Structural Theories and Race-Specific Drug Arrests: What Structural Factors Account for the Rise in Race-Specific Drug Arrests Over Time?

Abstract

Studies examining the structural correlates of urban crime have generated a large body of research; however, few studies have linked the structural conditions to race-specific drug arrests. In this study, the authors examine the impact of urban disadvantage, social disorganization, and racial threat indicators on the rise in race-specific drug arrests from 1980 to 1990. They find these theoretical perspectives contribute to an understanding of the change in race-specific drug arrests. Findings indicate that shifts in the urban economy significantly affected Black drug arrests, while having no effect on the change in White drug arrests. In addition, the shift away from manufacturing jobs significantly affected Black arrests for drug possession. Consistent with the theory, social disorganization measures proved equally significant for Whites and Blacks, whereas mixed support was found for racial threat arguments. The importance of a theoretically grounded exploration into the rise in racial disparities in drug arrests is highlighted.

Speeding While Black? Assessing the Generalizability of Lange et al.’s (2001, 2005) New Jersey Turnpike Speeding Survey Findings

“…36-44;Thomas & Hansen, 2004, p. 16), observer experiences (Greenwald, 2001, p. 39;The Alpert Group, 2004, p. xi and p. 23), and limited previous research (Engel et al, 2005, p. 116) indicate that is indeed the case. We therefore believe that our police-reported data accurately capture the age, gender, and race and ethnicity characteristics of drivers who sped at high rates in high rate speed zones in Massachusetts during April and May of 2001 (also see Boggess & Bound, 1997;Gove et al, 1985;Hindelang, 1981;Levitt, 1998;O'Brien, 1996;Parker & Maggard, 2005;Warner & Wilson Coomer, 2003).…”

“…We would be pleased to provide copies of both. problems surround all data (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 1966) including those reported by police (Gove, Hughes, & Geerken, 1985), there also is agreement that police-reported data "can be used as a reasonable proxy" for actual behavior (Warner & Wilson Coomer, 2003, p. 135; also see Boggess & Bound, 1997;Hindelang, 1981;Levitt, 1998;O'Brien, 1996;Parker & Maggard, 2005). Accordingly, if Lange et al's (2001Lange et al's ( , 2005 findings are generalizable, then those findings should also be visible using the data reported by Massachusetts State Police.…”

Is the Offense Serious Axis Free of Extralegal Influence?: Assessing the Predictors of a ‘Legally Relevant’ Guideline Criterion

“…As noted previously, they shape FSG sentencing outcomes. Research suggests that these influences result from the application of discretion (Bushway and Piehl 2001;Klepper et al 1983;Parker and Maggard 2005), a factor inversely related to offense 7 See Kautt (2002) for a detailed review of federal court organization. 8 It is important to note that the factors and theories predicting sentencing outcomes may not necessarily fit the calculation of offense seriousness scores.…”

Dealing with manhood : general strain theory, masculinity, and the engagement in illicit drug trafficking.

“…Both Parker and Maggard (2005) and Freisthler et al (2005) found only partial correlations between social disorganization variables and illicit drug activity; the strongest predictor of drug involvement was poverty. Moreover, the results of a study by Martinez et al (2008) found no significant correlation between illicit drug activity and either population heterogeneity (ethnic diversity), residential instability, or socioeconomic deprivation (poverty).…”

“…Studies by both Parker and Maggard (2005) and Livingston and Nahimana (2006) suggest that financial gain is the primary motivation for participation in drug trafficking and argue that the inability to achieve financial goals due to structural barriers to employment and education are fundamental causes of drug dealing. Liviton, Schindler, and Orleans (1994) link poverty to factors such as disadvantaged schooling, low educational achievement, and decreased job opportunities, stating that the combination of these elements increase the likelihood that an individual will engage in drug trafficking.…”