Uncategorized

although there are far more men than women in the u.s. criminal Justice system, female correctional populations have risen significantly in the past decade. today women make up roughly 7 percent of prison inmates, 12 percent of jail inmates, 13 percent of parolees, and 23 percent of probationers.

a conference devoted to women in the system, the 11th national workshop on adult & juvenile female offenders, takes place today through wednesday at the marriott hotel in bloomington, mn. an informative ap story on the conference emphasizes some of the minnesota programs for mothers in prison and their children.

when i interviewed minnesota prisoners about their political life a few years ago, i started by doing ten interviews in a women’s prison, then moved on to a men’s facility. my impression was that the first interviews were much “easier” — more women than men seemed to have developed a vocabulary for talking about things such as civic participation and their past and future roles in the community. so, i got a little spoiled as an interviewer. the men were immediately on top of issues such as individual rights, liberties, and voting but seemed to have given less thought to communitarian issues.

i didn’t draw any big generalizations from a handful of interviews and this didn’t become a theme in the books or articles from the project. still, it made me think about something i heard from a warden at a women’s prison long ago but didn’t believe at the time. she said, “female prisoners aren’t anything like male prisoners — they are a lot more like women in the community.” consistent with the conference and the mission of the apfo, the warden was deeply skeptical of a “just add women and mix” approach to correctional programming.

from the sentencing project: the european court of human rights ruled today that denying voting rights to prisoners in the UK violates the european convention on human rights. the court held that “any limitations on the right to vote had to be imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim and be proportionate” and that “any departure from the principle of universal suffrage risked undermining the democratic validity of the legislature.”

i don’t know enough about the court’s powers or jurisdiction to understand the full implications of this decision (i’m hoping that a great legal mind will step up to set me straight), but here is how the guardian describes the decision:

Laws setting out who can and cannot take part in elections are to be rewritten after the European court of human rights today ruled in favour of giving British prisoners the right to vote … Britain is among 13 signatories to the human rights convention who prevent prisoners from voting, according to a government survey … The court – on a majority ruling of 12-5 – said an article in the convention guaranteeing the “free expression of the opinion of the people in choosing a legislature” was not absolute but in a 21st century democracy the presumption should be in favour of inclusion … The court was set up in 1950 to hear citizens’ complaints under the human rights convention and is independent of the European Union.

debates over the voting status of prisoners — in the UK, australia, and south africa, among other nations — really draw the restrictiveness of u.s. laws into sharp relief. prisoners are now disenfranchised in 48 of the 50 states (maine and vermont are the only exceptions) and policy debates generally focus on whether non-incarcerated felons (probationers and parolees) and former felons (who have completed their sentences) should be permitted to vote.

from the sentencing project: the european court of human rights ruled today that denying voting rights to prisoners in the UK violates the european convention on human rights. the court held that “any limitations on the right to vote had to be imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim and be proportionate” and that “any departure from the principle of universal suffrage risked undermining the democratic validity of the legislature.”

i don’t know enough about the court’s powers or jurisdiction to understand the full implications of this decision (i’m hoping that a great legal mind will step up to set me straight), but here is how the guardian describes the decision:

Laws setting out who can and cannot take part in elections are to be rewritten after the European court of human rights today ruled in favour of giving British prisoners the right to vote … Britain is among 13 signatories to the human rights convention who prevent prisoners from voting, according to a government survey … The court – on a majority ruling of 12-5 – said an article in the convention guaranteeing the “free expression of the opinion of the people in choosing a legislature” was not absolute but in a 21st century democracy the presumption should be in favour of inclusion … The court was set up in 1950 to hear citizens’ complaints under the human rights convention and is independent of the European Union.

debates over the voting status of prisoners — in the UK, australia, and south africa, among other nations — really draw the restrictiveness of u.s. laws into sharp relief. prisoners are now disenfranchised in 48 of the 50 states (maine and vermont are the only exceptions) and policy debates generally focus on whether non-incarcerated felons (probationers and parolees) and former felons (who have completed their sentences) should be permitted to vote.

pspunk alerted me to a short article describing how some states are addressing the “problem” of prisoners being exonerated by dna evidence. as clayton neuman wrote this week in time magazine:

Justice, it seems, has an expiration date. Luis Diaz last month became one of a handful of Florida prisoners–and one of 99 nationwide–exonerated by DNA testing since 2000. But the 2001 statute that helped set him free after he spent 26 years in jail for rapes he did not commit is set to expire next week. After Oct. 1, when prisoners can no longer petition Florida courts for post-conviction DNA testing, their only hope will be to ask prosecutors (the people who put them in jail in the first place) to reopen their case. Prisoners in Ohio face a similar deadline at the end of the month. “It is quintessentially un-American for the very people who may have caused this kind of miscarriage of Justice to be the people who decide whether DNA testing occurs,” says Jenny Greenberg of the Florida Innocence Initiative.

