Criminological Highlights Vol. 20, No. 5 - March 2023
This issue of Criminological Highlights addresses the following questions:
2. Why do we need to look beyond the decisions of judges to understand imprisonment rates?
4. Why are some victims of sexual assault not believed?
5. How do guns kill people even if the gun isn’t present when a person is shot?
Article 1
When asked about the risks and rewards from offending, the responses that young people give are dependent, to some extent, on the characteristics of their neighbourhoods. Concentrated neighbourhood disadvantage in one’s neighbourhood makes crime look more attractive.
The perceived risks, costs, and rewards of offending obviously vary across individuals. One of the factors that may affect these determinants of offending is the degree of structural disadvantage within the neighbourhood. This paper suggests that “individuals from highly disadvantaged communities may be more tolerant of the risks and costs associated with crime when compared with individuals from less disadvantaged areas” (p. 613).
The study uses data from the “Pathways to Desistance Study” – a longitudinal study of youths from two US cities who had been convicted of a criminal offence. They were followed from adolescence into young adulthood. Respondents were asked to estimate the likelihood that they would be caught and arrested for 7 different types of crime, whether they would experience various ‘social costs’ (e.g., losing respect from friends) or whether they would gain ‘social rewards’ (e.g., respect) if they engaged in crime, and whether there would be intrinsic rewards to them (e.g., fun) for committing certain crimes. Concentrated disadvantage was assessed using estimates such as the proportion of residents in the respondents’ neighbourhood who were living in poverty, or were unemployed, etc. Neighbourhood disorder was estimated using respondents’ assessments of such problems as graffiti, fighting in public, or people using needles to take drugs. Finally, respondents’ access to legitimate opportunities were assessed using their assessments of their peers’ access to schooling, jobs, etc.
Not surprisingly, concentrated disadvantage was related to perceptions of lower arrest risk and lower informal costs associated with arrest. It was also associated with higher informal social rewards from crime. Those who believed they had access to legitimate opportunities perceived there to be higher arrest risk and social costs from engaging with crime. More generally, “when individuals perceive [there to be] more opportunities for success, they are apt to be deterred by threats of arrest and the informal consequences attached to crime” (p. 626).
Perhaps the most important finding is that “concentrated disadvantage reduces the subjective risks and costs of crime and increases the associated rewards of crime indirectly by increasing perceptions of limited opportunities and perceived disorder within one’s neighbourhood” (p. 627). This would suggest that one reason for apparently higher rates of crime in neighbourhoods with high rates of concentrated disadvantage is that people in such neighbourhoods are “more tolerant of the risks and costs associated with crime and place greater weight on the social and intrinsic rewards that go along with offending” (p. 629).
These findings held even after various factors – age, sex, race, parental socio- economic status, family structure, intelligence, etc. – were controlled for.
Conclusion: The findings highlight the importance of a young person’s neighbourhood in understanding the manner in which factors such as the perceived risk and benefits of crime affect the likelihood that they will engage in crime. Choices made by people to engage in, or desist from, engaging in crime, then, are intimately linked to the nature of the neighbourhood in which they live. Thus it can be argued that “rational choice theories [of crime] in fact can be thought of as highly compatible with sociological theories of crime that stress the role of external factors in the etiology of criminal behaviour” (p. 632).
Reference: Thomas, Kyle J., Eric P. Baumer, and Thomas A. Loughran (2022). Structural Predictors of Choice: Testing a Multilevel Rational Choice Theory of Crime. Criminology, 60, 606-636.
Article 2
Variation in imprisonment rates across jurisdictions relate to more than sentencing decisions. Earlier criminal justice decisions – e.g., whether some behaviour results in a charge – may be even more important than judicial decisions in determining imprisonment rates.
Since judges typically have the last word on which people go to prison, it is understandable that they are often seen as being largely or solely responsible for imprisonment rates. After all, if they hadn’t imposed a prison sentence, the offender wouldn’t go to prison. There is substantial evidence, however, that this is a serious over-simplification of how imprisonment rates are determined.
