从长计议:对 21 世纪量刑中少数威胁理论的时间评估

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Bryan Holmes , Ben Feldmeyer
{"title":"从长计议:对 21 世纪量刑中少数威胁理论的时间评估","authors":"Bryan Holmes ,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Taking the long view: A temporal assessment of minority threat theory in 21st century sentencing\",\"authors\":\"Bryan Holmes ,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

目的研究人员提出了少数群体威胁-量刑文献参差不齐的几个原因,包括不同的因变量、不同的威胁概念和不一致的威胁测量。然而,一个被忽视的潜在解释是对横截面快照的严重依赖。如果少数群体的威胁效应随时间而变化,那么过去显示不同结果的著作可能并不 "矛盾",而是反映了少数群体威胁效应的实质性时间变化。在此背景下,本研究 "放大 "并考虑了整个 21 世纪量刑中少数群体威胁理论的证据。方法利用近 20 年的数据,我们考察了在多个时间点上少数群体人口数量(静态威胁)和变化(动态威胁)对联邦刑期结果的影响--既包括总体影响,也包括专门针对少数群体被告的影响。结果结果表明,量刑中对少数群体威胁理论的支持微乎其微,但关于该理论预测有效性的结论往往取决于考察的时间点、种族/族裔群体和威胁测量。相反,研究人员最好问 "什么时候存在对少数群体威胁理论的支持?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Taking the long view: A temporal assessment of minority threat theory in 21st century sentencing

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?”

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Criminal Justice
Journal of Criminal Justice CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
23 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信