скачать PDF
Authors : 1. Amanda Cook,
Assistant Professor of Criminology in the Department of Arts and Sciences; Meridian and a research partner for the Research Network on Misdemeanor Justice
Mississippi State University
2. David C. May,
Professor in the Department of Sociology; a research partner for the Research Network on Misdemeanor Justice
Mississippi State University
It’s just shoplifting (or is it?): examining court processing of shoplifting before and after the passage of Mississippi House Bill 585
Objective: to examine the court processing of shoplifting offenses before and after the 2014 passage of Mississippi House Bill 585 in a rural jurisdiction.
Methods: dialectical approach to cognition of social phenomena using the general scientific (analysis, synthesis, induction) and specific scientific (formal-legal, systemic, comparative-legal, sociological) methods of cognition.
Results: the research revealed several important policy implications. The first revolves around the importance of reducing the number of individuals charged with shoplifting that miss their court appearance. Previous research has revealed that, in many jurisdictions, individuals fail to appear in court not because they consciously refuse to appear but often because they are unaware or unable to appear. This may be a particular problem in the study city because they lack reliable public transportation of any form (making individuals heavily reliant on friends and relatives to help them get to their court appearance) and the court does not have a court appearance reminder notification system in place. This jurisdiction, and others who share these problems, would likely be well-served in considering a notification system whereby the individual who is to appear at court is notified 48-72 hours prior to their court appearance and required to respond to that notification. If no response is received, a follow-up inquiry should be submitted. If no response is received after the second notification, additional steps could be implemented prior to charging the individual with failure to appear or adjudicating them as guilty in absentia. A second important implication from this study has to do with the role of Walmart in the local community and criminal justice system. Walmart often has the largest loss prevention presence of any business in small, rural communities like this one. Thus, these security personnel have a vested interest in reducing shoplifting at Walmart. Local criminal justice officials should thus make special efforts to incorporate Walmart into crime prevention and reduction strategies in the community. Regular meetings between Walmart security personnel, the police chief and sheriff, and judges and corrections personnel would likely result in strategies that would both reduce shoplifting at Walmart and reduce the burden of shoplifting.
Scientific novelty: the work showed that House Bill 585 increased the threshold required to move shoplifting from a misdemeanor to a felony (from $500 to $1,000) and took away the requirement that the third and subsequent arrests for shoplifting (for less than $500) were automatically enhanced as felonies. The findings reveal that the gender and racial gap
in shoplifting arrests in the jurisdiction under study were reduced after House Bill 585. On the other hand, overall numbers of shoplifting arrests, failures to appear, and guilty dispositions increased after House Bill 585.
Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering issues related to the crime prevention and suppression.
Keywords :
Crime; Offense; Shoplifting; Court processing; Misdemeanor; Criminal justice legislation
Bibliography :
1. Stevenson M., Mayson, S. The scale of misdemeanor justice, Boston University Law Review, 2018, No. 98, pp. 731–777.
2. Natapoff A. Misdemeanor decriminalization, Vanderbilt Law Review, 2015, No. 68 (4), pp. 1055–1116.
3. Dixon J. The organizational context of criminal sentencing, American Journal of Sociology, 1995, No. 100 (5), pp. 1157–1198.
4. Gottfredson M., Gottfredson D. Decisionmaking in criminal justice: Toward the rational exercise of discretion, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1988.
5. Hagan J. Extra-legal attributes and criminal sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint, Law and Society Review, 1974, No. 8, pp. 357–384.
6. Kleck G. Racial discrimination in criminal sentencing: A critical examination of the evidence with additional evidence on the death penalty, American Sociological Review, 1981, No. 46, pp. 783–805.
7. Kramer J., Steffensmeier D. Race and imprisonment decisions, Sociological Quarterly, 1993, No. 34, pp. 357–376.
8. Leiber M. J., Blowers A. Race and misdemeanor sentencing, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2003, No. 14 (4), pp. 464–485.
9. Wilbanks W. The myth of a racist criminal justice system, Monterey, CA, Brooks/Cole, 1987.
10. Zatz M. S. The changing forms of racial/ethnic biases in sentencing, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1987, No. 24 (1), pp. 69–92.
11. Munoz E. A., Freng A. Age, racial/ethnic minority status, gender, and misdemeanor sentencing, Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 2007, No. 5 (4), pp. 29–57.
12. Spohn C. Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. In J. Horney (Ed.), Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (Vol. 3, pp. 427–501), Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2000.
13. Crawford C., Chiricos T., Kleck G. Race, racial threat, and sentencing of habitual offenders, Criminology, 1998, No. 36 (3), pp. 481–511.
14. Munoz E. A., Sapp S. G. Racial/Ethnic misdemeanor sentencing disparities: Additional evidence for contextual discrimination, Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 2003, No. 1 (2), pp. 27–46.
15. Spohn C., DeLone M. When does race matter? An analysis of the conditions under which race affects sentence severity, Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance, 2000, No. 2, pp. 3–37.
16. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States-2017-Table 23, 2019, available at: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-inthe-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-23
17. Adams K., Cutshall C. Refusing to prosecute minor offenses: The relative influence of legal and extralegal factors, Justice Quarterly, 1987, No. 4 (4), pp. 595–609, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07418828700089541
18. Kutateladze B. L., Andiloro N. R., Johnson B. Opening pandora’s box: How does defendant race influence plea bargaining, Justice Quarterly, 2016, No. 33 (3), pp. 398–426.