Previous Australian research has demonstrated that a substantial increase in imprisonment in one Australian state had little to do with changes in sentencing. For example, previous criminal justice contact tends to increase the likelihood of imprisonment in subsequent cases. Earlier prosecutorial decisions can be critical determinants of a prison sentence. Many of these ‘non-sentencing’ factors are important in understanding the high rate of imprisonment of Indigenous people in Australia (Criminological Highlights 19(3)#4, 16(4)#3, 6(#3)#4).
Building on earlier work, this paper demonstrates that the vast differences in imprisonment rates in one Australian state (Victoria) vs. other Australian states has less to do with the proportion of those whose cases resulted in a prison sentence than it does with the rate at which cases were processed in the courts of each Australian state. The number of court cases is likely a function of offence rates as well as the policies that are in place related to how the state responds to those offences. For some offences – public order offences, for example – the effects may be indirect. In the state of Victoria, for example, there were, relatively speaking, fewer public order cases in court than in other states. Because few people, in any state, were sent to prison for these offences, this offence is unlikely to have had an important direct effect on imprisonment rate differences. But because a conviction will almost certainly increase the likelihood of imprisonment in future cases, increased use of courts in response to minor offences that do not directly result in imprisonment can have long term impacts on imprisonment rates.
This study’s findings can help us understand similar issues elsewhere. In the 3 Canadian prairie provinces, for example, imprisonment rates dropped substantially between 2019/20 and 2020/21, presumably related to the onset of Covid. In Manitoba and Alberta, the decreases were almost the same (39% and 40%, respectively). But in Manitoba the court appearance rate dropped 36% compared to Alberta’s decrease of only 15%. Alberta’s decrease in imprisonment rate was due to a large decrease in the sentences of imprisonment for those cases completed in court after the onset of Covid (a decrease of 29%). Manitoba experienced only a modest decrease in sentences of imprisonment (6%). Looking solely at sentencing decisions by judges gives an inadequate picture of the whole process.
Similar differences are found in comparisons across Australian states. New South Wales has about 22% more prisoners being sentenced to prison (per 100K adults) than Victoria. However, the proportion of completed cases that result in a prison sentence is about 6.5% lower in New South Wales than in Victoria. NSW achieves its higher “prison sentence rate” because more cases are being completed in court.
Conclusion: We often attribute high (or low) imprisonment rates in a jurisdiction to what happens in courts. In some instances, judges are seen as the “cause” of high or low imprisonment rates. In other instances, criminal justice policies (e.g., mandatory minimum penalties) are identified as the cause. This paper – using comparisons across Australian states – reminds us that the criminal justice system as a whole contributes to imprisonment rates and that differences across or within jurisdictions in imprisonment rates may be the result of decisions outside of the courts.
Reference: Weatherburn, Don (2022). Interjurisdictional Differences in Australian Imprisonment Rates: Sentencing or Arrest Rates? Journal of Criminology, 55(4), 621-635.
Article 3
For former prisoners who are returning to the community after imprisonment, employment is an important factor in reducing the likelihood of further offending. The relationship between post- prison employment and recidivism does not vary by race. However, racialized former prisoners are more likely to experience barriers to employment; hence they are less likely to experience the benefits of employment.
This paper looks at the relationship between employment and recidivism for prisoners returning to the community after a period of time in prison. Its purpose was to try to disentangle the race effects in order to see if previous findings suggesting that race was important as a determinant of recidivism could be explained by looking at a related relationship: race and employment.
Records for prisoners released in Ohio in late 2003 were tracked for over 8 years. Legal employment information was obtained through the unemployment insurance system. These data also allowed researchers to obtain pre-imprisonment work history for the sample. The main outcome measure was whether the person was re-incarcerated for a new crime (excluding re-incarceration because of a violation of the conditions of release). Various factors were controlled including sociodemographic variables (e.g., education, mental health issues, unemployment rate of the community in which the released prisoner was released), and a detailed “criminal history risk score” that included the number, type, and timing of previous criminal justice contacts.
