Prior Convictions Research Articles

Horizontal Federalism in an Age of Criminal Justice Interconnectedness

Despite their status as independent sovereigns, states increasingly exhibit a willingness to interact when it comes to crime control matters. This Article examines the two foremost examples of this phenomenon: criminal recidivist enhancement laws and sex offender registration laws. Both types of laws have been around for decades and have evolved to accommodate ex-offenders, who, consistent with constitutional freedom of movement, can (and often do) change state residences. This effort at accommodation, however, puts states in the unusual position of having to interpret and apply the criminal laws and outcomes of their fellow sovereigns. As the Article makes clear, recidivist and registration laws, while motivated by a desire to hold individuals accountable for their past misconduct and deprive them of incentives to migrate in search of a clean slate, present unique challenges and have important ramifications for our The Article begins with an overview of the means by which registration and recidivist laws take account of out-of-state prior convictions. While courts often face challenges in applying the laws to indigenous offenders, their task is made considerably more difficult when the predicate convictions occurred elsewhere. In such situations, they must construe foreign laws to determine if convictions, themselves possibly aged or evidenced by ambiguous or incomplete information, warrant consideration under their own recidivist or registration law. Part I examines the two basic approaches used today - external and internal - to make such determinations. The internal approach insists that out-of-state convictions, and any punishment attaching, satisfy the eligibility requirements of the forum state's registration or recidivist law. The external approach, on the other hand, allows such decisions to be based on the legal characterizations of their fellow sovereigns. Part II explores the practical and theoretical ramifications of interconnection, which can vary in accord with states’ use of the internal or external approach. In terms of the practical, the internal approach poses particular analytic challenges insofar as states often must undertake a difficult exercise in inter-state statutory construction. Because the approach places premium importance on local norms, without deference to how the prior conviction was treated in the foreign state, it is not uncommon for offenders to escape continued accountability. This uncertainty, in turn, can raise notice concerns for ex-offenders who must fathom (with respect to registration laws, often in a very short time period) the legal consequences of their prior conviction in their newly adopted state. Such concerns are not as pronounced in states using an external approach because, as noted, such legal consequences are pre-determined by the other state. The external approach, however, has a consequence of a different sort: potential unequal treatment of otherwise similarly situated ex-offenders. Because outcomes are allowed to hinge on how the other state would resolve the question, ex-offenders hailing from especially punitive states can suffer differentially compared both to their counterparts who enter the forum with convictions from less punitive states and indigenous ex-offenders. For individual offenders, the geographic happenstance of their criminal history in effect determines their destiny. At the same time, for society as a whole, the extreme criminal law positions of states are permitted to ripple across not just space but also time, because the laws consider convictions from years before, allowing perhaps draconian and retrograde mores to be frozen in amber and given ongoing, contemporary effect. Part III examines the theoretical implications of interconnection. Internal approach states can be seen as stalwarts of fifty-labs federalism. They make their own calls on recidivist and registration eligibility, and resist foreign state characterizations, thereby giving effect to state autonomy and diversity. External approach states, on the other hand, place premium importance on uniformity and comity. Their deferential approach, in addition to depriving the nation of a lab, has a number of subtle yet significant collateral consequences. These include: the deflection of political responsibility for the adoption of criminal law norms; the skewing of the ostensibly local character of the criminal law; and the removal of incentives for laggard states to conform their laws to the standards of their more progressive peers, possibly contributing to a race to the bottom. Finally, with more uniformity and less experimentation, come possibly diminished prospects for democratic competition, with attendant negative effects on the constitutional right of free travel.

Bordenkircher v. Hayes: The Rise of Plea Bargaining and the Decline of the Rule of Law

Bordenkircher v. Hayes is not among the most famous cases in American criminal procedure, but it may be among the most important. Not so much for what happened - the Supreme Court held, unsurprisingly, that plea bargaining did not amount to vindictive prosecution - as for what didn't happen. Bordenkircher was tailor-made for a holding that prosecutors cannot threaten criminal punishment that has not been applied, at least occasionally, to similarly situated defendants. That holding would have spared Paul Hayes a life sentence for petty theft plus two prior felony convictions. It would have spared many thousands of defendants guilty pleas produced by what amounts to legalized extortion. It probably would have spared some innocent defendants criminal convictions. In retrospect, Bordenkircher appears to be one of the great missed opportunities of American constitutional law.

