Influential research has reported racial disparities in drug arrests in Seattle, Washington, that could not be explained by race-neutral factors such as crime rates or community complaints. Based on new data, measures, and methods, we reexamine racial disparities in drug arrests in Seattle and find contradictory evidence. Our analysis, using drug-related calls for service (CFS) as a benchmark, indicates that African Americans and Hispanics are either evenly represented or underrepresented among those arrested on drug charges in two drug markets examined. Similarly, this analysis reveals a moderate-to-strong association among drug arrests, drug-related CFS, and crime. These results provide support for the “deployment hypothesis,” which argues that as a result of differential police deployment patterns, officers are likely to have increased contact with minority citizens and thus have more opportunities to detect criminal conduct. Our findings demonstrate the importance of selecting an appropriate and conceptually sound benchmark to measure racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes and the importance of selecting an appropriate unit of analysis.
Our study cautions against the ready attribution of police practices to racial motives and shows the need for more research, across contexts, into this ongoing policy issue. These findings suggest that racial disparities in drug arrests seem to be more structural in nature rather than based on racial animus and individual police bias. It is, therefore, unlikely that these disparities can be eliminated by popular interventions such as police training in cultural sensitivity or by efforts to monitor and punish officers. This result leads to a consideration of whether focusing police resources based on citizen complaints and reported crimes represents equitable policing and, if not, what would constitute a realistic policy alternative.
Although the popular and academic media often proclaim that rule violations are widespread in college athletics, research assessing the true prevalence and causes of such infractions is in short supply. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a national survey that asked a random sample of male student-athletes at Division I basketball and football programs about such infractions (n = 648). The results revealed that although six in ten student-athletes did not commit any infractions in the recruitment process, seven in ten respondents reported breaking NCAA rules while in college. Most violations, however, were relatively minor and involved amenities that would enhance the student-athletes’ quality of life (free meals, cash payments less than $20). In contrast, serious violations—such as free cars, substantial financial allocations, and academic fraud—were rare, although they did exist. The multivariate analysis revealed that infractions were higher among student-athletes who were highly recruited; who associated with fellow athletes that transgressed NCAA rules or saw nothing inappropriate about breaking these regulations; who personally embraced values defining rule violations as acceptable; who did not have close relationships with their parents; and, in particular, who had a general propensity to be involved in deviant behavior. In contrast, infractions were statistically unrelated to a variety of factors, including most notably economic deprivation, organizational context, and threats of sanctions. A potentially disquieting finding is that a quarter of the respondents admitted to gambling on sporting events, with a small percentage reporting placing bets on games in which they played and three respondents stating that they had “received money from a gambler for not playing well.”
The findings suggest that NCAA infractions have diverse causes and are likely to be an ongoing reality of major college athletics. Such infractions are unlikely to be diminished either by proposals to compensate student-athletes financially or by efforts to punish them more harshly. Instead, a more profitable approach would be to establish programs that (1) intervene with student-athletes at risk for misconduct and (2) that seek to transform “deviant learning environments” that encourage rule infractions by using positive and innovative means to persuade student-athletes that NCAA rules are legitimate and should be followed.
Empirical evidence shows that no sharp change in cognitive functioning or in offending careers occurs on the 18th birthday. Many aspects of higher executive functioning, including impulse control, planning ahead, reasoning, thinking before acting, emotion regulation, delay of gratification, abstract thinking, and verbal memory, as well as resistance to peer influence, continue to mature through the mid-20s. Most young offenders naturally “grow out” of offending in the early 20s, which is the peak period for desistance. Adult court processing makes offenders worse; convictions are followed by an increase in offending, juveniles who are dealt with in adult court are more likely to reoffend than other juveniles, and sending young people to adult prisons leads to an increase in recidivism. The evidence suggests that the rehabilitative approach of the juvenile court is more successful than the punitive approach of the adult criminal court.
Many justifications for the more rehabilitative treatment of juvenile offenders (immature, poor executive functioning, poor emotion regulation and self-regulation, poor planning, more influenced by immediate gratification, low adjudicative competence, more susceptible to peer influence, more redeemable, less set in their offending habits, and less culpable) apply to young adult offenders. As in some other countries, there could be special legal provisions in the United States for young adult offenders 18–24 years of age. One possibility is that these offenders should not be dealt with in the adult criminal court but in special courts for young adult offenders that are more focused on rehabilitation. Alternatively, all young adult offenders could be assessed for their risks, needs, maturity, culpability, and adjudicative competence, and in appropriate cases, they should be given a “maturity discount.” Special efforts should be made to help young adult offenders with low intelligence and/or mental health problems. Young adult offenders should be housed in special correctional facilities and should be assisted with problems of reentry.