Legal and Extralegal Determinants of Intercounty Differences in Prison Use

• Date: 01 September 2003
• Author: Robert R. Weidner,Richard S. Frase
• Published date: 01 September 2003
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403403253724
• Subject Matter: Journal Article

10.1177/0887403403253724ARTICLECRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003Weidner, Frase / INTERCOUNTY DIFFERENCES

Legal and Extralegal

Determinants of Intercounty

Differences in Prison Use

Robert R. Weidner

University of Minnesota, Duluth

Richard S. Frase

University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis

Although many studies have used states’stock imprisonment rates to gauge the rela-

tive punitiveness of U.S. jurisdictions, there has been much less systematic research

designed to explain the significant county-level differences in sentencing outcomes

within the United States. This study focuses on the impact of new court commitments

on prison use, using a 1998 national sample of court data from 172 U.S. counties to

document and explain variations in use of prison as a sentencing option. Multivariate

linear regressionanalyses show that each of the five considered legally relevant fac-

tors and two of the five extralegalvariables—Southern region and political conserva-

tism—influence prison use. Three other extralegalfactors—racial composition, eco-

nomic disadvantage, and urbanization—do not affect prison use according to our

model. Implications of these findings for both research and policy are discussed.

Keywords:prison sentences;comparativesentencing; countysentencing variations

As of 2001, the United States imprisoned its citizens at a rate of 472 per

100,000 (Beck, Karberg, & Harrison, 2002, p. 3), a national rate that is 6 to

12timesas high asotherWestern countries(Tonry,1999, p.419).This over-

all penal severity belies great variation in levels of imprisonment within the

United States. For example, in 2001, Louisiana had a prison rate (795 per

100,000 residents) that was more than 6 times higher than that of Maine

(126 per 100,000) (Beck et al., 2002, p. 3). Moreover, these differencesare

remarkably stable over time, despite a 250% increase in imprisonment rates

377

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert R. Weidner,Assistant

Professor, Department of Sociology–Anthropology, University of Minnesota, Duluth, 228

Cina Hall, 1123 University Drive, Duluth, MN 55812-3006.

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Volume 14, Number 3, September 2003 377-400

DOI: 10.1177/0887403403253724

© 2003 Sage Publications

from 1978 to 2001 (Beck et al., 2002, p. 3; Maguire & Pastore, 1999, p. 491).

The rank-order correlation for state rates of imprisonment for the years

1978 and 2001 is .75. Louisiana, the first-ranked state in 2001, was ranked

eighth in 1978; Maine, 50th-ranked in 2001, was ranked 46th in 1978.

A common perspective, among both the public and the media, is that

greater prison use is a function of higher crime rates (Beckett & Sasson,

2000). In fact, although there is much empirical evidence of the positive

relationship between level of crime and prison use (e.g., Arvanites& Asher,

1998), there is also broad agreement that there is not a simple direct rela-

tionship between level of crime and imprisonment (Tonry, 1998). This is

demonstrated by a comparison of the increase in arrest rates to the increase

in imprisonment rates; from 1977 to 1999, whereas prison populations

increased 333%, adult arrests increased by only 50% (Frase & Weidner,

2002,p.387).In sum, thereisa great deal ofevidencethat factorsotherthan

level of crime influence the degree to which jurisdictions imprison

(Greenberg & West, 2001).

Studies on within-U.S. interjurisdictional differences in prison use typi-

cally have employed multivariatestatistical analyses to consider the impact

of the level of crime, along with a variety of other contextual factors, in an

attempt to explain the aforementioned marked and consistent differences in

states’ rates of imprisonment. However, using states’aggregate per capita

rates of imprisonment as an outcome measure has major limitations. Princi-

pal among them is that these state-level data (imprisonment rates are based

on data from states’ departments of correction) discounts the crucial role of

local courts in deciding whom to imprison. In attempt to better account for

local influences on prison use (which can vary greatly even within a state),

this study uses court data from 172 counties located in 38 states to explain

inter-jurisdictional variations in the use of prison as a sentencing option for

felony convictions in 1998.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

There has been much research conducted at the micro level examining

theinfluenceoflegal andextralegalfactors on caseprocessingand sentence

decision making (e.g., Chiricos & Crawford, 1995). The macro-level paral-

leltothis body ofresearchare studies thatexaminewhether crimeratealone

explains the level of imprisonment or whether additional factors play a role

in determining imprisonment rates. Because the present study was under-

taken to compare prison use across jurisdictions, this literature review

focuses on these macro-level studies.

378 CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003