Worse still, the four-year window in Florida that required the preservation of evidence for older cases–which may have predated reliable DNA testing–is also closing. And unlike California, which last year passed a law ensuring the preservation of evidence throughout an inmate’s incarceration, Florida Governor Jeb Bush last month mandated that law-enforcement agencies need give only a 90-day notice before destroying evidence, which isn’t much time given the low literacy rates among inmates and how hard prison protocol makes it for them to reach a lawyer. Six states have yet to address the issue of requiring the preservation of DNA evidence. And new hurdles could arise at the congressional level, where a bill threatens to restrict many prisoners from filing one last-ditch petition in federal court. All these moves are designed to keep courts from getting deluged with DNA-related requests by thwarting new technology with red tape.

if i read this correctly, it means that states are starting to destroy the dna evidence used to convict prisoners at one end, and then not allowing them to petition to have themselves tested at the other. i’m all for keeping our busy courts from “getting deluged with dna-related requests,” but i find the asymmetry in power a bit troubling here. dna evidence is an invaluable tool for police and prosecutors, but shouldn’t it also be available for the wrongly convicted? i’m sure that there are many “frivolous” requests for testing, since guilty as well as innocent prisoners have an interest in something (anything!) to “rule themselves out” as suspects. still, it seems only a slight exaggeration to see this trend as inverting Justice blackstone’s adage: better to imprison 10 innocent people than to let one guilty person go free.

pspunk alerted me to a short article describing how some states are addressing the “problem” of prisoners being exonerated by dna evidence. as clayton neuman wrote this week in time magazine:

Justice, it seems, has an expiration date. Luis Diaz last month became one of a handful of Florida prisoners–and one of 99 nationwide–exonerated by DNA testing since 2000. But the 2001 statute that helped set him free after he spent 26 years in jail for rapes he did not commit is set to expire next week. After Oct. 1, when prisoners can no longer petition Florida courts for post-conviction DNA testing, their only hope will be to ask prosecutors (the people who put them in jail in the first place) to reopen their case. Prisoners in Ohio face a similar deadline at the end of the month. “It is quintessentially un-American for the very people who may have caused this kind of miscarriage of Justice to be the people who decide whether DNA testing occurs,” says Jenny Greenberg of the Florida Innocence Initiative.

Worse still, the four-year window in Florida that required the preservation of evidence for older cases–which may have predated reliable DNA testing–is also closing. And unlike California, which last year passed a law ensuring the preservation of evidence throughout an inmate’s incarceration, Florida Governor Jeb Bush last month mandated that law-enforcement agencies need give only a 90-day notice before destroying evidence, which isn’t much time given the low literacy rates among inmates and how hard prison protocol makes it for them to reach a lawyer. Six states have yet to address the issue of requiring the preservation of DNA evidence. And new hurdles could arise at the congressional level, where a bill threatens to restrict many prisoners from filing one last-ditch petition in federal court. All these moves are designed to keep courts from getting deluged with DNA-related requests by thwarting new technology with red tape.

if i read this correctly, it means that states are starting to destroy the dna evidence used to convict prisoners at one end, and then not allowing them to petition to have themselves tested at the other. i’m all for keeping our busy courts from “getting deluged with dna-related requests,” but i find the asymmetry in power a bit troubling here. dna evidence is an invaluable tool for police and prosecutors, but shouldn’t it also be available for the wrongly convicted? i’m sure that there are many “frivolous” requests for testing, since guilty as well as innocent prisoners have an interest in something (anything!) to “rule themselves out” as suspects. still, it seems only a slight exaggeration to see this trend as inverting Justice blackstone’s adage: better to imprison 10 innocent people than to let one guilty person go free.

in response to my why are those of two or more races victimized at such a high level? post, erik larson of macalester college has already come up with at least a partial answer. he explains a large portion of the gap in victimization between multiracial individuals and all other racial groups with a single variable. based on his quick calculations, age seems to account for about 40 percent of the excess victimization over the population as a whole. i think that developing this analysis might make a nice research note when the data arrive in full (just make sure to give erik some authorship credit — dude is on the tenure track!). it doesn’t necessarily kill my discrimination hypothesis, but at least it reduces the magnitude of the multiracial victimization gap from “shocking” to somewhere around “disturbing.” thanks erik.

