Crime and Punishment: The Politics of Federal Criminal Justice Sanctions

• DOI: 10.1177/106591290305600201
• Author: Sean Nicholson-Crotty,Kenneth J. Meier
• Published date: 01 June 2003
• Date: 01 June 2003
• Subject Matter: Articles

Crime and Punishment:
The Politics of Federal Criminal Justice Sanctions
SEAN NICHOLSON-CROTTY AND KENNETH J. MEIER
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
The incarceration rate in federal penitentiaries has tripled in the past twenty-five years, marking an unprece-
dented incursion by the federal government into what was the near exclusive domain of sub-national juris-
dictions. Numerous scholars, particularly outside the field of political science, have hypothesized about the
causes of the burgeoning prison population; but few have systematically tested these propositions. Borrowing
insights from organizational theory and the literature on bureaucratic politics, this article proposes a frame-
work that incorporates the most plausible hypotheses from the literature and empirically models the environ-
mental, structural, and political influences on the implementation of federal criminal justice sanctions. The
analysis demonstrates that federal incarceration rates are largely uncorrelated with the national crime rate, but
that other variables significantly affect the number of commitments, the average sentence of convicted prison-
ers, and the number of paroles annually. The model also reveals that the outputs of criminal justice bureau-
cracies are extremely autoregressive, with current sanctions determined largely by past agency behavior.
Incarceration rates for federal prisons have tripled since Despite the paucity of attention to criminal justice policy
1975. Accompanying this growth was increased racial
in the discipline, some theories address related issues. Each
imbalance, with black Americans now constituting
has political roots supporting the notion that factors other
almost half of new admissions (Maguire and Pastore 1997;
than need influence policy formulation and implementation.
Blumstein and Beck 1999). This racial disproportion unde-
Meier (1994) asserts that the primary force driving the “pol-
niably raises important equity concerns; but regardless of
itics of sin” is legislators’ misinterpretation of the public’s
race, the sheer number of prisoners makes criminal justice
d e s i re for more punitive policies. Unwilling to appear “soft”
at the federal level an important policy question. Over the
on the issue, policymakers champion legislation of incre a s-
past twenty-five years, the federal government has become
ing severity in an ever-escalating process. Scheingold (1984)
increasingly involved in what was once the near exclusive
o ffers a similar theory specifically about crime policy. He
domain of state and local governments. National policy has
a rgues that fear of crime (exacerbated by excessive media
generated growing populations in federal penitentiaries and
coverage) rather than actual crime, is driving the re c e n t
a massive reallocation of funds to the federal criminal justice
i n c rease in incarceration. In Scheingold’s model, the public
system.
becomes more afraid of crime; and lawmakers respond to
Despite the growing importance of criminal justice
that fear, independent of actual crime rates. Finally, Schnei-
policy, political scientists have been remarkably quiet on the
der and Ingram (1993) contend that social constructions of
issue. James Q. Wilson’s Thinking About Crime (1975) typi-
c e rtain groups in society influence policy design, institu-
fies a genre of negative qualitative accounts that, while
tional stru c t u re, and program implementation in ways that
descriptively useful, have little predictive value. Several
disadvantage those groups. They suggest that perceptions of
quantitative studies have found evidence of political influ-
race and povert y, two of the more enduring social constru c-
ence on criminal justice system outputs, but these models
tions, determine criminal justice policy.
often fail to include sufficient controls (Jacobs and Helms
The disciplines of sociology and criminology have off e re d
1996; Davey 1998). Other works have focused on police
similar explanations for the rise in incarceration rates. Fear of
and local law enforcement agencies. While enlightening,
crime, rather than crime itself, is the primary explanatory
they have typically been narrowly concerned with compli-
variable in most of these studies. The theory, broadly inter-
ance and offered few generalizable explanations for the
p reted, assumes that the panic over crime has become a con-
increased punitiveness of the criminal justice system (Lipski
venient channel for larger anxieties about social ord e r, race
1980). The majority of this literature also focuses on crimi-
relations, and the transformation of the economy (Gord o n
nal justice at the state level, not the federal system.
1994; Scheingold 1991; Beckett 1997; Currie 1998). Some
scholars point to the growing wealth disparity and the stigma-
tization of the poor or “dangerous” classes (Beckett 1997;
NOTE: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 54th National
G o rdon 1994; Currie 1998; Chambliss 1994). Others claim
Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. Data and
that institutionalized racism in the criminal justice system
documentation to replicate this analysis can be obtained from the senior
results in higher arrest rates and longer prison terms for black
author.
Americans (To n ry 1995; Miller 1996). This literature is also
Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 2 (June 2003): pp. 119-126
rife with implicit and explicit accusations of political
119

