Normal Homicides and the Law

Ethnicity, legal resources, and felony dispositions in two southwestern jurisdictions

“…They also confront crowded dockets, which necessitate routinized dispositions. These factors militate against overt discrimination at sentencing (Farrell and Holmes 1991); yet the subtle influences of earlier decisions may indirectly affect economically and socially disadvantaged defendants (Swigert and Farrell 1977;Zatz 1987). Indeed, empirical research using a process-oriented model provides evidence that social statuses influence final dispositions through their relationships with earlier decisions, especially those pertaining to counsel and pretrial release (e.g., Holmes, Daudistel, and Farretl 1987;LaFree 1985b;Lizotte 1978;Swigert and Farrell 1977;Unnever 1982).…”

Psychiatric history, due procedural safeguards, and the use of discretion in the criminal justice process

“…These variables include age (Kruttschnitt 1980;Scott 1974;Tiffany, Avichai, and Peters 1975), gender (Bishop and Frazier 1984;Spohn, Gruhl, and Welch 1987), race (Boris 1979;Chiricos, PhiUip, and Waldo 1972;Unnever, Frazier, and Henretta 1980), and socioeconomic status (Pruitt and Wilson 1983;Radelet 1981;Swigert and Farrell 1977), and their impact on decisions made by police (Bynum, Cordner, and Greene 1982;Hepburn 1978;LaFree 1980;Pope 1978;Radelet and Pierce 1985), courts (Burke and Turk 1975;Daly 1987;Kelly 1976), and corrections (Bynum and Paternoster 1984;Carroll and Mondrick 1976;Elion and Megargee 1979;Petersen and Friday 1975;Ramirez 1983).…”

“…Once again, research conducted on the "liberation hypothesis" has found limited support for this explanatory scheme (Pope 1978;Reskin and Visher 1986;Unnever and Hembroff 1988). Alternatively, some researchers posit that although no direct discriminatory effects may be found in case dispositions, prejudicial decisions are incorporated into the earlier phases of the criminal justice process (i.e., presentence investigation report, decision to grant bail, assignment FEDER 283 of counsel) and then are used in the later decisions regarding case outcomes (Albonetti 1991;Elion and Megargee 1979;Swigert and Farrell 1977;Unnever et al 1980). Again, this conceptualization has been helpful in more fully exploring and explaining the inconsistent research findings.…”

“…Race of victim, not defendant, significant in imposition of death penalty Swigert and Farrell (1977), counsel, bail, and plea bargain* Race and class significant in counsel, bail, and plea decisions Hepburn (1978), arrests:* Race significant in arrest decision when there is insufficient evidence Pope (1978), police decision to release before trail:* In absence of legal criteria, race significant in postarrest release decision Myers and Hagan (1979), decision to prosecute case:* Race of defendant not significant, though victim's race is significant in prosecutor's decision to try a case LaFree (1980), police arrest:…”

Attributions of dangerousness and stigmatization

“…The present study is solely concerned with such public determinations of and responses to the dangerousness of eight groups that have been depicted as stigmatized in the literature: recovered alcoholics (Trice and Roman, 1970), ex-mental hospital patients (Dohrenwend and Dohrenwend, 1969:159), ex-patients of psychiatrists (Levinson and York, 1974), exmurder convicts (Swigert and Farrell, 1977), ex-shoplifters (Steffensmeier and Terry, 1973), ex-homosexuals (Bobys and Laner, 1979), recovered drug addicts (Ray, 1979), and extuberculosis patients (Parsons, 1972). The research hypothesis is as follows: the greater the public attribution of dangerousness to a deviant group, the more the group members are stigmatized in public opinion.…”