No abstract

No abstract

Given the increased focus and importance of cybercrime, some police agencies have turned to the use of specialized cybercrime policing units. Research has yet to examine the how frequently these units are used in policing, nor has research examined the types of agencies most likely to use these units. The current research, drawing on contingency theory, institutional theory, and Maguire's theory of police organizational structure, uses four waves of Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Survey data to provide a descriptive analysis of specialized cybercrime units with a focus on identifying organizational correlates, environmental pressures, and the role of time. Trend data show that cybercrime units have proliferated over time and are on the path to becoming a normative aspect of policing, with about one-half of all state-level agencies and around one-quarter of all county and municipal agencies making use of cybercrime units as of 2013. Regression results indicate that larger agencies, agencies facing more task routineness and larger task scope challenges, agencies which make use of broader material technologies, and agencies which have adopted specialization strategies are more likely to use cybercrime units than other agencies. The practical and theoretical implications of these results are discussed, as are promising future research directions.

While previous research has examined gender disparities in sentencing, most explanations focus on individual-level differences. We argue that structural gender equality has an important influence on gender disparities as well. Drawing from previous research on victimization, we provide a test of the ameliorative and backlash hypotheses. Using federal sentencing data from 1999-2003, we demonstrate how measures of structural gender equality contextualize the relationship between gender and sentencing. Our analyses suggest that structural gender equality is important for understanding the relationship between gender and sentencing, but different measures of gender equality lead to distinct patterns.

Approaches to intersectionality stress the importance of recognizing multiple, intersecting inequalities. As such, recent sentencing research has examined the changing role of extra-legal characteristics on United States federal sentencing outcomes in the aftermath of recent policy changes (e.g. United States v. Booker), but scholarship has less often examined these characteristics at the intersections of race/ethnicity, gender, and, especially age. This article uses an intersectional approach to examine the influence of these characteristics net of legally relevant characteristics. Using ordinary least squares regression procedures, the author examines the role of the joint effects of extra-legal variables on sentence length decisions across four distinct time periods. Net of control variables, results indicate that young black men are the group most likely to receive the longest sentences, but interesting differences between other groups also emerge.