Implicit Racial and Gender Bias About Handguns: A New Implicit Association Test.

This study measured implicit and explicit racial bias about women and handguns and addressed important perceptions and stereotypes about gun competence and victimization that vary based on race and gender. We administered a national survey to 1,000 US adults using a new Race-Women-Handguns Implicit Association Test (IAT). Survey weighting was used to generate nationally representative estimates on the prevalence of implicit racial bias about women with handguns. The majority of participants (62.5%) associated Black women with handguns and White women with smartphones (weighted-mean IAT = 0.252; 95% CI [0.227, 0.276]) reflecting an anti-Black bias among US adults that is stereotype consistent associating Black women with handguns and White women with smartphones. The proportion that indicated Black and White women were competent with handguns was low (21.6% and 22.4%, respectively), and the proportion of US adults who indicated Black women are more likely to experience intimate partner violence (range: 19.4%-22.9%) and sexual harassment/assault (range: 11.4%-20.4%) was low compared to the prevalence of both forms of violence US among Black women that may impact the decision to possess a handgun. These findings suggest there is an anti-Black implicit bias about women with handguns (associating Black women with handguns) among US adults and support the need for further research measuring racism in systems and structures that intersect with gun possession.

What Is Wrong with Monetary Sanctions? Directions for Policy, Practice, and Research.

Monetary sanctions are an integral and increasingly debated feature of the American criminal legal system. Emerging research, including that featured in this volume, offers important insight into the law governing monetary sanctions, how they are levied, and how their imposition affects inequality. Monetary sanctions are assessed for a wide range of contacts with the criminal legal system ranging from felony convictions to alleged traffic violations with important variability in law and practice across states. These differences allow for the identification of features of law, policy, and practice that differentially shape access to justice and equality before the law. Common practices undermine individuals' rights and fuel inequality in the effects of unpaid monetary sanctions. These observations lead us to offer a number of specific recommendations to improve the administration of justice, mitigate some of the most harmful effects of monetary sanctions, and advance future research.

Monetary Sanctions: Legal Financial Obligations in US Systems of Justice.

This review assesses the current state of knowledge about monetary sanctions, e.g., fines, fees, surcharges, restitution, and any other financial liability related to contact with systems of justice, which are used more widely than prison, jail, probation, or parole in the United States. The review describes the most important consequences of the punishment of monetary sanctions in the United States, which include a significant capacity for exacerbating economic inequality by race, prolonged contact and involvement with the criminal justice system, driver's license suspension, voting restrictions, damaged credit, and incarceration. Given the lack of consistent laws and policies that govern monetary sanctions, jurisdictions vary greatly in their imposition, enforcement, and collection practices of fines, fees, court costs, and restitution. A review of federally collected data on monetary sanctions reveals that a lack of consistent and exhaustive measures of monetary sanctions presents a unique problem for tracking both the prevalence and amount of legal financial obligations (LFOs) over time. We conclude with promising directions for future research and policy on monetary sanctions.

Possibility of death sentence has divergent effect on verdicts for Black and White defendants.

When anticipating the imposition of the death penalty, jurors may be less inclined to convict defendants. On the other hand, minority defendants have been shown to be treated more punitively, particularly in capital cases. Given that the influence of anticipated sentence severity on verdicts may vary as a function of defendant race, the goal of this study was to test the independent and interactive effects of these factors. We conducted a survey-embedded experiment with a nationally representative sample to examine the effect on verdicts of sentence severity as a function of defendant race, presenting respondents with a triple murder trial summary that manipulated the maximum penalty (death vs. life without parole) and the race of the defendant. Respondents who were told life-without-parole was the maximum sentence were not significantly more likely to convict Black (67.7%) than White (66.7%) defendants. However, when death was the maximum sentence, respondents presented with Black defendants were significantly more likely to convict (80.0%) than were those with White defendants (55.1%). The results indicate that the death penalty may be a cause of racial disparities in criminal justice, and implicate threats to civil rights and to effective criminal justice.