The results show, not surprisingly, that former prisoners who have employment after release from prison are less likely to recidivate. This is true for both Black and White former prisoners and for those with or without a work history prior to incarceration. The analyses suggest that engagement with employment – whether consistent or inconsistent – is likely to reduce recidivism.
For Black citizens returning to the community after incarceration, employment is just as protective against recidivism as it is for White citizens. In addition, “having a work history enhances the effect of post-prison employment on recidivism, irrespective of whether [the employment] is inconsistent or consistent” (p. 659). It appears that “just getting into the labour market can be protective....” (p. 659).
Other studies have demonstrated “the labour market disadvantages faced by African Americans, and the recognition that the employment history may be driving the relationship between employment and recidivism” (p. 659). This paper found “no evidence that race moderates the relationship between post-prison employment and recidivism. Thus, to the extent that employment disparities by race contribute to racial disparities in recidivism, they seem more likely to stem from differences in labour market participation which result in part from barriers to the labour market (including disparities in likelihood of a work history)” (p. 659).
Conclusion: In disentangling the relationships among prior employment and employment after release from prison and recidivism for Black and White former prisoners, this paper suggests that much of the differences between Black and White recidivism rates may relate to issues of racial discrimination in gaining employment. “Recent work history – also more difficult to achieve for Blacks – also appears to enhance the effect of employment on recidivism, irrespective of race” (p. 659). Put simply, “Employment among returning citizens clearly impacts their ability to avoid returning to prison” (p. 662).
Reference: Kolbeck, Simon G., Paul E. Bellair, and Steven Lopez (2022). Race, Work History, and the Employment, Recidivism Relationship. Criminology, 60, 637-666.
Article 4
A recent experiment, carried out within a survey of US residents, demonstrates that people hold stereotypic views about who can be believed to be a “true” victim of sexual assault. Three factors still appear to be very important determinants of the perceived credibility of sexual assault victims: that they report the offence to the police and others immediately after the offence, and that they have a corroborating witness.
Independent assessments of the prevalence of sexual assault allegations suggest that very few are, in fact, false. This study attempts to find out why many people are skeptical about the truth of statements from victims who say that they were sexually assaulted.
There are many reasons why non-stranger sexual assaults are not immediately reported to the police or others. People may have concerns about retaliation; they may expect unsympathetic responses from others; they may have concerns about how reporting these events can affect one’s reputation. Although there is some evidence to suggest that many police officers discount the credibility of delayed reports of sexual assault, this study takes these concerns one step further and looks into the manner in which delays in reporting sexual assaults may affect the assessments of the credibility of the victim by ordinary members of the public.
Using an online survey panel of 963 Americans, respondents were given a description of a hypothetical story of a female intern being sexually assaulted by a “famous male TV host.” The basic facts were the same in all vignettes. However, there were four variables that varied across vignettes. (1) In half the vignettes, it was mentioned that there was a witness; in the other half, there was no mention of a witness. (2) The event was reported to the police ‘soon afterwards’ vs. the victim did not report it to the police. (3) The victim was aware of other victims of the same host vs. she knew of no other victims. (4)The victim informed the media about the assault soon afterwards, but the media did not immediately follow up on the story vs. the media were not informed quickly about the assault.
People were randomly assigned to one of the two levels of each of these four variables creating 16 groups (2x2x2x2=16). Each person got the same basic facts about the sexual assault. The 16 different groups varied according to which of these descriptions a person received. Because participants in the experiment were randomly assigned (and because the other facts in the vignette were identical), it can be safely assumed that any differences across groups were caused by the experimentally imposed different conditions.
