Unwarranted Disparity in Federal Sentencing

• Author: Jill M. D’Angelo,Jawjeong Wu
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016814522644
• Published date: 01 March 2014
• Date: 01 March 2014
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Unwarranted Disparity

in Federal Sentencing:

Noncitizen Crime as a

Social/Group Threat

Jawjeong Wu

1

and Jill M. D’Angelo

1

Abstract

Research has recently shown a renewed interest in the effect of citizenship status on sentencing

outcomes. This line of investigation, however, is limited to the individual-level analysis. In addition,

research on the threat hypothesis has overwhelmingly focused on racial and ethnic threat. This study

extends prior research by testing thesocial/group threat hypothesis in terms of citizenship and exam-

ines two primary variables of interest—the size of the noncitizen population and offender citizenship

status. This study seeks to find how the size of the noncitizen population as a macro-level factor and

offender citizenship status as a micro-level factor independently and jointly affect federal sentencing.

The independenteffects of other macro-level factorsin the context of courts and areas on sentencing

decisions, as well as their interactions with offender citizenship status, are also examined. With all

offenses considered together, the cross-level finding provides support for social threatposed by non-

citizen offenders, revealing that judges in districts with a large noncitizen population impose longer

sentences on noncitizen offenders than those in districts with a small noncitizen population.

Keywords

citizenship, immigration, unwarranted disparity, federal sentencing, social threat

The number of immigrants in the United States has skyrocketed over the past few decades. Accord-

ing to the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB, 1990, 2010), the foreign-born population of the United States

in 1990 was 19,767,316 (or 7.9%of the U.S. population); however, the number of foreign-born indi-

viduals in 2010 grew to 39,955,854 (or 12.9%of the U.S. population).

1

In fact, there has been a

316%increase in the foreign-born population since the 1960s (USCB, 2006). Although much of the

increase in the foreign-born population was associated with family-based immigration, the growing

demand for immigrants to fill mostly low-level job positions and some high-technology positions

has promoted foreign nationals to migrate into the United States legally and illegally. Group tension

and hostility due to diverse cultures brought by immigrants, coupled with concern about their illegal

1

Criminal Justice Department, SUNY-Buffalo State College, Buffalo, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jawjeong Wu, Criminal Justice Department, SUNY-Buffalo State, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14222, USA.

Email: wuj@buffalostate.edu

Criminal Justice Review

2014, Vol. 39(1) 58-80

ª2014 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016814522644

cjr.sagepub.com

entry and other criminal activity as a threat to homeland security, community safety, and public wel-

fare, have attracted scholars’ interest in researching the connection between immigration and deci-

sion making by government officials, such as police officers and judges (Wu, 2011).

The steady increase in the U.S. immigrant population has simultaneously led to changes in the

population processed in criminal court. The number of non-U.S. citizens prosecuted in federal dis-

tricts increased by almost 200%, from 3,462 in 1984 to 10,352 in 1994 (U.S. Bureau of Justice Sta-

tistics, 1996). In addition, only 27.3%of convicted federal offenders were noncitizens in Fiscal Year

1996; however, the number rose to 44.7%in Fiscal Year 2009 (U.S. Sentencing Commission

[USSC], 1996, 2009). States such as Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah have intro-

duced tough immigration laws against individuals who reside in the United States illegally (Fletcher,

2011). The escalating number of noncitizen cases may lead federal judges to believe that nonciti-

zens’ criminal involvement is a serious concern and that there would be deleterious results on public

safety. This attitude increases the likelihood that judges will respond to their concern by ‘‘strength-

ening the social control apparatus of the society—tougher or renewed rules, more intense public hos-

tility and condemnation, more laws, longer sentences, more police, more arrests, and more prison

cells’’ (Goode & Ben-Yehuda, 1994, p. 31).

Several studies have examined citizenship status and sentencing outcomes (e.g., Hartley &

Armendariz, 2011; Wolfe, Pyrooz, & Spohn, 2011; Wu, 2011). Despite the recent focus on this

issue, no other research, to our knowledge, has to date used multilevel analysis to examine threats

posed through noncitizen criminal offenses. The current study seeks to bridge this research gap. The

first goal is to determine how sentencing differentials based on citizenship status vary across federal

districts with different sizes of noncitizen populations. The second goal is to determine whether citi-

zen–noncitizen differentials based on jurisdictional differences are specific to certain types of

offenses. In light of the two goals, three research questions are asked: (1) How does citizenship status

as an individual-level factor have an effect on sentencing outcomes? (2) How does the size of the

noncitizen population as an aggregate-level factor have an effect on sentencing outcomes? and

(3) How does the size of the noncitizen population at the aggregate level interact with citizenship

status at the individual level to affect sentencing decisions?

Prior Research on Social/Group Threat, Criminal Punishment,

and Immigration

The threat hypothesis can be traced back to Blalock’s (1967) research. He posited that the dominant

group will feel threatened economically (e.g., financial resources and interests) and politically (e.g.,

social and political status), as the size of the subordinate group increases. Consequently, members of

the dominant class will demand an increase in current and/or new methods of social control in order

to maintain their superior position in society (Blalock, 1967). The elite class aims to suppress the

perceived threat by targeting the subordinate class because an increase in the size of this population

is often accompanied by an increase in group power. Blalock (1967, pp. 29–31) used the phrase

‘‘power threat’’ to discuss majority–minority relations, and Liska (1992) interpreted such relations

based on social threat. Some scholars described this type of threat as group threat (e.g., Jackson,

1989; Quillian, 1995).

Social/group threat and majority–minority relations are broad concepts that are not limited to the

analysis of race and ethnicity (see Quillian, 1995; Sellin, 1938). However, the overwhelming major-

ity of research utilizing the concept of social/group threat to explain variations in criminal punish-

ment focused on race and ethnicity. Some of these studies examined threat in terms of the

composition of all racial minorities in the population (e.g., Bridges, Crutchfield, & Simpson,

1987; Britt, 2000; Johnson, Ulmer, & Kramer, 2008; Wang & Mears, 2010a, 2010b). Others ana-

lyzed threat in terms of the percentage of Blacks (e.g., Britt, 2000; Crawford, Chiricos, & Kleck,

Wu and D’Angelo 59