The innocent prisoner and the appellate prosecutor: Some thoughts on post‐conviction prosecutorial ethics after Dretke v. Haley

We typically think of as encompassing a set of obligations for prosecutors during the pretrial and trial stages of a criminal case. In the literature and in rules of professional responsibility much attention is paid to the charging function, contact with unrepresented persons, plea negotiations, discovery, and courtroom decorum. Our concern with prosecutorial ethics at these stages is rooted primarily in due process and fairness to the accused. [W]hile he may strike hard blows, the Supreme Court wrote in Berger v. United States, [a prosecutor] is not at liberty to strike foul ones. (1) Whether it is a recognition that the prosecutor acts as a representative of the sovereign or that he or she possesses extraordinary power over people's lives, we speak about the prosecutor's ethical duties as special (2) or (3) to those of ordinary lawyers. By preventing a prosecutor from litigating unfairly, the aim is to protect a criminal defendant from an unjust or unwarranted conviction. What, then, are the ethical duties of prosecutors after the defendant has had his fair shot at trial, but lost? The literature and standards are surprisingly silent, with rare exception, on the post-conviction ethics of prosecutors. (4) Constraints on the prosecutorial function seem to reach their apex at trial. Why? Are the reasons for or additional ethics for prosecutors non-existent on appeal? Is the vast discretion, present at the pretrial and trial stages and thought by some to justify ethical duties, absent on appeal? As a recent case from Texas illustrates, ethical issues still abound even after a jury returns a verdict of guilty. Nevertheless, the traditional discourse on pre-conviction duties can help us determine how prosecutorial discretion should be exercised after a conviction has been obtained. Dretke v. Haley Michael Wayne Haley stole a calculator from a Wal-Mart in Smith County, Texas, in 1997. (5) For this crime, he was sentenced to serve 16 1/2 years in a penitentiary. During subsequent collateral review proceedings, it was discovered that this sentence was unlawful and that, under Texas law, he should have received no more than 2 years in a jail. To understand how this could happen, one must understand how Texas criminal law deals with recidivist offenders. Ordinarily, a person who steals a run-of-the-mill calculator, worth less than $50, is guilty of no more than a fine-only misdemeanor. (6) If a calculator is worth more than $50, but less than $500, it is a misdemeanor (7) punishable by up to six months in jail? Haley was no ordinary thief in the eyes of Texas law because he had been twice convicted before of theft charges. This elevated his theft charge to a state jail (9) which is punishable by up to two years in a jail. (10) Haley was no ordinary recidivist thief, however. He also had prior felony convictions: delivery of a controlled substance and attempted robbery. In the indictment, the prosecutor alleged that the robbery occurred after the first felony had become final. This was significant because it meant that Haley's theft sentence could be aggravated on account of his being a offender. (11) This elevated his jail felony to a second degree felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison. (12) The problem--which was discovered only after Haley had exhausted his direct appeals--was that he committed his robbery offense three days prior to the date that his conviction for delivery of amphetamine became final. (13) The mistake was missed by the prosecutor, defense attorney, jury, trial judge, and appellate courts. Haley filed a petition for habeas corpus in court, alleging the evidence was legally insufficient to convict him as a habitual offender based on the non-consecutivity of the dates. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals summarily denied habeas relief. Haley then filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. …

Risky driving habits and motor vehicle driver injury

Risky driving is an important cause of motor vehicle injury, but there is a lack of good epidemiological data in this field, particularly data comparing risky driving in younger drivers to those of other age groups. We examined the relationship between risky driving habits, prior traffic convictions and motor vehicle injury using cross-sectional data amongst 21,893 individuals in New Zealand, including 8029 who were aged 16–24 years. Those who reported frequently racing a motor vehicle for excitement or driving at 20 km/h or more over the speed limit, and those who had received traffic convictions over the past 12 months, were between two and four times more likely to have been injured while driving over the same time period. Driving unlicensed was a risk factor for older but not younger drivers, and driving at 20 km/h or more above the speed limits was a stronger risk factor for younger (<25 years) than older drivers. These results confirm the need for interventions targeting risky driving and suggest that different strategies may be required for different high-risk groups.

Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding

Due process requires courts to make decisions based on the evidence before them without regard to information outside of the record. Skepticism about the ability of jurors to ignore inadmissible information is widespread. Empirical research confirms that this skepticism is well-founded. Many courts and commentators, however, assume that judges can accomplish what jurors cannot. This Article reports the results of experiments we have conducted to determine whether judges can ignore inadmissible information. We found that the judges who participated in our experiments struggled to perform this challenging mental task. The judges had difficulty disregarding demands disclosed during a settlement conference, conversation protected by the attorney-client privilege, prior sexual history of an alleged rape victim, prior criminal convictions of a plaintiff, and information the government had promised not to rely upon at sentencing. This information influenced judges’ decisions even when they were reminded, or themselves had ruled, that the information was inadmissible. In contrast, the judges were able to ignore inadmissible information obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s right to counsel and the outcome of a search when determining whether probable cause existed. We conclude that judges are generally unable to avoid being influenced by relevant but inadmissible infor-

Assessment of Hate Crime Offenders: The Role of Bias Intent in Examining Violence Risk

ABSTRACT This study investigated the criminal histories and violence risk of a sample of 204 hate crime offenders. Record review of the offender's criminal history was rated on the HCR-20 and Cormier-Lang scales. Crime reports were rated for the severity of the bias offense on the Victim Functional Impact scale and the offender's targeting of outgroup victims–i.e., the bias intent. Findings indicated that 56% of the offenders had prior criminal convictions; HCR-20 ratings were comparable to those found in other offender groups and were correlated with the severity of the hate crime. The severity of the criminal history as measured on the Cormier-Lang scale, the number of prior arrests, and number of criminal convictions were significantly greater for offenders who targeted racial minority victims. Offenders who belonged to bias oriented groups had more extensive and violent criminal histories and committed more severe hate crimes. Findings are considered in terms of clinical intervention and risk assessment practices with hate crime offenders.

Prior Convictions, Jury Trial, and the Burden of Proof

Research Article| February 01 2005 Prior Convictions, Jury Trial, and the Burden of Proof COLLEEN P. MURPHY COLLEEN P. MURPHY Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law. J.D., Yale Law School; B.A., University of Virginia.For a more detailed analysis of many of the issues presented in this article, see Colleen P. Murphy, The Use of Prior Convictions after Apprendi, 37 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 973 (2004). Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Federal Sentencing Reporter (2005) 17 (3): 175–179. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2005.17.3.175 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation COLLEEN P. MURPHY; Prior Convictions, Jury Trial, and the Burden of Proof. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 February 2005; 17 (3): 175–179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2005.17.3.175 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentFederal Sentencing Reporter Search This content is only available via PDF. ©© 2005 Vera Institute of Justice. All rights reserved.2005 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Through the Looking Glass: Reflecting on Prior Crimes of Violence

Research Article| February 01 2005 Through the Looking Glass: Reflecting on Prior Crimes of Violence SIGMUND G. POPKO SIGMUND G. POPKO Professor, Arizona State University College of Law. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Federal Sentencing Reporter (2005) 17 (3): 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2005.17.3.180 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation SIGMUND G. POPKO; Through the Looking Glass: Reflecting on Prior Crimes of Violence. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 February 2005; 17 (3): 180–186. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2005.17.3.180 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentFederal Sentencing Reporter Search This content is only available via PDF. ©© 2005 Vera Institute of Justice. All rights reserved.2005 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Is Teen Court Effective for Repeat Offenders? A Test of the Restorative Justice Approach

