Terrorism, Politics, and Punishment: A Test of Structural‐contextual Theory and the “Liberation Hypothesis”*

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

The “Liberation” of Federal Judges’ Discretion in the Wake of the Booker/Fanfan Decision: Is There Increased Disparity and Divergence between Courts?

“…The influential "liberation hypothesis" of legal discretion is also relevant here (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966;Smith & Damphousse, 1998;Spohn & Cederblom, 1991). This hypothesis argues that extralegal influences on legal decisions increase as the opportunity for discretion increases, and vice versa.…”

Emotions and terrorism research: A case for a social-psychological agenda

“…Efforts should be made for theory to "catch up" with the more substantial terrorism research by criminal justicians (e.g., Freilich & Pridemore, 2006;Smith, Damphousse, Jackson, & Karlson, 2002) (although see Dugan, LaFree, & Piquero, 2005;Hamm, 2004;Smith & Damphousse, 1998). A "question first" (theory-centered) approach is warranted, one that inverses presuppositions of actions by, and against, terrorists.…”

“…Instead of modeling such actions as dependent variables, they should instead be viewed as predictors (Gurr, 1985). In their examination of structural-contextual theory and the "liberation hypothesis," one such example is Smith and Damphousse's (1998) utilization of incident severity, terrorist culpability, and a terrorist's role in an organization as predictors for federal sentence severity.…”

Recent Developments and New Directions in Sentencing Research

“…Farrell and Holmes (1991) keyed off insights from labeling theory and Sudnow's (1965) classic formulation of "normal crimes" to generate 10 propositions about the conditional, situation-specific role of status-linked stereotypes for routine and non-routine cases and defendants. A related idea is the liberation hypothesis which has sometimes been applied to sentencing discretion (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966;Smith & Damphousse, 1998;Spohn & Cederblom, 1991). The liberation hypothesis implies that as the seriousness and/or visibility of the offense or case increases, sanctioning discretion is tightened and legally relevant variables are decisive, leaving little room for extralegal influences.…”