Sentencing Disparities in US Terrorism Prosecutions, 2001–2018

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

Objective: to research the common and distinctive features when sentencing in the prosecution of terrorism in the United States in 2001–2018.Methods: the article uses general dialectical method of cognition, as well as general scientific (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction) and specific scientific (formal-legal) research methods.Results: Few studies have examined racial or other disparities in terrorism sentences. Unlike previous research, this study incorporates all types of terrorism, several severity levels, and both state and federal cases. Using a database including all US terrorism cases between 2001 and 2018 (n = 825), the authors test for sentencing disparities based on race/ethnicity, gender, citizenship, state/federal court, and type of terrorism.Scientific novelty: The results show some evidence for disparities, with foreign nationals and White supremacists receiving longer sentences and foreign non-jihadi terrorists receiving shorter sentences. The research found limited evidence for racial disparities, including longer sentences for minority defendants within some severity levels. The “liberation hypothesis” predicting greater disparities for less-serious crimes was mainly unsupported. Whether prosecution occurred in state or federal court had little effect, suggesting that states are well equipped to prosecute terrorists. Compared to jiliadi defendants, anti-government defendants received larger “discounts” between initial allegations and charges of conviction, dramatically affecting sentence length.Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering the issues related to criminal liability for terrorism.

作者简介

J. Norris

State University of New York at Fredonia

Email: norris@fredonia.edu

H. Grol-Prokopczyk

University at Buffalo

参考

  1. Ahmed, S. (2016). Is history repeating itself: Sentencing young American Muslims in the war on terror. Yale Law Journal, 126, 1520–1576. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/h.1520.Ahmed.1576rfyg9e76.pdf
  2. Amirault, J., & Bouchard, M. (2015). A group-based recidivist sentencing premium? The role of context and cohort effects in the sentencing of terrorist offenders. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43(4), 512–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.12.002
  3. Amirault, J., & Bouchard, M. (2017). Timing is everything: The role of contextual and terrorism specific factors in the sentencing outcomes of terrorist offenders. European Journal of Criminology, 14(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370815578194
  4. Amirault, J., Bouchard, M., Farrell, G., & Andresen, M. A. (2016). Criminalizing terrorism in Canada: Investigating the sentencing outcomes of terrorist offenders from 1963 to 2010. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106, 769–810. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/iclc/vol106/iss4/4/
  5. Beckett, K., Nyrop, K., & Pfingst, L. (2006). Race, drugs, and policing: Understanding disparities in drug delivery arrests. Criminology, 44(1), 105137. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1745-9125.2006.00044.x
  6. Bielen, S., Grajzl, P., & Marneffe, W. (2021). Blame based on one's name? Extralegal disparities in criminal conviction and sentencing. European Journal of Law and Economics, 51(3), 469–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-020-09670-6
  7. Black, D. (2010). The behavior of law. Emerald.
  8. Bradley-Engen, M. S., Damphousse, K. R., & Smith, B. L. (2009). Punishing terrorists: A reexamination of US federal sentencing in the postguidelines era. International Criminal Justice Review, 19(4), 433–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567709348357
  9. Byman, D. (2023). Is there a wave of right-wing terrorism? A review article. Political Science Quarterly, 138(2), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad007
  10. Carlsmith, K. M., Monahan, J., & Evans, A. (2007). The function of punishment in the “civil” commitment of sexually violent predators. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.761
  11. Carmichael, J. T. (2010). Sentencing disparities for iuvenile offenders sentenced to adult prisons: An individual and contextual analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.icrimius.2010.05.001
  12. Chermak, S. M., Freilich, J. D., Parkin, W. S., & Lynch, J. P. (2012). American terrorism and extremist crime data sources and selectivity bias: An investigation focusing on homicide events committed by far-right extremists. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(1), 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-011-9156-4
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
  14. Corradi, A. (2023). Disparities in extreme contexts: The impact of gender and mental health status on the criminal iustice outcomes of extremists. Journal of Criminal Justice, 88, 102104. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.icrimius.2023.102104
  15. Donohue, J. J. (2014). An empirical evaluation of the Connecticut death penalty system since 1973: Are there unlawful racial, gender, and geographic disparities? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(4), 637–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/iels.12052
  16. Dunlap, W. P., Chen, R., & Greer, T. (1994). Skew reduces test-retest reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 310–313. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.310
  17. Factor, R., & Gur-Arye, M. (2020). Social solidarity and sentencing disparities between ethnicvgroups: the case of hit-and-run traffic offenses. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 17(1), 164–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/iels.12245
  18. Field, A. (2019). Ethics and entrapment: understanding counterterrorism stings. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(2), 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2016.1213721
  19. Fox, J., & Monette, G. (1992). Generalized collinearity diagnostics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(417), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1992.10475190