Teen Courts are an effective judicial alternative for many youth offenders. The majority of youth courts deal solely with first-time offenders. However, repeat offenders are at a greater risk for future crime. Is Teen Court effective with more experienced offenders? In this study, the authors examine the outcomes of 26 Whatcom County Teen Court offenders with at least one prior conviction. The sentence completion rate was higher and the recidivism was lower for the Teen Court offenders when compared with a sample of first-time Court Diversion offenders. This objective evidence of program success is augmented by an offender's perspective on his or her court experience. These perspectives as well as the continued voluntary involvement with Teen Court are discussed in relation to empowerment theory.

Is theism capable of accounting for any natural evil at all?

Received wisdom has it that a plausible explanation or theodicy for God’s permission of at least some instances of natural evil is not beyond the reach of the theist. In this paper I challenge this assumption, arguing instead that theism fails to account for any instance, kind, quantity, or distribution of natural evil found in the world. My case will be structured around a specific but not idiosyncratic conception of natural evil as well as an examination of three prominent theodicies for natural evil. In contrast, however, to much contemporary discussion, my assessment of these theodicies will be grounded in the prior conviction that a successful theodicy for moral evil is available.

Looking to the Past and Seeing the Future? –– Graham v. West Virginia: The Century-Old Prior Conviction Decision

The legal community is attempting to understand the full implications of Blakely v. Washington and Booker v. United States, and sort through the complexities of these two decisions that have been compared to “No. 10 Earthquakes.” Among the many questions that will undoubtedly be debated is the scope and rationale of the prior conviction exception. While an extensive analysis of the prior conviction rule can be found most recently in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, legal scholars may be surprised to learn the Supreme Court addressed the issue nearly a century ago in Graham v. West Virginia. The Graham Court ultimately reached a conclusion similar to Almendarez-Torres. Language in the former opinion shows the Graham decision could be helpful in deciphering the current landscape of sentencing law.

Recidivism study of New Mexico's convicted DWI offenders 2000–2003

New Mexico law requires all convicted DWI offenders to be screened by an alcohol and drug abuse screening instrument. This brief article presents the findings of a paper given at the Traffic Records Forum in Buffalo, NY in 2005. The authors report on a study undertaken to demonstrate how convicted Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) offenders are screened and tracked in New Mexico, to describe how data analysis is achieved through linkage of databases for convicted DWI offenders in New Mexico, and to describe recidivism rates of convicted DWI offenders. Results showed that outpatient treatment was recommended by the client tracking program (CTP) for 73% of convicted DWI offenders. Just prior to their DWI arrests, 50.9% of convicted DWI offenders consumed alcohol obtained directly from restaurants, bars, or stores where liquor is sold. Native Americans had the highest re-arrest rates. Younger convicted DWI offenders had the higher re-arrest rates. And 10.2% of convicted DWI offenders with one prior conviction had a re-arrest. The authors conclude that data linkage of various datasets provides more complete information than that available through the individual databases.