The results showed that the rated credibility of the victim was higher if she immediately reported the event to the police, if she had reported it to the media soon after the assault, and if there were other witnesses to the event. The existence of other sexual assault victims of this same man did not appear to be important. Above and beyond these effects, women were more likely than men to trust the victim. Furthermore, political conservatives were less likely to believe the victim.
Conclusion: “The results show that the respondents [to the experiment] hold stereotypic views about trustworthy sexual assault victims.... If the victim has reported the offence to the police, disclosed the offence to the public immediately after it happens, or has a corroborating witness, respondents perceive the victim to be more credible” (p. 3164). It would appear that increased success in the prosecutions of sexual assaults could come in two ways: by encouraging early disclosure of the offences or by encouraging change in the manner in which members of the general public assess the credibility of victims.
Reference: Shi, Luzi (2022). Public Opinion About #MeToo Victims and Offenders: A Nationwide Experiment. Violence Against Women, 28(12-13), 3154-3173.
Article 5
The number of fatal shootings of community members by members of their local police is likely to be high if the police organization operates in an area where many ordinary community members own guns. The presence of guns in a community leads to police shootings of community members, even if those guns weren’t present at the time of the shooting.
Previous research has suggested that the number of police shootings of local citizens in a community is related to the fear that officers feel concerning their own and the public’s personal safety. An unanswered question, however, is how local cues affect officers’ assessment of their own personal risk. This study examines the impact of the density of guns in the local community on the number of police shootings of civilians.
The relative presence or absence of firearms in a local community may be, for police officers, a key indicator of how dangerous an interaction with a citizen could be. Aside from anything else, “Fear of firearms is... emphasized throughout the training of new [police] recruits and represents a central aspect of police culture” (p. 1219).
This study examines the density of incidents in which a civilian was shot and killed by an on-duty police officer working in an official capacity. Various characteristics of the police agency and the community in which the police operate were obtained in addition to the number of fatal police shootings. Specifically, the study examined relationship of gun use in crime in the community and the violent crime rate on the rate of fatal police shootings of civilians in the county. But the study also examined the importance, in understanding the likelihood of police shooting a civilian, of certain characteristics of the police agency (e.g., percent female officers, whether use of force reports were collected, etc.). For the local county, the relative level of gun ownership was estimated from the proportion of suicides committed with a firearm (a “well-established proxy for household gun ownership”, p. 1223).
The results show a clear effect of household gun ownership as a predictor of the number of fatal police shootings, using 758 policing agencies covering 408 counties. In addition, the violent crime arrest rate predicted fatal police killings. These two factors were significant predictors of police shootings of civilians taking into account 8 characteristics of the police agencies and 7 characteristics of the county.
Interestingly, the structural disadvantage of the county – measured using 6 factors including the proportion of people living below the poverty line, proportion of people unemployed, proportion of single female headed families with children, proportion of households receiving supplemental income – did not predict fatal police shootings. “It may be that violent crime and gun ownership represent more direct and immediate cues of dangerousness to police officers than concentrated disadvantage” (p. 1229).
Conclusion: The fact that fatal police shootings were more likely to occur in counties with high violent crime rates and counties with high household firearm ownership suggests that, at least to some extent, fatal police shootings of civilians relate to informally assessed police perceptions of the dangerousness of the local community in which they work. It may be, then, that “policies to reduce fatal police shootings should focus on the broader environmental contexts in which police-community interactions occur” (p. 1230).
Reference: Sheppard, Keller G., Gregory M. Zimmerman, and Emma E. Fridel (2022). Examining the Relevance of Contextual Gun Ownership on Fatal Police Shootings. Justice Quarterly, 39(6), 1214-1236.
Article 6
Employers whose job applications include questions about the existence of a criminal record or who state that background checks might be carried out on job applicants discourage those with criminal records from applying for the position. This self- selection demonstrates that the cost of an irrelevant criminal record is substantial even before employers consider someone for a job.