---

120
POLITICAL RESEARCH QUARTERLY
o p p o rtunism; law and order politics is viewed as a conven-
refutes the notion of a direct relationship between crime and
ient way to exploit a politically salient issue (Beck 1992;
punitiveness (See Scheingold 1991; Tonry 1995; Meier
Meier 1994; Caplow and Simon 1999; Walker 1993; Good-
1994), we will nonetheless test for that relationship in all
stein and Hepburn 1985). Despite the vast number of
models presented in this analysis.
hypotheses; however, systematic tests are rare .
The insights from this multi-disciplinary literature can
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OF
be fruitfully combined via organizational and bureaucratic
FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
theory to construct a political framework for studying the
implementation of criminal law. Such a framework must
We feel that the theoretic lens of bureaucratic politics
account for the criminal justice system’s larger environment,
offers better leverage on the question of rising federal puni-
the institutional order created by bureaucratic rules, values,
tiveness. To facilitate analysis, the various federal criminal
and beliefs, as well as political influences that undoubtedly
justice organizations can best be viewed as a single institu-
shape criminal justice policy implementation. We specify
tion. The literature has ample precedent for including
such a framework and test it by modeling federal justice
n u m e rous political and bureaucratic actors under the
system outputs from 1950 through 1998.
umbrella of a single institution or system. Institutionalism
in this context refers to established structures that interact
PUNITIVENESS AS DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE
in a regularized pattern of behavior and tend toward spe-
cialization and complexity (March and Olsen 1989). Three
Before constructing a bureaucratic framework for the
sets of decisionmakers comprise this criminal justice
study of federal criminal justice sanctions, we wish briefly to
bureaucracy—prosecuting attorneys, judges, and parole
draw attention to one of the dominant explanations for
officers. Together they determine who is sent to prison, how
rising punitiveness. Most political leaders, corrections offi-
long they serve, and when they are released.
cials, and a few academics argue that rising imprisonment
The large body of literature on bureaucracy has identified
rates are simply an appropriate democratic response to
t h ree major influences on bureaucratic decision making and
increasing crime (Bennett, DiIulio, and Walters 1996).
institutional outputs—environmental, political, and stru c-
Authors suggesting a rational correlation between incarcer-
tural (Waldo 1971; Downs 1967; Rourke 1984). The unique
ation and crime rates typically ground their arguments
contribution of our re s e a rch is two-fold. First, it considers
either in the notion of a social contract or within a transac-
the criminal justice system vulnerable to these same forc e s
tion cost framework. Some argue that the state has an obli-
and not simply reactive to crime rates. Second, by conceptu-
gation to protect citizens from harm and defend their rights
alizing the criminal justice system as an institution, it can be
to life and property (Wilson 1983). This interpretation of
modeled with the same framework across levels of govern-
the duties of government leads scholars to the conclusion
ment and the numerous agencies at each level.1
that current levels of punitiveness fail to meet the state’s
obligations and, therefore, the “government is failing to
Environmental Factors
carry out its most basic responsibility: to provide for the
security of its citizens to meet the promise of liberty and jus-
As an institution imbedded in the larger society, we
tice for all” (Bennett, DiIulio, and Walters 1996: 16).
expect the criminal justice system to respond to environ-
A complimentary argument proposes that severe sanc-
mental as well as political factors (Kaufman 1991; Powell
...