Individuals with high levels of neighborhood attachment provide a multitude of positive factors to neighborhoods. Research has demonstrated that increases in informal social controls, maintaining a well-kept area, and positive social ties are improved with higher levels of neighborhood attachment. Identifying the factors that lead to higher levels of neighborhood attachment has thus become an area in the literature that scholars have frequently studied. One aspect of neighborhood life that has been neglected in research is the role of police on neighborhood attachment. This study addresses the gap by exploring the role of police in influencing levels of neighborhood attachment. Data from the Seattle Neighborhood and Crime Survey are used to examine perceptions of police effectiveness on overall levels of neighborhood attachment, and the three different sub-concepts of neighborhood attachment. Results demonstrated that perceptions of police effectiveness had a positive relationship on all forms of neighborhood attachment. Suggestions for the roles of police in developing neighborhood attachment will be discussed, as well as the theoretical applications for future testing of neighborhood attachment. This study demonstrates the influence of police on daily neighborhood life.

Many parents are incarcerated, and most are eventually released. Parents that have to return home from prison may encounter difficulties adjusting to being a parent on the outside. Two competing criminological theories – social control and strain – build the framework for two pathways after release from prison – desistance or recidivism. The principal question of this study examines how being a parent to a minor child has an effect on the reentry pathways, and an interaction between being a parent and gender tests the differences between mothers and fathers. Existing studies have produced mixed results with some studies suggesting that minor children are a protective factor, and some suggesting the struggles of returning parents. Research has also shown that incarcerated mothers and fathers experience their incarceration differently, and it is surmised that this would have an impact on their reentry. Data used in this study were obtained through structured interviews with 952 inmates housed in the Arizona Department of Corrections in 2010 (n= 517 males (54%); n= 435 females (46%)). Logistic regression models show that having at least one minor child does not significantly impact the reentry outcomes for parents as compared to nonparents. In addition, the interaction between minor children and gender was also not significant – there were no differences between mothers and fathers. The statistically insignificant findings most likely show the cancelling effects of two distinct pathways for reentry. Implications of the findings are discussed below.

Procedural justice has become a widely researched topic in the criminological field with applicability to multiple arenas, including policing, corrections, and courts. Its main tenents suggest that through fair treatment, respectful dialogue and being given a proper voice, citizens will view their experiences with authority more justly. However, though the literature regarding procedural justice has grown immensely, it is still unclear whether certain characteristics of individuals, such as gender and mental health, play a role in their perceptions of procedural justice. Using secondary data originally collected for Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel and Lindquist’s Multi-Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), an attempt is made to address the previously neglected association between procedural justice, gender, mental health and the added aspect of specialized drug court participation. Results suggest that both gender and mental health, namely depression, play a significant role in predicting procedural justice. Additionally, being a drug court participant was significantly related to higher levels of perceived procedural justice. Implications for theory, research, and policy are discussed.

Contemporary research has examined the relationship between determinate sentencing reforms and unwarranted punishment disparities in states and the federal criminal justice system. Recent investigations suggest that legal developments in federal sentencing—namely, the High Court’s rulings in U.S. v. Booker (2005) and Gall/Kimbrough v. U.S. (2007) which rendered and subsequently reaffirmed the federal guidelines as advisory—have not altered disparities associated with imprisonment outcomes. Punishment disparities following Booker and Gall, particularly racial and ethnic disparities, have been linked to Assistant U.S. Attorneys’ (AUSAs) use of substantial assistance departures. What remains unanswered in the literature is whether the changes in AUSAs’ decision making following the landmark cases has enduring effects and whether the effects are conditioned by defendants’ race/ethnicity and the type of case (guidelines cases or mandatory minimum cases), and whether the use of substantial assistance varies across U.S. District Courts.

Accordingly, these questions are examined using sentencing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, coupled with data from the National Judicial Center, U.S. Census Bureau, Uniform Crime Reports, and Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. This study looks at 465,476 defendants convicted from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2010 across 89 federal districts. A series of multilevel discontinuity regression models are estimated to assess the short-term and long-term effects of the Booker and Gall/Kimbrough decisions on AUSAs’ use of substantial assistance departures, accounting for contextual differences between federal district courts.

The results show that AUSAs are less likely to seek motions for substantial assistance immediately and in the long term in the post-Booker period but are more likely to seek substantial assistance in the long term in the post-Gall/Kimbrough period. These effects, however, are restricted to the models that include all cases and guidelines cases. The interaction models show that Hispanic defendants facing a mandatory minimum sentence are less likely to receive a substantial assistance departure immediately and in the long term following the Court’s Booker decision. Moreover, the use of substantial assistance varies across federal districts. The results are discussed in relation to their implications for theory, courts and sentencing policy, and future research on punishment outcomes.