  20. Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
  21. Goodwin, M., & Lindsay, M. (2018). American courts and the sex blind spot: Legitimacy and representation. Fordham Law Review, 87, 2337–2384. https://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/03Goodwin-2337-2384.pdf
  22. Gruenewald, J., Klein, B. R., Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. (2019). American jihadi terrorism: A comparison of homicides and unsuccessful plots. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(3), 516–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2016.1253563
  23. Gruenewald, J., Klein, B. R., Hayes, B. E., Parkin, W. S., & June, T. (2024). Examining disparities in case dispositions and sentencing outcomes for domestic violent extremists in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 70(1), 126–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221109769
  24. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Prentice Hall.
  25. Hester, R., & Hartman, T. K. (2017). Conditional race disparities in criminal sentencing: A test of the liberation hypothesis from a non-guidelines state. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9283-z
  26. Hill, J., Oliver, W. M., & Marion, N. (2010). “Shaping history” or “riding the wave”? President Bush's influence on the public opinion of terrorism, homeland security, & crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 896–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.icrimius.2010.06.005
  27. Hirsch-Hoefler, S., & Mudde, C. (2014). “Ecoterrorism”: Terrorist threat or political ploy? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 37(7), 586–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2014.913121
  28. Ives, A. R., Zhu, L., Wang, F., Zhu, J., Morrow, C. J., & Radeloff, V. C. (2021). Statistical inference for trends in spatiotemporal data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 266, 112678. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.rse.2021.112678
  29. Isom, D. A. (2023). Gratuitous angst in White America: A theory of Whiteness and crime. Taylor & Francis.
  30. Jackson, S. M., Ratcliff, K., & Gruenewald, J. (2023). Gender and criminal justice responses to terrorism in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 69(5), 1044–1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211047535
  31. Johnson, B. D. (2012). Cross-classified multilevel models: An application to the criminal case processing of indicted terrorists. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(1), 163–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-011-9157-3
  32. Johnson, D. (2012). Right-wing resurgence: How a domestic terrorist threat is being ignored. Rowman & Littlefield.
  33. Jordan, K. L., & Maroun, R. (2016). Minority threat and criminal sentencing: Examining juveniles in the adult criminal justice system. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2015.1133397
  34. Klein, B. R., Gruenewald, J., Chermak, S. M., & Freilich, J. D. (2019). A mixed method examination of law enforcement investigatory strategies used in jihadi and far-right foiled terrorist plots before and after 9/11. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 7(2), 29–58. https://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.5963ad76
  35. Kline, R. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.
  36. Light, M. T. (2014). The new face of legal inequality: Noncitizens and the long-term trends in sentencing disparities across US district courts, 1992-2009. Law & Society Review, 48(2), 447–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12073
  37. Loadenthal, M. (2017). “Eco-terrorism”: An incident-driven history of attack (1973–2010). Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 11(2), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.14321/istudradi.11.2.0001
  38. Logue, M. A. (2009). “The price of being Mexican”: Sentencing disparities between noncitizen Mexican and non-Mexican Latinos in the federal courts. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31(4), 423–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986309347447
  39. McGarrity, N. (2013). “Let the punishment match the offence:” Determining sentences for Australian terrorists. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2(1), 18–34. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/INFORMIT.122586336534150
  40. Mears, D. P., Craig, M. O., Stewart, E. A., & Warren, P. Y. (2017). Thinking fast, not slow: How cognitive biases may contribute to racial disparities in the use of force in police-citizen encounters. Journal of Criminal Justice, 53, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.icrimius.2017.09.001
  41. Mitchell, O. (2018). The continuing evolution of race and sentencing research and reviews of this research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 59, 29–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.icrimius.2017.05.004
  42. Mitchell, O., & Caudy, M. S. (2015). Examining racial disparities in drug arrests. Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 288–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.761721
  43. Murray, K. (2016). A comparative analysis of conviction outcomes of American domestic terrorists. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 42(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2016.1251952
  44. Norris, J. J. (2017). Why Dylann Roof is a terrorist under federal law, and why it matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 54, 501–541. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jol/wp-content/uploads/sites/86/2017/03/54.1-HLL105.pdf
  45. Norris, J. J. (2019). Explaining the emergence of entrapment in post-9/11 terrorism investigations. Critical Criminology, 27(3), 467–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09438-8
  46. Norris, J. J. (2020a). How entrapment still matters: Partial successes of entrapment claims in terrorism prosecutions. In A. Sarat (Ed.), Studies in law, politics, and society (Vol. 82, pp. 141–166). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1059-433720200000082007