i don’t know the literature well, but i’m interested in the social construction of racial and ethnic identity for personal as well as scholarly reasons. people immediately peg me as swedish or norwegian (especially outside of minnesota) because of my physical appearance, and this is generally the way i self-identify. but i certainly grew up knowing that my background was at least somewhat more diverse (e.g., cree (nêhiyawêwin) indian, italian, irish…). if people who self-identify as biracial or multiracial are more likely to be victimized net of age and everything else, this doesn’t bode well for the american mosaic. am i really less likely to be beaten or assaulted because i look like i’m from one and only one racial background? i’m not advocating a melting pot or assimilation model, but i can’t help thinking we’d be better off if more than .9 percent of us (the figure in the ncvs) self-identified as “2 or more races.”

on a much, much, lighter note, erik’s response got me thinking about another kind of diversity — the ability to claim “2 or more methods.” since erik is best known for his qualitative comparative work, his sharp quantoid contribution helps make a case that i preach to grad students early on — that there’s no such thing as pure “qualitative” or “quantitative” researchers anymore. i probably look like a quant in the same way that i look like a norwegian and i emphasize quant tools in my work. still, few of the top sociologists i know advocate a “purebreed” approach to methods these days. here’s a cheeky take on the advantages and disadvantages of [sociological] purebreeds and mutts, adapted from the “pet library:”

Take two [sociologists], one a [methodological] purebred and one a mixed breed. Which one is more beautiful, smarter, a better companion? It’s often a matter of personal opinion as there are those who believe that purebreds are the only choice while others steadfastly stand by the mutt. One of the most appealing features of the purebred is that they have rather predictable [scholarly] characteristics. You more or less know what you’re going to get when it comes to appearance and size. They also have a fairly predictable temperament so you can get a pretty good idea of what your [sociologist’s] disposition will be. And, of course, if you want to professionally breed or show your [sociologist], a pedigree is your only option.

[Methodological] purebreds are more prone to [career] problems, many of which are often due to overbreeding. It’s very important when considering a purebred that you find a reputable and proven [graduate program]. Many purebreds also come with working behaviors that may not fit your ideal of the perfect [sociologist]. Behaviors like digging holes, chasing after things or nipping, which have been bred into certain [epistemologies] for centuries, often prove difficult to change. And, of course, purebreds can be very costly, running anywhere from several hundred dollars to over a thousand dollars.

Now for the mixed breeds. One of the most obvious downsides of the mixed breed is that you can’t predict what a [new ph.d.] will look like or what size it will be as an adult. However, there are those who actually find this to be a positive, enjoying the surprise of realizing what their mixes grow up to look like. Along the same lines, mixed breeds are less predictable than purebreds when it comes to temperament. However, mixed breeds tend toward the moderate, with their temperaments often proving to be less extreme than those of purebreds. You’re less likely to have a [sociologist] who’s “very” energetic or “very” demanding or “very” stubborn, with [epistemologically]-based characteristics that often prove difficult to change, and more likely to have a [sociologist] that can adjust to a greater variety of situations. With a greater [methodological] diversity, mixed breeds are less likely to suffer conditions that affect certain purebreds as a result of inbreeding. They also tend to be a lot less expensive, usually costing around $25 to $75 at most [graduate programs]. Furthermore, by opting for a mixed breed, certainly one from the [non-elite departments], you may just be saving a life.

in response to my why are those of two or more races victimized at such a high level? post, erik larson of macalester college has already come up with at least a partial answer. he explains a large portion of the gap in victimization between multiracial individuals and all other racial groups with a single variable. based on his quick calculations, age seems to account for about 40 percent of the excess victimization over the population as a whole. i think that developing this analysis might make a nice research note when the data arrive in full (just make sure to give erik some authorship credit — dude is on the tenure track!). it doesn’t necessarily kill my discrimination hypothesis, but at least it reduces the magnitude of the multiracial victimization gap from “shocking” to somewhere around “disturbing.” thanks erik.

i don’t know the literature well, but i’m interested in the social construction of racial and ethnic identity for personal as well as scholarly reasons. people immediately peg me as swedish or norwegian (especially outside of minnesota) because of my physical appearance, and this is generally the way i self-identify. but i certainly grew up knowing that my background was at least somewhat more diverse (e.g., cree (nêhiyawêwin) indian, italian, irish…). if people who self-identify as biracial or multiracial are more likely to be victimized net of age and everything else, this doesn’t bode well for the american mosaic. am i really less likely to be beaten or assaulted because i look like i’m from one and only one racial background? i’m not advocating a melting pot or assimilation model, but i can’t help thinking we’d be better off if more than .9 percent of us (the figure in the ncvs) self-identified as “2 or more races.”

