Race, Ethnicity, and Habitual-Offender Sentencing

• Author: Matthew S. Crow,Kathrine A. Johnson
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403407308476
• Published date: 01 March 2008
• Date: 01 March 2008

Criminal Justice
Policy Review
Volume 19 Number 1
March 2008 63-83
Race, Ethnicity, and
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/0887403407308476
Habitual-Offender Sentencing
http://cjp.sagepub.com
hosted at
A Multilevel Analysis of Individual
http://online.sagepub.com
and Contextual Threat
Matthew S. Crow
Kathrine A. Johnson
University of West Florida
Although sentencing research has expanded over the past decade, very little has been
published in the area of habitual-offender statutes. The current research revisits and
updates two of the few studies that focused on these sentencing enhancements. Crawford,
Chiricos, and Kleck (1998), and later Crawford (2000), examined the application of the
habitual-offender sentence enhancement for offenders in Florida in 1992 and 1993.
Consistent with the prior research, this study includes individual-level as well as
county-level variables and also updates the analysis by examining more recent data,
including a measure of ethnicity, and using hierarchical general linear modeling to simul-
taneously model individual-level data nested within counties. The racial threat perspec-
tive serves as the backdrop to explain racial and ethnic disparity in punishment decisions
based on contextual as well as individual threat. The findings indicate that racial and
ethnic sentence disparity exists when habitual-offender status is invoked in Florida.
Keywords:
habitual offenders; sentencing; racial threat
Introduction and Statement of the Problem
Nearly a decade ago, Crawford, Chiricos, and Kleck (1998) reported numerous
significant and detrimental race effects for African American males sentenced as
habitual offenders in Florida from 1992 to 1993. They argued that where racial threat
exists, African Americans were at increased odds of being sentenced as habitual
offenders. They concluded that “for habitual offender sentencing in Florida, race
matters, especially for property and drug crimes” (p. 507). Later, Crawford (2000)
found a similar situation existed for female defendants. Specifically, he argued that
the research indicated that a “get tough” approach to crime has “affected women’s
incarceration, most notably in the area of drug offenses” (p. 264).
To date, there is no research that has replicated or revisited either of these studies.
One of the downfalls of much social science research is the lack of replication. The
purpose of the current research is to revisit, rather than replicate, Crawford et al. (1998)
63

---

64
Criminal Justice Policy Review
and Crawford (2000). To do so, this research explores the application of the habitual-
offender sentence enhancement for both male and female offenders in Florida
from 1994 to 2002. In addition to examining more recent data on habitual-offender
sentencing in Florida, the current study extends the previous research in several
ways. Whereas the two previous studies used logistic regression analyses to model
the effects of individual-level and county-level factors, the current research uses
hierarchical general linear modeling (HGLM) to simultaneously model individual-
level data nested within counties (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Recent sentencing
research has highlighted the importance of considering the multilevel influences on
outcomes by using hierarchical modeling (Bontrager, Bales, & Chiricos, 2005; Britt,
2000; Johnson, 2005; Ulmer & Johnson, 2004).
The results reported here also consider the effect of a major policy change on
habitual-offender sentencing and provide more detailed controls for prior record. The
data used in the Crawford studies (fiscal year 1992 to 1993) consist of cases sentenced
under Florida’s 1983 sentencing guidelines. Drastically revised guidelines took effect
as part of the Safe Streets Initiative (1994), which completely restructured Florida’s
sentencing policy. Subsequently, in 1998, the state legislature revised the sentencing
policy again by implementing the Criminal Punishment Code (CPC, 1998). The CPC
maintained the point structure of the previous policy, but increased punitiveness and
eliminated upward bounds on sentences. Although these policy changes did not
directly alter the habitual-offender statutes, it is likely that the general sentencing pol-
icy in effect influences the use of the habitual statutes. The current analysis examines
the effect of Hispanic ethnicity, in addition to race, on habitual-offender sentencing.
The importance of including Hispanics in the current research is highlighted by the
recent fact that the Hispanic population increased by 57.9% in the United States and
by 70.4% in Florida from 1990 to 2000 (Guzman, 2001).
Habitual-Offender Sentencing and Theoretical Issues
The earlier research conducted by Crawford et al. (1998) used the racial threat
theoretical perspective based on the work of Blalock (1967) and Liska (1992). The
racial threat perspective views the criminal law, the criminal justice system, and the
sanctions meted out by that system as tools used to control racial and ethnic minority
groups that pose a threat to the positions and safety of those in power. According to
this view, “in the contemporary United States, Blacks and Hispanics tend to be objects
of crime fear and are seen as particularly threatening” (Ulmer & Johnson, 2004, p. 144).
Therefore, the racial threat perspective posits that Blacks and Hispanics receive
harsher treatment in the criminal justice system based on stereotypes that associate
minorities with crime, which translates into a threat to the majority community.
At the macro or contextual level, racial threat is reflected in more severe sen-
tencing outcomes in communities with larger minority populations. There is greater

