Since the start of the war on drugs, studies have found racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes among defendants convicted of drug offenses; however, several gaps in the drug literature remain regarding disparity-producing mechanisms, the role of drug offense characteristics, disparities in understudied groups, and possible solutions to unwarranted disparities in drug case outcomes. Using felony case-level data from the state of Florida (n = 3,058 felony drug cases), this dissertation examines three interrelated studies. Study 1 examines bail and pretrial detention practices as disparity-producing mechanisms in drug offense cases. The results of Study 1 suggest that significant variations in bail schedules in Florida’s 20 judicial circuits result in jurisdictional variation in the likelihood of pretrial detention, which subsequently, results in jurisdictional variation in pretrial and sentencing outcomes among drug offenders, given the direct effect of pretrial detention on case outcomes. Study 2 examines racial, ethnic, and immigration status disparities in pretrial and sentencing outcomes across various types of drug offenses and drug substances. The results of Study 2 suggest the presence of racial and ethnic disparities in drug case outcomes in Florida’s circuit courts, as well as the moderating role of drug offense characteristics on the effects of race and ethnicity on pretrial and sentencing outcomes. Study 3 examines whether progressive chief prosecutors, who campaign on a platform to reduce and, in some cases, refuse to prosecute low-level drug offenses, handle drug offenses differently than traditional prosecutors. The results of Study 3 indicate support that progressive chief prosecutors in Florida reduce mass incarceration and unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities in case processing and sentencing outcomes in drug offenses; however, there is still room for improvement in the progressive prosecution movement in Florida. The results of each study have direct implications for theory and policies aimed at creating a more effective and fair criminal justice system.

Prosecutors played an important role in the rise of mass incarceration and the perpetuation of racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal legal system in the United States. The progressive prosecution movement emerged as a response to those issues and, although the movement has sparked significant debate, there has been relatively little empirical research examining whether progressive lead prosecutors reduce excess punishment and alleviate disparities. In this dissertation, I partnered with two prosecutors’ offices with progressive lead prosecutors to help fill that gap. Using case processing records obtained from both offices (all adult criminal cases initiated between 2017-2022), I found that prosecutors under progressive lead prosecutors tended to be less punitive in charging and plea-bargaining, but their less punitive approach did not eliminate disparities. While larger plea-discounts under one of the progressive lead prosecutors eliminated the racial disparity in that decision point, disparities in case declination/dismissal, diversion, and felony downgrade decisions remained, even under the more progressive administrations. From interviews with line prosecutors, supervisors, and the lead prosecutors in both jurisdictions (N=43), I found that prosecutors in these offices faced barriers to implementing reform both from within their office, in the form of the principal-agent and mid-level manager problems, and from outside of the office, in the form of resistance from judges, law enforcement, and some segments of the public, as well as a lack of cooperation from defense attorneys. Broadly, my findings highlight the fluid nature of power within courts and the tendency of court communities to seek homoeostasis and minimize reforms, even when those reforms originate from within the court community.

Prior research on sentencing and case processing has primarily focused on post-conviction outcomes and the relationship between sentencing outcomes and defendant- related characteristics such as race and gender. The research on pre-conviction outcomes not only is much smaller than the sentencing literature, but also largely neglects victim characteristics, especially in samples that include non-violent offenses. Drawing on the blameworthiness attribution theoretical perspective, the current study examines how certain victim characteristics, including race, gender, and criminal history, may influence certain stages of the judicial process. Additionally, the current study tests whether cases with person victims as opposed to business as victims are handled differently. Four court decisions were examined in this study: the filing decision, the decision to transfer the case to a lower court, the decision to find a defendant guilty, and the decision to sentence a defendant to prison. While legal characteristics were the most prominent predictors in these analyses, the study found that when victims were Black or Hispanic, cases were less likely to be filed and end in a guilty adjudication.

Despite the constitutional right to trial, the vast majority of defendants waive this right and enter a guilty plea. There are many factors defendants consider when entering a plea, with the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic being the newest factor that may impact defendant decision making. Previous research has found that both innocent and guilty participant defendants were more likely to plead guilty when provided information on COVID-19 outbreaks. Additionally, innocent defendants ranked concerns related to COVID-19 higher than guilty defendants in driving their plea decisions. As the pandemic continues to evolve, so do the various policies and tactics used to reduce transmission rates. This thesis expands on previous work by employing an experimental plea simulation on a college sample to see how varying levels of COVID-19 mitigation strategies in a jail setting impact plea decision making. Varying levels of COVID-19 mitigation efforts on their own did not significantly impact plea decision making; however, presenting COVID-19 related information did increase the willingness to accept a guilty plea more generally. Given the possibility of innocent defendants pleading guilty, this thesis demonstrates the importance of reforming the application of pretrial detention and calls for more oversight into plea negotiations.

Perceptions of neighborhood disorder have been studied by researchers in many ways since social disorganization theory was first introduced in the 1930s. However, few studies have focused explicitly on nonresident perceptions of neighborhood disorder. Further still, investigations regarding how race/ethnicity and gender may influence this population’s responses are also lacking in the present literature. This study intends to close some of the gap in this area of research.This study uses qualitative analysis to focus on Hispanic and Caucasian nonresidents’ responses to a single photographic stimulus. This study focuses on the following: (1) perception of neighborhood disorder, (2) gender-specific neighborhood perceptions of disorder, (3) inclusion of race-identifying words, specifically in terms of frequency among Hispanic respondents, and (4) prevalence of negative adjective use. Previous research has discovered that nonresidents have associated race with neighborhood disorder despite the absence of people in the surveying/data collection methods. By further investigating this topic, this research aims to analyze the responses more closely regarding the response affect (i.e., positive, neutral, and negative) with negative adjectives and race-identifying words. The findings from this study may encourage future investigation into implicit and explicit biases focused on the possible unconscious connection of race/ethnicity and neighborhood disorder in individual perceptions.

The United States’ War on Drugs declared in 1971 by President Richard Nixon and revamped by President Reagan in the 1980s has been an objectively failed initiative with origins based in racism and oppression. After exploring the repercussions of this endeavor for societies and individuals around the world, global researchers and policymakers have declared that the policies and institutions created to fight the battle have left devastation in their wake. Despite high economic and social costs, missed opportunities in public health and criminal justice sectors, and increasing limits on our personal freedoms, all the measures taken to eradicate drug abuse and trafficking have been unsuccessful. Not only that, but militarized police tactics, mass incarceration, and harsh penalties that stifle opportunities for rehabilitation, growth, and change disproportionately harm poor and minority communities. <br/>Because reform in U.S. drug policy is badly needed, the goals of America’s longest war need to be reevaluated, implications of the initiative reexamined, and alternative strategies reconsidered. Solutions must be propagated from a diverse spectrum of contributors and holistic understanding through scientific research, empirical evidence, innovation, public health, social wellbeing, and measurable outcomes. But before we can know where we should be headed, we need to appreciate how we got to where we are. This preliminary expository investigation will explore and outline the history of drug use and prohibition in the United States before the War on Drugs was officially declared. Through an examination of the different patterns of substance use, evolving civil tolerance of users, racially-charged anti-drug misinformation/propaganda campaigns, and increasingly restrictive drug control policies, a foundation for developing solutions and strengths-based strategies for drug reform will emerge.