Taking Down the Straw Man: A Reply to Webster and Doob

Introduction The Custody Rating Scale (CRS) was found by Blanchette, Verbrugge, and Wichmann (2002) to be a valid measure of custodial risk for federally sentenced women offenders. CRS validation includes, but is not limited to, its role in predicting institutional adjustment, escape, and reoffending. Nevertheless, in the July 2004 issue of this journal Webster and Doob (2004) question the validity of the CRS for women, primarily because Blanchette et al.'s (2002) study revealed that one of its sub-scales does not predict institutional misconduct. The fact that scores on the Institutional Adjustment (IA) sub-scale of the CRS correlated positively and significantly with violent (r = 0.39) and non-violent (r = 0.47) incidents while in custody indicates that it is a valid measure of institutional risk. The fact that the Security Risk (SR) subscale did not correlate to institutional misconduct is not surprising, as that sub-scale was designed to measure public safety risk. By setting up this straw man, Webster and Doob (2004) demonstrate that their views are misdirected and reflect a narrow understanding of the application and validation of security classification instruments. The framework for our discussions is to challenge the investigation of the CRS presented by Webster and Doob, who provide no new empirical data on the instrument per se and draw some erroneous conclusions. Rather than entering into a theoretical debate about security classification, we have chosen to take down their straw man by presenting the legal and empirical underpinnings of the CRS, offering new validation data on the instrument, and addressing other contentious issues. Legal and empirical underpinnings Unfortunately, Webster and Doob are misinformed when they state that the CRS constitutes the foundation of the security classification system in (2004: 396). In fact, it is s. 30 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) that legally prescribes how security classification decisions are made. Furthermore, in accordance with ss. 17 and 18 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR), the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is mandated to take the following factors into consideration in assigning a security classification of maximum, medium, or minimum: (a) seriousness of the offences committed by the inmate; (b) any outstanding charges; (c) the inmate's performance and behaviour while under sentence; (d) the inmate's social, criminal, and, where available, young offender history; (e) any physical or mental illness or disorder suffered by the inmate; (f) the inmate's potential for violent behaviour; and (g) the inmate's continued involvement in criminal activities. In the field of corrections, the purpose of security classification is to protect the public, employees, and offenders through appropriate placement of the inmate. As is true of most classification instruments, CRS development began with a review of existing instrumentation being used in other jurisdictions and proceeded to empirically test common factors used to assign custody levels (Canada, Solicitor General 1987). Not surprisingly, certain factors were common to all these scales: severity of current offence, sentence length, violent criminal background, and various indices of behaviour prior to incarceration. More importantly, the background documentation for the CRS includes descriptions of classification models, two-dimensional in nature, that take into consideration both institutional risk and public risk. In these classification models, scores are integrated (in a matrix fashion) to arrive at a final custody designation. In a similar way, the CRS was designed with two dimensions: an Institutional Adjustment (IA) sub-scale (5 items: history of involvement in institutional incidents, escape history, street stability, alcohol/drug use, age at time of sentencing) and a Security Risk (SR) sub-scale (7 items: number of prior convictions, most severe outstanding charge, severity of current offence, sentence length, street stability, prior parole and/or mandatory supervision/statutory releases, age at time of first federal admission). …

Self-Efficacy and Choice of Coping Strategies for Tolerating Acute Pain

Participants who reported either low or high self-efficacy for tolerating painful stimuli were randomly assigned to conditions, in which they either did or did not have a choice of strategies for coping with arm shock. Choice and self-efficacy were positively associated with increases in perceived control. Being given a choice, in comparison to having no choice, led to increased tolerance of arm shock and lower pain reports for those with high self-efficacy. Providing a choice of strategies did not benefit those with low self-efficacy. This study demonstrates that the benefits of allowing individuals the opportunity of choosing among an array of coping options depend on a prior conviction that one is able to cope.

“Striking out” as crime reduction policy: The impact of “three strikes” laws on crime rates in U.S. cities

During the 1990s, in response to public dissatisfaction over what were perceived as ineffective crime reduction policies, 25 states and Congress passed three strikes laws, designed to deter criminal offenders by mandating significant sentence enhancements for those with prior convictions. Few large-scale evaluations of the impact of these laws on crime rates, however, have been conducted. Our study used a multiple time series design and UCR data from 188 cities with populations of 100,000 or more for the two decades from 1980 to 2000. We found, first, that three strikes laws are positively associated with homicide rates in cities in three strikes states and, second, that cities in three strikes states witnessed no significant reduction in crime rates.

Motor vehicle crash deaths related to police pursuits in the United States

Objective: To determine the number and characteristics of motor vehicle crash deaths related to police pursuits in the United States. Methods: Analysis of the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the...

