Search

This paper investigates using multiple datasets (e.g., the CPS and NSAL) whether the increasing presence of foreign born blacks and their native-born children are obscuring summary estimates of the progress made by third generation and higher African Americans. Three measures of "black" were created, (1) a third generation and higher blacks, excluding foreign born blacks, (2) a foreign born black community including first and second generation blacks, and (3) a black-alone group, which included foreign born blacks and third generation and higher blacks. Four estimates of progress were analyzed including percent of high school and college completion, labor force participation rates, the percentage of children living with single mothers, and selfreported arrest rates. It was hypothesized that a summary measure that collapses all blacks into one category--the black-alone group--will not accurately assess the well-being of American blacks, the community of foreign born blacks, and third generation and higher blacks. The analyses generatedfourfindings: First, there are significant gender differences between the foreign bom community and third generation and higher blacks. Second, the results revealed that there are substantial differences between the black foreign born community and third generation and higher blacks and that these differences generalize across years and gender. Third, the data indicate that the emergence of the foreign born black community impacts summary indicators of the progress fo r all African Americans. Fourth, the differences between foreign born blacks and third generation and higher blacks are increasing. It was concluded that summary estimates based on the black alone category overestimate the progress of third generation and higher blacks and underestimate the advances made by the foreign born community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper tests core tenets of the theory of African-American offending proposed by Unnever and Gabbidon. Their theory posits that African-Americans have a common worldview on matters of race that is related to their offending. However, Unnever and Gabbidon further hypothesize that immigrant blacks do not fully embrace the worldview shared by US-born blacks. Using a 2008 national Gallup poll, we examine whether US-born blacks share a common worldview and whether foreign-born blacks differ in their opinions on key issues including: criminal injustices, the state of American race relations, attitudes towards immigration and illegal immigrants, and the perception of mobility within American society. The results partially confirm their two key hypotheses; there are no entrenched differences in the public opinions of US-born blacks on race-related matters while immigrant blacks do not wholly endorse their worldview. We discuss the implications of these two findings in relation to how scholars conceptualize offending among blacks. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abortion and the death penalty are two of the most contentious issues in American public life. Previous scholarship has documented religious variations in attitudes toward each of these hotly contested issues. However, scant research has explored how religious factors affect opposition to both abortion and capital punishment, two key elements of a consistent life ethic. This study offers a partial test of religious support for the consistent life ethic by examining the extent to which the nature and quality of the relationship between God and the religious believer fosters opposition to both abortion and capital punishment. Using data from the 2004 General Social Survey, we find that a close relationship with a loving God predicts opposition to both abortion and the death penalty net of other religious factors and covariates. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and delineating promising directions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including racism and crimes regarding African Americans, racial discrimination in the U.S., and racial disparities in outcomes of criminal justice.

Studies reveal that some Americans are more willing than others to endorse harsh measures to control crime. We advance this literature by presenting a model that offers an integrated explanation of why some Americans are more punitive than others. Scholars have found that people construct images of offenders that reflect those disseminated by elites, the media, and popular culture. These images can vary across types of crime and can change over time. We posit that individual differences in punitiveness are related to whether people empathize with the images they construct of 'typical' stereotyped offenders. We conclude by offering a systematic model that summarizes the proposed theoretical perspective and helps to illuminate both implications for macro-level theories and future avenues of investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent wave of corporate wrongdoing has raised the issue of whether the public is concerned about the control of lawlessness in the business world. Using a national probability sample, we explore whether Americans want to enact stricter regulations of the stock market and advocate more punitive criminal sanctions for corporate executives who conceal their company's true financial condition. The findings reveal that Americans generally favor getting tough on corporate illegality. The analysis also indicates, however, that group differences exist in public support for punitive corporate crime control policies. Although liberals and conservatives equally support punishing corporate criminals more harshly, African Americans are more likely than Whites to endorse more restrictive and more punitive policies toward corporate criminals. We conclude that punitive attitudes are socially constructed beliefs that reflect the dynamics of conflicted class and racial relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on traditional conflict perspectives, Hagan et al. (2005) have developed an important model for explaining racial-ethnic differences in perceptions of injustice, especially among Whites, Hispanics, and African Americans. Using data from the 2000 Public Opinion on the Courts in the United States survey, we provide a partial test of core propositions of their "comparative conflict theory." Consistent with the perspective's "racial-ethnic divide thesis," Whites perceived less injustice than members of minority groups. The findings also provide support for the "gradient thesis," which predicts that African Americans perceive the most injustice, followed by Hispanics and Whites, respectively. In our sample, however, we found no evidence for the "differential sensitivity thesis," which predicts that compared to African Americans, Hispanics' perceptions of injustice will be differentially increased by contact with the justice system. We discuss the implications of our findings in the context of comparative conflict theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using data from the 2000 National Election Study, this research investigates the sources of the racial divide in support for capital punishment with a specific focus on white racism. After delineating a measure of white racism, we explore whether it can account for why a majority of African Americans oppose the death penalty while most whites support it. The results indicate that one-third of the racial divide in support for the death penalty can be attributed to the influence of our measure of white racism. The analyses also revealed that when other factors are controlled, support for capital punishment among nonracist whites is similar to that of African Americans. We examine tile implications of these findings for using public opinion to justify the death penalty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This project investigates the racial divide in support for capital punishment. The authors examine whether race has a direct effect on support for capital punishment and test whether the influence of race varies across class, being a native southerner, confidence in government officials, political orientation, and religious affiliation. Using data drawn from the General Social Survey, they find a substantial racial divide, with African Americans much less likely to support the death penalty. Furthermore, the analysis revealed little support for the "spurious/social convergence" hypothesis; shared factors that might be expected to bring African Americans and Whites together--class, confidence in government, conservative politics, regional location, and religious fundamentalism--either did not narrow African American-White punishment attitudes or, at best, had only modest effects. The Results suggest that the racial divide in support for capital punishment is likely to remain a point of symbolic contention in African American-White conceptions of criminal injustice in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines direct and organizational discrimination in the sentencing of male drug offenders in Miami, Florida. Blacks and the poor are overrepresented in U.S. state and federal prison populations. The reasons for this have been intensely debated in the sociological and criminological literature. Researchers argue that blacks and the poor disproportionately commit more serious offenses and have more serious prior records, and that, therefore, their past and present criminal behavior accounts for their overrepresentation in prisons. On the other hand, some researchers argue that blacks and the poor are overrepresented not only because they disproportionately engage in criminal behavior which has been officially labeled as serious, but also because judges have individual prejudices which affect sentencing decisions. The literature on discrimination in judicial decision-making contains contradictory findings. Some researchers have found evidence of racial and/or economic discrimination, while others have not found any evidence of any kind of discrimination. They found disparities in sentencing on class and racial lines by using cross-tabular analysis while simultaneously controlling for the number of prior offenses and the seriousness of the present offense.