---

Crow, Johnson / Race, Ethnicity, and Sentencing
65
threat to “mainstream America” in those communities because the threatening
population—Blacks and/or Hispanics—is larger. Similarly, because crime is associated
with racial and ethnic minorities, higher crime rates are often linked with increased
racial threat. At the individual level, racial threat is translated into disparate sentences
for racial and ethnic minorities because judicial decision makers rely on “stereotypical
images of which defendant is most likely to recidivate” (Albonetti, 1991, p. 250). Both
Albonetti’s attribution/uncertainty avoidance theory and Steffensmeier and associates’
focal concerns perspective (Steffensmeier, Kramer, & Streifel, 1993; Steffensmeier,
Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998; Ulmer & Johnson, 2004) argue that decision makers sometimes
view Black and Hispanic offenders, as well as males, as being more blameworthy and
dangerous, and as more suited for or capable of handling prison.
The racial threat perspective helps to explain racial and ethnic disparity in pun-
ishment decisions based on contextual racial composition as well as individual racial
differences. Like the earlier studies by Crawford and associates, this research is
guided by the racial threat perspective, along with the related attribution/uncertainty
avoidance and focal concerns frameworks. Before discussing the current study, the
following review of the literature highlights the focus of the scant habitual-offender
research published since 1998 and details the Crawford et al. (1998) and Crawford
(2000) studies.
Literature Review
Since Crawford et al. (1998) provided an exhaustive review of the race and sentenc-
ing literature conducted prior to their study; it seems far more efficient to focus on what
has been done since then and with particular attention to the habitual-offender literature.
Crawford et al. (1998) reported that “while there is apparent consensus among
reviewers that length of sentence is unrelated to race when prior record and offense
seriousness are controlled, there is also a growing recognition that the decision to
incarcerate or not is related to race, in particular contextual circumstances” (p. 485).
They describe in great detail the results of studies addressing race and sentencing in
noncapital offenses (see, e.g., Hagan, 1974; Kleck, 1981), historical context (Zatz, 1987),
crime seriousness (Kramer & Steffensmeier, 1993; Spohn & Cederblom, 1991), type
of crime (Myers & Talarico, 1986), drug crimes (Myers, 1989; Peterson & Hagan,
1984; Unnever, 1982; Unnever & Hembroff, 1988), and place (see, for example,
Chiricos & Crawford, 1995; Myers & Talarico, 1987). Recent reviews reiterate the
importance of race in sentencing (Mitchell, 2005; Spohn, 2000).
Crawford et al. (1998) reported only one study that “considered the impact of race
on the sentencing of defendants as habitual offenders” (p. 488). This document was
produced by the Economic and Demographic Research Division (EDR, 1992) as the
result of “the Joint Legislative Management Committee in the Florida legislature [that]
examined the status of the population under custody or supervision of the Florida

---

66
Criminal Justice Policy Review
Department of Corrections” (p. 488) and remains unpublished. Given the fact that
the Crawford et al. study was the first of its kind and given the value it added to the
literature, it is curious that it has not been revisited or replicated.
Crawford’s (2000) analysis of female habitual offenders in Florida was a logical
extension of his previous work with colleagues. Using the same fiscal year (1992 to
1993) as his earlier work, Crawford found that females were not often sentenced as
habitual offenders, but when they were “it appears to be done in a racially discrimi-
natory fashion against African American women, and in a targeted, geographically
localized manner” (p. 278)....