Previous research (See the Criminological Highlights collection on Pardons) has demonstrated that employers are significantly less willing to consider a person with a criminal record for a job than they are someone who apparently has no record. This paper goes back one critical step and investigates whether people with criminal records simply don’t apply for jobs if they think that their record will be taken into consideration.
Many employers carry out criminal records checks on job applicants or require job applicants to submit evidence about whether or not they have criminal records. Currently there are attempts to reduce the use of criminal records in the employment process. It is argued that it is not an effective method of selecting employees for many jobs since that information may predict nothing useful about the applicant’s ability to do the job.
It is also known that a criminal record has an especially negative impact on Black men. In one study it was calculated that White men in the US with a felony record would have to apply for 17 positions to have a 95% likelihood of getting one callback for an interview; a similarly placed Black man would have to apply for 59 positions to achieve the same likelihood of a callback.
This study examined the job seeking behaviour of adults with criminal records in central Ohio. Participants in the study were given four different job advertisements (retail, construction, restaurant, and office workers). For each of the 303 respondents, each of the advertisements was paired with a different criminal record condition: (1) No information about background checks was listed; (2) an indication that a criminal background check would be carried out; (3) a question concerning whether the applicant had been convicted of a felony, or (4) a question on whether the applicant had been convicted of any crime.
The results show that most applicants (92.4%) would apply for the job if no question about criminal record was asked. The three ‘criminal record’ conditions did not differ and had, on average, a much lower application rate: 75.8%. The results were very similar for Black and White job applicants. And the results were similar across the four different types of jobs.
Many of the study participants were interviewed as part of the study. They frequently mentioned that they believed their chances of getting a job where the employer asked about criminal record was very low. Many also mentioned that they felt “burned out” applying for jobs they perceived they didn’t stand a chance of getting. Finally, they saw organizations asking about criminal records as being “particularly unfriendly occupations or industries” (p. 574).
Conclusion: It is clear that people with criminal records, perhaps because they know employers often won’t even consider hiring applicants with criminal records, self-select out of jobs where employers ask applicants about criminal records. It did not seem to matter whether applicants anticipated being asked about their records or they anticipated background checks: “they felt that employers had no interest in hiring someone with a criminal record... and that the numerous unsuccessful attempts to gain legitimate employment amount to wasted time” (p. 580) if the employer was going to consider the applicant’s criminal record. It is not surprising, therefore, that it is sometimes hard to motivate people with criminal records to look for jobs.
Reference: Vuolo, Mike, Lesley E. Schneider, and Eric G. LaPlant (2022). Employment Application Criminal Record Questions and Willingness to Apply: A Mixed Method Study of Self-Selection. American Journal of Sociology, 128(2), 552-592.
Article 7
Identical misbehaviour on the part of Black/Latino boys compared to White boys in American schools is responded to very differently. Black or Latino boys engaging in classroom misbehaviour that is identical to that of a White boy are treated more harshly. And boys of all races are judged more harshly if they misbehave in schools with large minority populations.
In many settings – e.g., police interactions with people on the street – there is substantial information that who a person is (e.g., whether they are Black / Latinx vs. White) and where they are (e.g., the racial/ethnic composition of the neighbourhood) affects the treatment that people are given.
This study examines the extent to which “student race/ethnicity shapes teachers’ perceptions of blameworthiness for identical misbehaviour” (p. 1009) in a school setting and to what extent the race / ethnicity composition of a school’s student population creates “differences in teacher’s perceptions of blameworthiness for identical misbehaviour....” (p. 1009). The challenge of ensuring that the behaviour being judged was identical across racial groups was overcome by creating video clips for the study (of less than a minute in length) in which a Black, a Latino, or a White boy was shown misbehaving. Specifically, the boy was shown slamming a door, throwing paper, or texting during a test. At least three boys of each race were used to ensure that any differences across clips could be attributed to race/ ethnicity rather than idiosyncratic differences in the actors.