A Project Hahn empirical replication study

Abstract The current study investigated affective and cognitive outcomes at pre, post and follow-up of 79 male and female Project Hahn wilderness program participants referred to the program through various agencies involved with employment, education, justice and welfare. The recurrent institutional design and selection of measures were based on an earlier empirical study by Sveen and Denholm (1997). Major findings include significant long-term effects reflecting greater participant self-actualisation (ES of .49) and decreased hopelessness (ES of .55). There was a more transitory increase in existential wellbeing. Police recidivist data indicated that 42 of 56 youth who had prior convictions did not re-offend in the two years following the wilderness intervention. Of 23 youth without prior convictions, 8 received convictions in this period. Overall, the study supports the continuing value of wilderness programs for at-risk youth. ********** Well-conducted empirical outcome research is rare in the field of outdoor education and experiential learning. The literature indicates that the current understanding of adventure education outcomes is based largely on theory rather than empirical research (McKenzie, 2000). Even more rare is replication research of empirical studies, a key point in empirically supported treatments (Newes, 2001). A critical task for research is to establish the relative efficacy of adventure programs. As Neill (2003) suggests, a comparison of a program's effect sizes with meta-analytic benchmarks will provide useful comparative information about program efficacy. On the basis of this brief, this paper will attempt to demonstrate the use of an empirical program evaluation to offer more robust evidence of the psychological benefits of wilderness programs, and how the replication process using refined research techniques also leads to more accurate and comparative judgements about changes in participants' wellbeing. The original study Sveen (1995; Sveen & Denholm, 1997) investigated Project Hahn, a wilderness program for adolescent offenders and others at risk of such behaviours, using the Recurrent Institutional Design (RID). Campbell and Stanley's (1966) quasi-experimental recurrent institutional cycle design was chosen as the most suitable design for this type of study due to its application to situations where a given aspect of an institutional process is on a cyclical schedule, continually being presented to a new group of respondents. The recurrent institutional research design combines the longitudinal (i.e., post- minus pre-scores--growth-oriented) and the cross-sectional (i.e., first group post minus the following group scores--behaviour difference) approaches commonly employed in developmental research. Campbell and Stanley (1966) recommend creating experimental and control groups from among self-selected participants in novel programs by manipulating waiting periods. The Sveen and Denholm (1997) investigation was rigorous in that qualitative and quantitative aspects of Project Hahn were examined from a theoretically driven methodology aimed at the causes of adolescent risk (Dryfoos, 1990). From qualitative observational data, Sveen presented evidence suggesting Project Hahn could be conceptualised into the various components and aspects of a theoretical eclectic model (Walter & Marks, 1981). He then proceeded to perform a quantitative analysis measuring program efficacy at post and follow-up program stages using measures that corresponded to aspects of the eclectic theoretical model. Instruments included measures of social, personal and general self-esteem (The Culture Free Self Esteem Inventory--CFSEI) (Battle, 1992), self-actualisation (Self Actualisation Index--SAI) (Jones & Crandall, 1986), and body shape acceptance (Body Attitude Scale--BAS) (Rosen & Ross, 1968). Behavioural measures of education, employment and recidivism were also included. …

Psychiatric and legal features of 113 men convicted of sexual offenses.