  47. Norris, J. J. (2020b). When (and where) can right-wing terrorists be charged with terrorism? Critical Studies on Terrorism, 13(4), 519–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2020.1810991
  48. Norris, J. J. (2024). Could the futility of terrorism inspire deradicalization? Narrative strategies arising from case studies of far-right lone-actor terrorism. Journal for Deradicalization, 38, 28–80. https://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/859
  49. Norris, J. J., & Grol-Prokopczyk, H. (2015). Estimating the prevalence of entrapment in post-9/11 terrorism cases. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 105(3), 609–677. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=7566&context=jclc
  50. Norris, J. J., & Grol-Prokopczyk, H. (2019). Racial and other sociodemographic disparities in terrorism sting operations. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 5(3), 416–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649218756136
  51. Norris, J. J., McFall, J. P., & Grol-Prokopczyk, H. (2024). Decision-making in terrorism sting operations: is entrapment driven by the sunk-cost effect and intergroup biases? Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 19(2), 223246. https://doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2023.2266712
  52. Norris, J. J., & Grol-Prokopczyk, H. (2024). Sentencing Disparities in US Terrorism Prosecutions, 2001-2018. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 25(2), 18–40.
  53. Payne, B., Vuletich, H. A., & Lundberg, K. (2017). The bias of crowds: How implicit bias bridges personal and systemic prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 28(4), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1335568
  54. Peterka-Benton, D., & Laguardia, F. (2021). The trouble with numbers: Difficult decision making in identifying right-wing terrorism cases. An investigative look at open source social scientific and legal data. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 47(5), 502–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2021.1980981
  55. Piazza, J. A. (2015). Terrorist suspect religious identity and public support for harsh interrogation and detention practices.
  56. Political Psychology, 36(6), 667–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12190
  57. Pina-Sanchez, J., & Grech, D. C. (2018). Location and sentencing: To what extent do contextual factors explain between court disparities? The British Journal of Criminology, 58(3), 529–549. https://doi.org/10.1093/bic/azx033
  58. Price, M., Rubinstein, R. A., & Price, D. (2012). ‘Material support’: US anti-terrorism law threatens human rights and academic freedom. Anthropology Today, 28(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1467-8322.2012.00847.x
  59. Rehavi, M. M., & Starr, S. B. (2014). Racial disparity in federal criminal sentences. Journal of Political Economy, 122(6), 1320–1354. https://www.doi.org/10.1086/677255
  60. Roh, S., & Robinson, M. (2009). A geographic approach to racial profiling: The microanalysis and macroanalysis of racial disparity in traffic stops. Police Quarterly, 12(2), 137–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611109332422
  61. Shahshahani, S., & Liu, L. J. (2017). Religion and judging on the federal Courts of Appeals. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 14(4), 716–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/iels.12162
  62. Sinnar, S. (2019). Separate and unequal: The law of “domestic” and “international” terrorism. Michigan Law Review, 117(7), 1333–1404. https://www.istor.org/stable/45136737
  63. Smith, B. L., & Damphousse, K. R. (1996). Punishing political offenders: The effect of political motive on federal sentencing decisions. Criminology, 34(3), 289–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1745-9125.1996.tb01209.x
  64. Smith, B. L., & Damphousse, K. R. (1998). Terrorism, politics, and punishment: A test of structural-contextual theory and the “liberation hypothesis”. Criminology, 36(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1745-9125.1998.tb01240.x
  65. Smith, B. L., Damphousse, K. R., Jackson, F., & Sellers, A. (2002). The prosecution and punishment of international terrorists in federal courts: 1980-1998. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(3), 311–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1745-9133.2002.tb00093.x
  66. Spaaij, R., & Hamm, M. S. (2015). Key issues and research agendas in lone wolf terrorism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 38(3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2014.986979
  67. Steffensmeier, D., Painter-Davis, N., & Ulmer, J. (2017). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, and age on criminal punishment. Sociological Perspectives, 60(4), 810–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416679371
  68. Townsley, M., Birks, D., Ruiter, S., Bernasco, W., & White, G. (2016). Target selection models with preference variation between offenders. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(2), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9264-7
  69. Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Barnes, J. C. (2017). Racial discrimination and pathways to delinquency: Testing a theory of African American offending. Race and Justice, 7(4), 350–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368716658768
  70. Villadsen, A. R., & Wulff, J. N. (2021). Statistical myths about log-transformed dependent variables and how to better estimate exponential models. British Journal of Management, 32(3), 779–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12431
  71. Wrigley, V. R., & Schumacher, T. (2023). The effects of pretrial detention length on sentencing guideline departures in two Pennsylvania counties. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 24(3), 11–33. https://ccils.scholasticahq.com/article/90808.pdf
  72. Yan, S., & Bushway, S. D. (2018). Plea discounts or trial penalties? Making sense of the trial-plea sentence disparities. Justice Quarterly, 35(7), 1226–1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1552715

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».