on a much, much, lighter note, erik’s response got me thinking about another kind of diversity — the ability to claim “2 or more methods.” since erik is best known for his qualitative comparative work, his sharp quantoid contribution helps make a case that i preach to grad students early on — that there’s no such thing as pure “qualitative” or “quantitative” researchers anymore. i probably look like a quant in the same way that i look like a norwegian and i emphasize quant tools in my work. still, few of the top sociologists i know advocate a “purebreed” approach to methods these days. here’s a cheeky take on the advantages and disadvantages of [sociological] purebreeds and mutts, adapted from the “pet library:”

Take two [sociologists], one a [methodological] purebred and one a mixed breed. Which one is more beautiful, smarter, a better companion? It’s often a matter of personal opinion as there are those who believe that purebreds are the only choice while others steadfastly stand by the mutt. One of the most appealing features of the purebred is that they have rather predictable [scholarly] characteristics. You more or less know what you’re going to get when it comes to appearance and size. They also have a fairly predictable temperament so you can get a pretty good idea of what your [sociologist’s] disposition will be. And, of course, if you want to professionally breed or show your [sociologist], a pedigree is your only option.

[Methodological] purebreds are more prone to [career] problems, many of which are often due to overbreeding. It’s very important when considering a purebred that you find a reputable and proven [graduate program]. Many purebreds also come with working behaviors that may not fit your ideal of the perfect [sociologist]. Behaviors like digging holes, chasing after things or nipping, which have been bred into certain [epistemologies] for centuries, often prove difficult to change. And, of course, purebreds can be very costly, running anywhere from several hundred dollars to over a thousand dollars.

Now for the mixed breeds. One of the most obvious downsides of the mixed breed is that you can’t predict what a [new ph.d.] will look like or what size it will be as an adult. However, there are those who actually find this to be a positive, enjoying the surprise of realizing what their mixes grow up to look like. Along the same lines, mixed breeds are less predictable than purebreds when it comes to temperament. However, mixed breeds tend toward the moderate, with their temperaments often proving to be less extreme than those of purebreds. You’re less likely to have a [sociologist] who’s “very” energetic or “very” demanding or “very” stubborn, with [epistemologically]-based characteristics that often prove difficult to change, and more likely to have a [sociologist] that can adjust to a greater variety of situations. With a greater [methodological] diversity, mixed breeds are less likely to suffer conditions that affect certain purebreds as a result of inbreeding. They also tend to be a lot less expensive, usually costing around $25 to $75 at most [graduate programs]. Furthermore, by opting for a mixed breed, certainly one from the [non-elite departments], you may just be saving a life.

when i think of crime and voting, i usually think about felon disenfranchisement. i got word today from a friend in the research triangle on a story involving the criminal records of those running for office.

DURHAM — Of the 17 candidates on the primary ballot for mayor and City Council in Durham, at least eight have been convicted of criminal charges.
The chairman of the Durham County Republican Party moved on Tuesday to withdraw GOP support from mayoral candidate Vincent Brown, whose extensive criminal record was the subject of an article in Sunday’s editions of The News & Observer. The story recounted Brown’s felony convictions for forgery and larceny, as well as a stretch served in state prison. Brown vehemently denied that he has ever been arrested…

in many places, a felony conviction formally disqualifies one from holding office, but this story went on to discuss the arrest records of the candidates. and they found plenty — embezzlement, speeding, lots of bad checks, weapons offenses, petty theft, abortion protesting, failure to pay child support, and others. this one might be the saddest and the strangest:

In light of Brown’s rap sheet, every candidate in attendance was asked before a crowd of about 75 people if they had ever been arrested on a criminal charge or had been to jail.
When it was his turn to answer Tuesday, Ward 1 council candidate Joe Williams said: “I don’t have any skeletons in my closet.”
Records show Williams was convicted in a 1986 trial for a single misdemeanor count of assault on a female. He was ordered by a judge to “pay for damages to teeth” in an amount to be determined by the clerk of court.

ouch. is this further evidence of the carceral state spreading ever outward? i’d hate to participate in such a line-up before a department election. actually, my graduate students tell me that some universities now obtain arrest reports on new faculty — and i’ve read enough papers on institutional isomorphism to suspect that this could quickly become standard practice. if it doesn’t indicate overcriminalization, do you think the 8 in 17 figure indicates greater criminality among politicians than others? As mark twain’s pudd’nhead wilson hypothesized:

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. -mark twain

when i think of crime and voting, i usually think about felon disenfranchisement. i got word today from a friend in the research triangle on a story involving the criminal records of those running for office.