To increase understanding of the relationships among sexual violence, paraphilias, and mental illness, the authors assessed the legal and psychiatric features of 113 men convicted of sexual offenses. 113 consecutive male sex offenders referred from prison, jail, or probation to a residential treatment facility received structured clinical interviews for DSM-IV Axis I and II disorders, including sexual disorders. Participants' legal, sexual and physical abuse, and family psychiatric histories were also evaluated. We compared offenders with and without paraphilias. Participants displayed high rates of lifetime Axis I and Axis II disorders: 96 (85%) had a substance use disorder; 84 (74%), a paraphilia; 66 (58%), a mood disorder (40 [35%], a bipolar disorder and 27 [24%], a depressive disorder); 43 (38%), an impulse control disorder; 26 (23%), an anxiety disorder; 10 (9%), an eating disorder; and 63 (56%), antisocial personality disorder. Presence of a paraphilia correlated positively with the presence of any mood disorder (p <.001), major depression (p =.007), bipolar I disorder (p =.034), any anxiety disorder (p=.034), any impulse control disorder (p =.006), and avoidant personality disorder (p =.013). Although offenders without paraphilias spent more time in prison than those with paraphilias (p =.019), paraphilic offenders reported more victims (p =.014), started offending at a younger age (p =.015), and were more likely to perpetrate incest (p =.005). Paraphilic offenders were also more likely to be convicted of (p =.001) or admit to (p <.001) gross sexual imposition of a minor. Nonparaphilic offenders were more likely to have adult victims exclusively (p =.002), a prior conviction for theft (p <.001), and a history of juvenile offenses (p =.058). Sex offenders in the study population displayed high rates of mental illness, substance abuse, paraphilias, personality disorders, and comorbidity among these conditions. Sex offenders with paraphilias had significantly higher rates of certain types of mental illness and avoidant personality disorder. Moreover, paraphilic offenders spent less time in prison but started offending at a younger age and reported more victims and more non-rape sexual offenses against minors than offenders without paraphilias. On the basis of our findings, we assert that sex offenders should be carefully evaluated for the presence of mental illness and that sex offender management programs should have a capacity for psychiatric treatment.

The Search for Equality in Criminal Sentencing

For the last two terms, the United States Supreme Court has been rocked by the aftershocks of two independent yet equally significant criminal sentencing revolutions. The first, brought on by the Court in the 1970's, was the constitutionalization of capital sentencing procedures pursuant to the Eighth Amendment. This death-penalty jurisprudence had the laudable goal of attempting to reduce discrimination in the selection of those defendants to receive the ultimate penalty. A concurrent revolution with a similar goal occurred in the non-capital area. In 1984, Congress passed the Federal Sentencing Act to reduce discrimination and other disparities in criminal sentencing for non-capital cases. These efforts to enhance equality in capital and non-capital criminal sentencing have not been discussed together in the academic literature. We trace this parallel development in the capital and non-capital arenas and evaluate their success in ensuring equality. We conclude that for non-capital sentencing this revolution has enjoyed considerable success in ensuring similar treatment for similarly situated defendants. Moreover, a determinate sentencing system fosters democracy and transparency in sentencing decisions. The capital sentencing revolution, on the other hand, has been a dismal failure. State schemes have not significantly reduced sentencer discretion at the penalty phase of capital trials, and the results of such schemes have not been demonstrably more consistent than those obtained in the era preceding federal judicial regulation. The most recent threat to equality in sentencing in the non-capital context was the Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, that any fact, other than a prior conviction, increasing the prescribed maximum penalty for an offense must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The broadest application of this rule would have foreclosed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and their state guideline counterparts, because it is too cumbersome to have juries make all factfindings necessary to apply the guidelines, and because juries cannot be relied upon to implement such guidelines in a consistent fashion. The Court's rejection of this broad Apprendi theory last term in United States v. Harris insures the continued viability of determinate sentencing in the non-capital context. On the capital side, a guideline-like approach is unlikely to secure meaningful equality across cases. Thus, the Court's extension of the Apprendi rule, in Ring v. Arizona, to aggravating circumstances in capital cases will not undermine reform. Additionally, there are independent reasons in the capital arena to prefer jury to judge sentencing, such as sustaining the connection between the community and those imposing the death penalty. We conclude with comments regarding the tension between equality norms and jury sentencing. The Court's decisions in Apprendi, Harris, and Ring reflect an appropriate accommodation of these competing norms.

Anger as a Predictor of Institutional Misconduct and Recidivism in a Sample of Violent Offenders

This study investigated the relationship of self-report anger measures that measured anger within the context of interpersonal conflict or the outward expression of anger with criminal history, institutional misconduct, and recidivism. An incarcerated sample of 102 violent male offenders participated in the study. Self-reported anger was not associated with prior convictions and incarcerations. Selective scales were associated with minor institutional misconduct, but these relationships did not remain once impression management was accounted for. There was no relationship between anger and postrelease performance. Implications regarding the prediction of institutional misconduct and recidivism are discussed.