{"title":"Taking the long view: A temporal assessment of minority threat theory in 21st century sentencing","authors":"Bryan Holmes , Ben Feldmeyer","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Researchers have offered several reasons for the mixed minority threat-sentencing literature including diverse dependent variables, heterogenous threat conceptualizations, and incongruent threat measurements. An overlooked potential explanation, however, is the heavy reliance on cross-sectional snapshots. If minority threat effects vary over time, then past works showing differing results may not “contradict,” but rather reflect substantive temporal shifts in minority threat effects. Against this backdrop, the current study “zooms out” and considers the evidence for minority threat theory in sentencing throughout the 21st century.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using data spanning nearly 20 years, we examine the effects of minority population size (static threat) and change (dynamic threat) on federal sentence length outcomes at multiple time points – both overall and specifically for minority defendants. In doing so, we produce 40 tests of minority threat theory ranging from 2000 to 2018.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Findings indicate that support for minority threat theory in sentencing is meager, but conclusions about the theory's predictive validity often depend on the time point, racial/ethnic group, and threat measurement examined.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Results suggest that inquiries into whether support for minority threat exists may be too simplistic. Instead, researchers may be better off asking “when does support for minority threat theory exist?”</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48272,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Justice","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 102216"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235224000655","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Researchers have offered several reasons for the mixed minority threat-sentencing literature including diverse dependent variables, heterogenous threat conceptualizations, and incongruent threat measurements. An overlooked potential explanation, however, is the heavy reliance on cross-sectional snapshots. If minority threat effects vary over time, then past works showing differing results may not “contradict,” but rather reflect substantive temporal shifts in minority threat effects. Against this backdrop, the current study “zooms out” and considers the evidence for minority threat theory in sentencing throughout the 21st century.
Methods
Using data spanning nearly 20 years, we examine the effects of minority population size (static threat) and change (dynamic threat) on federal sentence length outcomes at multiple time points – both overall and specifically for minority defendants. In doing so, we produce 40 tests of minority threat theory ranging from 2000 to 2018.
Results
Findings indicate that support for minority threat theory in sentencing is meager, but conclusions about the theory's predictive validity often depend on the time point, racial/ethnic group, and threat measurement examined.
Conclusions
Results suggest that inquiries into whether support for minority threat exists may be too simplistic. Instead, researchers may be better off asking “when does support for minority threat theory exist?”
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Criminal Justice is an international journal intended to fill the present need for the dissemination of new information, ideas and methods, to both practitioners and academicians in the criminal justice area. The Journal is concerned with all aspects of the criminal justice system in terms of their relationships to each other. Although materials are presented relating to crime and the individual elements of the criminal justice system, the emphasis of the Journal is to tie together the functioning of these elements and to illustrate the effects of their interactions. Articles that reflect the application of new disciplines or analytical methodologies to the problems of criminal justice are of special interest.
Since the purpose of the Journal is to provide a forum for the dissemination of new ideas, new information, and the application of new methods to the problems and functions of the criminal justice system, the Journal emphasizes innovation and creative thought of the highest quality.