Each of 1,339 teachers who worked in 295 different middle and high schools were shown a single video clip depicting one of these boys misbehaving in one of the three ways. The researcher categorized each school according to the proportion of Black/Latinx students enrolled in it. Teachers were asked to “describe the behaviour of the student in the video” (p. 1019). The teacher’s description of the blameworthiness of the student was then assessed by independent raters. Teachers were also asked whether they would refer the student to the principal’s office.
Black boys were rated as being significantly more blameworthy than White boys, even though their actual behaviour was identical. Latino boys, showing the same actual behaviour, were seen as being more blameworthy than White boys, but less blameworthy than Black boys. In addition, being Black increased the likelihood that youths would be referred to the principal’s office (with Latino youths being between these groups). For schools with relatively high Black/Latinx enrollment, teacher ratings of student blameworthiness for identical misbehaviour were higher.
Conclusion: Overall the data show that Black boys in middle and high schools who misbehave in relatively minor ways are likely to be judged more unfavorably than are White boys who demonstrate identical misbehaviour. But in addition, boys (of any race/ethnicity) in schools with the highest proportion of minority youths enrolled in them will also be judged more negatively. In other words, differential perceptions of student behaviour appear to be a function not only of the race/ethnicity of the student, but also of the racial/ethnic makeup of the school. Assessments of students’ behaviour and suspensions from school relate to much more than just the behaviour of the student.
Reference: Owens, Jayanti (2022). Double Jeopardy: Teacher Biases, Racialized Organizations, and the Production of Racial/ Ethnic Disparities in School Discipline. American Sociological Review, 87(6), 1007-1048.
Article 8
Long prison sentences for non-violent offenders are no more effective than shorter sentences in reducing recidivism. Given the various fiscal costs to society and social costs to the offender, as well as the costs to those associated with offenders, it would appear that a shift to shorter prison sentences would free up funds for crime prevention activities that might actually prevent crime. Shorter sentences would not put public safety at risk.
There are a substantial number of studies suggesting that imprisonment does not reduce crime. In fact, it may increase subsequent offending. (See, for example, the Criminological Highlights collection The effects of Imprisonment). This paper examines a highly related issue: Is length of stay in prison associated with differences in recidivism rates?
Generally speaking, the major challenge of a study designed to determine whether some variable of interest (in this case, the length of stay in prison) has any effect on an outcome of interest (in this case, recidivism) is that those prisoners with long stays are almost certainly going to be different from prisoners with short stays. Using various statistical approaches, this study used information from people who were serving prison sentences in Oregon prisons for property, drug, or driving offences. In addition, various controls for variables known to affect recidivism were included in the statistical models. These included gender, race, age, age at first arrest, indicators of prior arrests for each of 9 offence categories, previous release revocations, previous custody sentences, and a measure of risk of reoffending.
Time spent in prison was examined using 12 different categories of months served (e.g., 12 or less, 13, 14-17, 18... ‘50 months or more’). Then for each category of “months served in prison”, the probability of rearrest and probability of reincarceration were calculated.
There were no consistent effects showing an advantage (i.e., lower reoffending rates) for longer sentences. The effects on reincarceration were very similar. More generally, the results of this study are consistent with other studies that show “there is little link between the length of time someone is in prison and their future criminal activity” (p. 9).
Conclusion: The “central finding [of the study] is that using Oregon prisons to change behaviour through the length of stay [in prison] does not yield consistent, appreciable, recidivism reduction” (p. 10). More generally, it is argued that it would be useful to “assess the relative benefit of the length of prison stay against its impacts on public safety” (p. 10).
Reference: Leymon, Mark G., Christopher M. Campbell, Kris Henning, and Brian C. Renauer (2022). The Impacts of Length of Prison Stay on Recidivism of Non-Violent Offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 82, 1-12.
The Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto, gratefully acknowledges the Geoffrey Hinton Criminology Fund for funding this project.