Gender disparity in sentencing outcomes has a long tradition in sentencing literature, with a substantial body of evidence indicating that women offenders are treated with greater leniency over male counterparts. The prior literature on gender and sentencing, however, has ignored broader social contexts within which judicial decision-making occurs. This dissertation attempts to address this limitation by dissecting the nature of gender disparity through ecological lenses. Using federal sentencing data for FY 2001 through 2010 and other complementary data sets, this dissertation, divided into two major sub-studies, has examined the roles of two social contextual variables, such as religioius and political conservatism, in producing gender differentials in sentencing outcomes.

Mexican drug cartels have been a difficult group to get official data on because of the clandestine nature of their operations and the inherent dangers associated with any type of research on these groups. Due to the close relationship that the United States and Mexico share, the United States being a heavy demander of illicit drugs and Mexico being the supplier or the transshipment point, research that sheds light on cartels and their effects is necessary in order to solve this problem. A growing concern is that cartels have been seeking to improve their international infrastructure. This could potentially be done by partnering with gangs located in the United States to help with the distribution of drugs. The author uses data from the 2009 and 2010 Arizona Gang Threat Assessment and three sets of analyses (dummy variable regression, change score, multinomial logistic) to shed light on the possible partnership between cartels and U.S. based gangs. Primarily using the varying level of intervention strategies practiced by police departments throughout the state of Arizona, this study is exploratory in nature, but attempts to find the effectiveness of intervention strategies on "cartel affiliated" gangs, as identified by federal authorities, and how police departments respond towards these same groups. With the current data, there was no significant evidence that suggests that intervention strategies were less effective on "cartel affiliated" gangs or that police departments were responsive towards these “affiliated” gangs.

General Strain Theory (GST) posits that different types of strain lead to different types of negative emotions, some of which increase the likelihood of maladaptive coping. Much research on GST has focused on anger and depression. Far less attention has been directed toward other negative emotions, including anxiety and envy. The current study uses cross-sectional data from surveys administered to a university-based sample (N = 500) to address these voids and explore gender differences in the effects of strain and negative emotions in maladaptive coping. Results indicate that when gender differences existed in levels of strain and negative emotions, females experienced higher levels than males. Strain significantly predicted all four measures of negative emotions examined in this study. Finally, different negative emotions were found to have differing effects on different measures of maladaptive coping. Implications of this study for theory, future research, and policy are discussed.

Legal cynicism, a concept that reflects how individuals feel about the law, can be linked to different theoretical traditions. However, inconsistencies in the way legal cynicism is operationalized abound. This study aimed to develop a more complete and psychometrically-sound measure of legal cynicism. Factor-analytic procedures were used on a sample of 502 undergraduate university students to create the scale and to test its directional accuracy. Using promax-rotated principal-axis factor analysis, a 4 dimensional factor structure emerged—legal apathy, legal corruption, legal discrimination, and low legal legitimacy. The 21-item scale has a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .85; mean inter-item r = .58). Results from ordinary least squares regression models confirmed that the multidimensional legal cynicism scale is significantly correlated with criminal offending (β = .34, p < .001), net of low self-control and demographic characteristics.

Since the 1990s, stop and frisk activities have been a cornerstone of the New York Police Department (NYPD). The manner in which the NYPD has carried out stop, question, and frisks (SQFs), however, has been a focal point of discussion, resulting in public outrage and two major lawsuits. Recently, the Federal District Court Judge ruled that the NYPD was engaging in unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices that targeted predominately Black and Latino New Yorkers. Questions surrounding the NYPD’s SQF practices have almost exclusively focused on racial and ethnic disproportionality in the rate of stops without necessarily considering what transpired during the stop. This study will fill that void by examining the prevalence and nature of use of force during those stops, along with testing the minority threat hypothesis. By combining micro-level measures from the NYPD’s 2012 “Stop, Question, and Frisk” database with macro-level variables collected from the United States Census Bureau, the current study examines police use of force in the context of SQF activities. The results should help judges, policy makers, police officers, and scholars understand the nature of police use of force in the context of SQFs.

Interpersonal racial discrimination is positively associated with poor mental health outcomes in a number of marginalized groups across the United States (Brondolo, et al., 2008). This paper examines how racial discrimination affects the self-esteem, self-worth, and racial pride of Latinas using interview data from a purposive sample of students. The objectives of this study are: (a) to better understand the effects of racial microaggressions on young Latinas’ construction of self, (b) to explicate how these self-perceptions influence deviant behavior and maladaptive thought processes, drawing on strain and discrimination literatures, and (c) to examine the protective mechanisms Latinas employ with friends and family as a response to racial discrimination. Findings indicated that respondents experienced racial discrimination through a variety of channels, from negative stereotypes to feeling a distinct prejudice in academic settings. Participants utilized numerous coping mechanisms to deal with such encounters, most of which emphasized the importance of drawing strength from Hispanic values, culture, and language during times of adversity.