No abstract

The sentencing literature generally has been characterized by an inability to explain SigniJicant amounts of the variance in sentencing outcomes. Two major theoretical explanations have addressed this issue: structural-contextual theory and the "liberation hypothesis." Structural-contextual theory suggests that the components of the justice system traditionally work somewhat independently of one another. This theory suggests that variance explained in sentence outcomes will increase appreciably when components function with greater interdependence-a so-called "tightening" or "coupling" effect. Such tightening supposedly takes place when particular cases are given high priority for investigation and prosecution. A n example of this situation might be domestic terrorism. The liberation hypothesis suggests that the greater the severity of an offense, the less likely judges or juries will feel free to follow their own sentiments regarding guilt and punishment. As a consequence, the ability of legal variables to predict variation in sentence length will be greater as crime severity increases. This study compares a sample of ofjcicially designated terrorists matched with nonterrorists convicted of the same federal offenses. OLS regression and structural equation modeling procedures are used to compare the levels of explained variance for the two groups. The results indicate strong support for the basic premises of both theories. Explained variance for the terrorist sample is more than four times greater than the explained variance for the nonterrorist sample. Further analysis shows that explained variance is highest for terrorists who have committed a high-severity offense and lowest for nonterrorists who have committed * Funding for this project was provided by a graduate faculty research grant from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The authors wish to express their appreciation to the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center and the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts for assistance in data collection. We are also indebted to John Hagan, Charles Lindquist, Cassia Spohn, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME 36 NLJMBER 1 1998 67

No abstract

Although political motive is frequently avoided as an issue in the prosecution of terrorists, previous research indicates that these offenders consistently receive longer sentences than nonterrorists convicted of similar offenses (Smith, 1994). This study assesses the ability of three theoretical models (consensus, conflict, and structural‐contextual) to explain these differences in sentencing patterns. Data on terrorists (N = 95), provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission, is matched with data on a sample of similarly convicted nonterrorists from the Federal Court Cases Integrated Data Base, 1970‐1991 (N = 403). Controlling for a number of demographic and sentencing‐related variables, the results indicate that the official label of “terrorist” is not only a significant predictor of sentence length, but emerges as the dominant explanatory variable in the analysis. The results provide general support for both consensus and conflict hypotheses, but only partial support for structural‐contextual theory. The findings also raise procedural questions regarding the extensive variation in sentencing between similarly situated defendants when political motive is used as a primary criterion for sentence enhancements.

No abstract