Objectives: We examine whether offenders are at greater risk of violent victimization than non-offenders because of their disputatiousness; that is, their tendency to become involved in verbal conflicts. We also examine whether offenders are more disputatious because of their low self-control, alcohol use, and honor-based attitudes and whether disputatiousness can explain the effects of these individual differences on violent victimization. Method: A series of regression models examine self-reported data from 503 male inmates and 220 men (N = 723) they know from the community who have never been arrested. Results: Disputatiousness accounts for a substantial portion of the relationship between victimization and offending (i.e., inmate status). Disputatiousness also mediates the relationships between victimization and frequent intoxication, low self-control, and honor-based attitudes. Low self-control and heavy alcohol use account for a substantial portion of the relationship between offending and disputatiousness. Disputatiousness and victimization are associated with a history of assaultive offenses but not a history of robbery. Conclusions: The tendency to become involved in verbal conflicts can partly explain high victimization rates among male offenders, and among men who lack self-control, are frequently intoxicated, and have strong concerns about protecting their honor.

We examine the role of a norm protecting women in understanding third‐party partisanship in verbal and violent disputes. Our analyses are based on reports provided by male inmates and men they know who have never been arrested. The results show that third parties are more likely to support female adversaries than male adversaries. The gender effect is stronger when we control for the relational distance between adversaries, which indicates that a privacy norm might inhibit this normative protection. The gender effect is somewhat weaker when we control for the relative physical size of the adversaries, which indicates that a general norm protecting vulnerable people partly explains the gender effect. The strong gender effect that remains, however, demonstrates the importance of the normative protection of women, regardless of relative size, during disputes. The results have implications for research on situational factors in violence and violence against women.

The authors would like to thank Franklin Zimring and William Sabol for their feedback on earlier drafts, and the anonymous reviewers and the editors for their feedback during the review process. Research Summary: We examine the effects of mass incarceration on the admission of minority and marginal (i.e., first-time) offenders to state prisons. Our analyses are based on six waves of data from the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities from 1973 to 2004. The results suggest that the era of mass incarceration led to increased incarceration of Hispanic offenders relative to White offenders, but not Black offenders relative to White offenders. Disproportional incarceration did occur, however, during some periods. For example, during the early period of mass incarceration, there was a disproportional increase in the admission of Hispanics and marginal offenders. In the late 1980s, during the "War on Drugs," the likelihood that admissions were Black or Hispanic drug offenders increased, but the likelihood that admissions were marginal offenders did not. Policy Implications: Our results provide further evidence of the perils of punitive policies. The tendency to overreact to crime problems sometimes, but not always, leads to the disproportionate incarceration of minority and marginal offenders.

No abstract

No abstract