Misdemeanor sentencing decisions: The cost of being native American

Abstract

Criminal sentencing research has traditionally focused on felony sentencing disparities between Whites and Blacks, and more recently, between Whites and Latinos. This study examines over 8,000 misdemeanor cases registered in 1992 from three Nebraska non-metropolitan counties to further determine the nature and scope of racial=ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. In comparison to Whites and Latinos, Native Americans have significantly higher proportions of individuals charged with more serious misdemeanor offenses, and are charged with a significantly higher mean total number of offenses. Even though legal variables accounted for a great deal of the variance in multivariate OLS and logistic sentencing models, Native Americans received significantly harsher punishment for the conviction of misdemeanor crimes when compared to Whites and Latinos. Results clearly indicate the need for more criminal sentencing research that better takes into account the social context of law enforcement and sentencing. In particular, researchers need to critically address if and how racial=ethnic bias in the enforcement and punishment of misdemeanor codes affects other aspects of criminal adjudication -i.e., felony convictions.A major shortcoming in criminal sentencing research is the reliance on felony sentencing data to explain racial=ethnic inequities in the dispensation of criminal justice. This trend precludes an examination of how prior criminal justice decisions affect felony adjudication. For instance, some researchers contend that much of the racial=ethnic disparity in felony criminal sentencing dispositions is accounted for by legal variables such as prior record and seriousness of the offense (Dixon, 1995;Wilbanks, 1987;Kleck, 1985;Hagan, 1974). Others contend that racial=ethnic disparities in criminal sentencing favoring Whites over non-Whites are visible even when controlling for legal variables (Blumstein et al., 1983). This is particularly the case in the decision to incarcerate rather than in sentence length, and for certain social settings and particular crimes (Muñoz, 2000;Spohn and DeLone, 2000;Chiricos and Crawford, 1995;Hagan and Bumiller, 1983). What investigators have neglected to deliberate more closely is the possible cumulative disadvantage effect (Zatz, 1987) of racial=ethnic bias in criminal justice decision-making that could be masked within a legal variable such as prior record. To illustrate, evidence suggests that non-Whites'

Sentencing Native Americans in US Federal Courts: An Examination of Disparity

“…Alvarez & Bachman, 1996;Bynum & Patternoster, 1984;Feimer, Pommersheim, & Wise, 1990;Hall & Simkus, 1975;Hutton, Pommersheim, & Feimer, 1989;Muñoz & McMorris, 2002;Pommersheim & Wise, 1989;Wilmot & DeLone, 2010). For example, in an early study by Hall and Simkus (1975), it was demonstrated that in a population of probationers, Native Americans were less likely than white offenders to have received a deferred sentence as opposed to a suspended or partially suspended sentence.…”

“…Currently, Native Americans are commonly typified as the "drunken Indian" who is genetically predisposed to alcohol abuse and likely to engage in criminality as a result of intoxication (Leiber, Johnson, Fox, & Lacks, 2007;Muñoz & McMorris, 2002;Zatz, Lujan, & Snyder-Joy, 1991). Moreover Native Americans are frequently viewed as uncivilized "savages" that are outcasts of dominant society.…”

“…It should be noted, however, that Hutton et al (1989) found that Native Americans received similar sentences to white offenders, despite the offense type examined. In a study of misdemeanor sentencing decisions, Muñoz and McMorris (2002) revealed that Native Americans received larger fine amounts and were more likely to receive a jail sentence (as opposed to probation) when compared to similarly situated white offenders; unfortunately, a key legal measure, prior record, was not available to be included in their analysis. Finally, Wilmot and DeLone (2010) assessed the treatment of Native Americans under the Minnesota sentencing guidelines and found that for most judicial sentencing decisions (e.g.…”

“…Third, the majority of analyses, including the only study of federal sentencing (i.e. Everett & Wojtkiewicz, 2002), have not examined the incarceration (also referred to as "in/out") decision (for exceptions see Hall & Simkus, 1975;Muñoz & McMorris, 2002) and have instead limited their focus to other sentencing outcomes (typically the sentence length decision). This shortcoming is particularly noteworthy since reviews of the sentencing literature (e.g.…”

“…Everett & Wojtkiewicz, 2002;Johnson & Betsinger, 2009), and a handful of studies that examine the sentencing of Native American offenders (e.g. Everett & Wojtkiewicz, 2002;Muñoz & McMorris, 2002;Wilmot & DeLone, 2010).…”