentences, race, and “salvageability”. Justice Quarterly, 39(6), 1332–1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2021.1954234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 167–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeffries, S., & Bond, C. E. W. (2010). Narratives of mitigation: Sentencing indigenous criminal defendants in South Australia’s higher courts. Journal of Sociology, 46(3), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783310365584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, B. D. (2006). The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: Integrating judge and county level influences in the study of courtroom decision making. Criminology, 44(2), 259–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00049.x
   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
• Johnson, B. D., Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (2008). The social context of Guideline circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46(3), 737–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00125.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, K. A., & Spohn, C. (2018). Why do judges depart: A review of reasons for judicial departures in federal sentencing. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 19(2), 44–62.
   Google Scholar
• Keeter, S., Hatley, N., Kennedy, C., & Lau, A. (2017). What Low Response Rates Mean for Telephone Surveys. Washington DC: Pew Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, R. (2016). Differential punishment of similar behavior: Sentencing assault cases in specialized family violence court and “regular sentencing” court. British Journal of Criminology, 56(4), 689–708. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (1996). Sentencing disparity and guidelines departures. Justice Quarterly, 13(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829600092831
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court “corrections” to Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40(4), 897–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00977.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (2009). Sentencing guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania. Lynne Rienner.
   Google Scholar
• Light, M. T. (2017). Punishing the “others:” citizenship and state social control in the United States and Germany. European Journal of Sociology, 58(1), 33–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975617000029
   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
• Maddan, S., & Hartley, R. D. (2018). Toward the development of a standardized focal concerns theory of sentencing. In J. T. Ulmer & M. S. Bradley (Eds.), Punishment decisions: Locations of disparity (pp. 311–335). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Maruna, S., & King, A. (2009). Once a criminal, always a criminal? “Redeemability” and the psychology of public punitive attitudes. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15(1–2), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-008-9088-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, O. (2011). Drug and other specialty courts. In M. Tonry (Ed.) Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice, (pp. 843–871). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mossman, D., & Kapp, M. B. (1997). Attorneys’ and judges’ needs for continuing legal education on mental disability law: Findings from a survey. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 25(3), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318539702500302
   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
• Pickett, J., Cullen, F., Bushway, S. D., Chiricos, T., Alpert, G. (2018). The response rate test: Nonresponse bias and the future of survey research in criminology and criminal justice. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3103018 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3103018
   Google Scholar
• Springer, V. (2014). Nevada judge survey explores experience and cognitive styles of judiciary as decision makers. Judicature, 98(1), 6–7.
   Google Scholar
• Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts: Who is punished more harshly? American Sociological Review, 65(5), 705–729. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657543
   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. J., & Painter-Davis, N. (2018). Focal concerns theory as a conceptual tool for studying intersectionality in sentencing disparities: a 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., 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., & 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
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and methods. Sage.
   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., & Johnson, B. D. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42(1), 137–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00516.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. D. (2017). Organizational conformity and punishment: Federal court communities and judge-initiated guideline departures. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 107(2), 253–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulmer, J. T. (2019). Courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 48, 483–522. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/701504
   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
• Yetter, G., & Capaccioli, K. (2010). Differences in responses to Web and paper surveys among school professionals. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 266–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar