The focal concerns framework is widely used in research on sentencing, although the empirical validity of the framework itself is seldom directly evaluated. To fill this gap, we use survey data from 134 trial court judges to examine two basic questions about the focal concerns framework: (1) How and to what extent do judges consider the original focal concerns of blameworthiness, community protection, and practical constraints in their sentencing decisions? ( 2) To what extent is perceived rehabilitation potential, or "redeemability," considered by judges and should it become a fourth focal concern? Results based on open-ended survey questions reveal that judges continue to rely on the original focal concerns, but they operationalize these concerns in a variety of ways. Results further show that most judges are concerned about the rehabilitation potential, or "redeemability," of defendants. Based on these results, we conclude that the focal concerns framework continues to be of value but that future research using the framework should consider adding redeemability/rehabilitation potential as a fourth focal concern. We caution, however, that some of the factors judges consider in connection with rehabilitation potential/redeemability could increase sentencing disparities.

The death penalty has historically been used to communicate moral outrage and fear about the murders of some kinds of victims more than others. A large body of research has inquired into the effects of defendant race, and to a lesser extent victim race in capital punishment. However, there is much less research on how victim gender influences capital punishment decisions, and even less research on how victim gender and race might intersect to influence such decisions. This study examines the role of victim gender and race in: prosecutors' decisions to seek the death penalty, prosecutors' decisions to retract death filings, and jury or judge decisions to sentence defendants to the death penalty. We utilize detailed data on first degree murder convictions in 18 Pennsylvania counties, 2000-2010. The intersecting gender and race of victims conditioned each of the death penalty outcomes. In addition, whether the victim had children conditioned the effects of victim gender/race.

No abstract

Sentencing studies consistently show that male offenders receive more severe sentences than females. However, theory-based explanations for gender disparities in sentencing, which posit lenience is partially based on caregiver status, may be less relevant for crimes against children. This study leverages Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission data to assess sentence type and length among adults convicted of child neglect or physical abuse between 2006 and 2016. Employing bivariate and multivariate statistics, we found that, although female perpetrators make up the majority of child neglect and physical abuse perpetrators in the Child Protective Services system, they are a minority of those convicted. If convicted, women received less harsh sentences than men, consistent with the disparate gender patterns found in general criminal sentencing research.