19. Berdejo C. Criminalizing race: Racial disparities in Plea-Bargaining, Boston College Law Review, 2018, No. 59, pp. 1187–1249.
20. Brennan P. K. Sentencing female misdemeanants: An examination of the direct and indirect effects of race/ethnicity, Justice Quarterly, 2006, No. 23 (1), pp. 60–95, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820600552477
21. Feeley M. The process is punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court, New York, NY, Russell Sage Foundation, 1979.
22. Munoz E. A., Martinez M. R. Latinas and criminal sentencing: An exploratory analysis, Voices: A Journal of Chicana/Latina Studies, 2001, No. 3 (1–2), pp. 150–176.
23. Nelson J. F. A dollar a day: Sentencing misdemeanants in New York State, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1994, No. 31 (2), pp. 183–201.
24. Kutateladze B. L., Andiloro N. R., Johnson B., Spohn C. Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing, Criminology, 2014, No. 52, pp. 514–551.
25. Wooldredge J., Frank J., Goulette N., Travis L. Is the impact of cumulative disadvantage on sentencing greater for Black defendants? Criminology and Public Policy, 2015, No. 14, pp. 187–223.
26. Metcalfe C., Chiricos T. Race, plea, and charge reduction: An assessment of racial disparities in the plea process, Justice Quarterly, 2018, No. 35 (2), pp. 223–253.
27. Pew Charitable Trusts. One in 31: The long reach of American corrections, 2009, March, available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and- analysis/reports/2009/03/02/one-in-31-the-long-reach-of-american-corrections
28. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Update on prisoner recidivism: A 9 year follow-up period (2005–2014), 2018, available at: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6266
29. Pew Charitable Trusts, State reforms reverse decades of incarceration growth, 2017, March, available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and- analysis/issue-briefs/2017/03/state-reforms- reverse-decades-of-incarceration-growth
30. Pew Charitable Trusts, Mississippi enacts round 2 of criminal justice reform, 2018, May, available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and- analysis/articles/2018/05/14/mississippi-enacts-round-2-of-criminal-justice-reform
31. Pew Charitable Trusts, The effects of changing felony theft thresholds, 2017, April, available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/04/the-effects-of- changing-felony-theft-thresholds
32. Mississippi House Bill 1231, 2013, available at: https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB1231/id/818298
33. Corrections and Criminal Justice Task Force, Final Report, 2013, available at: https://www. legislature.ms.gov/Documents/MSTaskForce_FinalReport.pdf
34. Mississippi House Bill 585, 2014, available at: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2014/pdf/HB/0500-0599/HB0585SG.pdf
35. Mississippi House Bill 1121, 2003, available at: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2003/pdf/HB/1100-1199/HB1121SG.pdf
36. Fowler S. Cops, prosecutors balk at new law, The Dispatch, 2014, July 5, available at: https://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=34612
37. U. S. Census Bureau, 2013–2017 American Community Survey 5 year estimates, 2019, available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/meridiancitymississippi/PST045217#PST045217
38. Gold M. Delinquent behavior in an American city, Belmont, CA, Brooks/Cole, 1970.
39. Hindelang M., Hirschi T., Weiss J. Measuring delinquency, London, England, Sage, 1981.
40. Bamfield J. Shopping and crime, New York, NY, Palgrave, 2012.
41. Farrington D. Measuring, explaining and preventing shoplifting: A review of British research, Security Journal, 1999, No. 12, pp. 9–27.
42. Klemke L. W. The sociology of shoplifting: Boosters and snitches today, Westport, CT, Praeger, 1992.
43. Krasnovsky T., Lane R. C. Shoplifting: A review of the literature, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1998, No. 3, pp. 219–236.
44. Marshall I. H., He N. USA. In J. Junger- Tas, I. H. Marshall, D. Enzmann, M. Killias, M. Steketee, B. Gruszczynska (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond. Results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study (pp. 139–157), New York, NY, Springer, 2010.
45. Hirtenlehner H., Blackwell B. S., Leitgoeb H., Bacher J. Explaining the gender gap in juvenile shoplifting: A power-control theoretical analysis, Deviant Behavior, 2014, No. 35, pp. 41–65.
46. Bornstein B. H., Tomkins A. J., Neeley E. M., Herian M. N., Hamm J. A. Reducing courts’ failure-to-appear rate by written reminders, 2012, available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicytomki ns/19/
47. Cook A., May D. C. It’s Just Shoplifting (Or Is It?): Examining Court Processing of Shoplifting Before and After the Passage of Mississippi House Bill 585, Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 2019, Vol. 20, No. 2.
Citation :
Cook A., May D. C. It’s just shoplifting (or is it?): examining court processing of shoplifting before and after the passage of Mississippi House Bill 585, Actual Problems of Economics and Law, 2020, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 571–597. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21202/1993-047X.14.2020.3.571-597
Type of article : The scientific article
Date of receipt of the article :
18.06.2020
Date of adoption of the print :
10.08.2020
Date of online accommodation :
25.09.2020