DURHAM — Of the 17 candidates on the primary ballot for mayor and City Council in Durham, at least eight have been convicted of criminal charges.
The chairman of the Durham County Republican Party moved on Tuesday to withdraw GOP support from mayoral candidate Vincent Brown, whose extensive criminal record was the subject of an article in Sunday’s editions of The News & Observer. The story recounted Brown’s felony convictions for forgery and larceny, as well as a stretch served in state prison. Brown vehemently denied that he has ever been arrested…

in many places, a felony conviction formally disqualifies one from holding office, but this story went on to discuss the arrest records of the candidates. and they found plenty — embezzlement, speeding, lots of bad checks, weapons offenses, petty theft, abortion protesting, failure to pay child support, and others. this one might be the saddest and the strangest:

In light of Brown’s rap sheet, every candidate in attendance was asked before a crowd of about 75 people if they had ever been arrested on a criminal charge or had been to jail.
When it was his turn to answer Tuesday, Ward 1 council candidate Joe Williams said: “I don’t have any skeletons in my closet.”
Records show Williams was convicted in a 1986 trial for a single misdemeanor count of assault on a female. He was ordered by a judge to “pay for damages to teeth” in an amount to be determined by the clerk of court.

ouch. is this further evidence of the carceral state spreading ever outward? i’d hate to participate in such a line-up before a department election. actually, my graduate students tell me that some universities now obtain arrest reports on new faculty — and i’ve read enough papers on institutional isomorphism to suspect that this could quickly become standard practice. if it doesn’t indicate overcriminalization, do you think the 8 in 17 figure indicates greater criminality among politicians than others? As mark twain’s pudd’nhead wilson hypothesized:

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. -mark twain

the new 2004 national crime victimization survey numbers were released this week. according to this large-scale nationally representative survey, violent crime is holding steady at the lowest levels recorded in the three decades for which we have had reliable data. that’s the good news, but there is also some disturbing news regarding race differences.

the ncvs asks respondents to self-identify race, using categories for white, black, other “only,” and, since 2003, “two or more races” (“other race” includes american indians/alaska natives, asians, and native hawaiians/other pacific islanders identifying a single racial background). when i first presented last year’s numbers, i was depressed to find extraordinarily high rates of violent victimization among persons of “two or more races:” 67.7 victims of violent crime for every 1,000 people age 12 and older, relative to rates of 29 for blacks, 21.5 for whites, and 16 for those of other races. i’ve always lectured on racial disparities in victimization, but had never seen gaps like this before. this is not my primary area of study, so i may be missing something obvious. still, any good criminologist who does survey work should be able to address such questions.

i first thought it might be an artifact, given that it was the first year that the “two or more races” option was presented, but the same ugly pattern holds for the 2004 numbers (click the graph for a legible version). those reporting “two or more races” were victimized in 2004 at 51.6 per thousand, double the black rate of 26 per thousand, and far exceeding the white and “other” rates of 21 per thousand and 12.7 per thousand, respectively. only about .9% of respondents self-identify as “two or more races,” but we’re talking about over 1,000 people here, given the NCVS sample size of 149,000. those of hispanic ethnicity are somewhat less likely to be victimized than non-hispanics, but the main difference seems to be between “2 or more” (shown in the red bar) and all of the other bars shown.

several press accounts have reported these differences, but to my knowledge none have printed comments from victimization experts about them. so, my hope-i’m-wrong disturbing hypothesis is that a large portion of the greater violent victimization is due to discrimination. is it the case that multiracial persons are more likely to be victimized everywhere — in black, white, hispanic, asian, and american indian communities alike? i don’t know the census data well enough to comment on response patterns to such questions or even the socioeconomic differences between multiracial families and others. perhaps some of the victimization differences are due to ses or neighborhood poverty or family structure (all of which are no doubt linked to discrimination in some form). but am i missing something else here?

such a large bivariate gap cries out for serious multivariate analysis. does the pattern hold for property victimization as well? what happens when controls for neighborhood and ses are introduced? if we still see disproportionate violence against multiracial persons, it also cries out for targeted policy interventions to address this problem.