Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 1:
Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2013). Going symbolic presidential use of symbolic rhetoric in crime control policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(6), 716-734.

Abstract:
Research into the American Presidents’ role in crime control policy has consistently found that they rely on symbolic rhetoric in their crime speeches. The research to date, however, has been confined to qualitative analysis and has not attempted to explain why presidents engage in symbolic rhetoric when it comes to crime policy. This study assesses presidential speeches related to crime from 1948 through 2010, and employs logistic regression to estimate the effects of the independent variables on the likelihood presidents will employ symbolic rhetoric. Findings suggest public opinion, presidential election year, party affiliation, and divided government, are significant factors in the likelihood presidents will engage in symbolic politics. The article concludes with a discussion of the study’s implication for the larger body of research on presidential crime rhetoric and the federal role in crime control.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. What were the authors examining using logistic regression?
2. What formula was used to make the b coefficients appropriate for interpretation?
3. Interpret the coefficient for public opinion (Table 2).

Article 2:
Byers, B. D., Warren-Gordon, K., & Jones, J. A. (2012). Predictors of Hate Crime Prosecutions An Analysis of Data From the National Prosecutors Survey and State-Level Bias Crime Laws. Race and Justice, 2(3), 203-219.

Abstract:
Research on hate crime has focused primarily on law making, law enforcement, and victimization aspects. Few researchers have studied hate crime prosecutions even though this is an important element in such cases. This study uses data from the National Prosecutors Survey of 2001 to predict the likelihood of hate crime prosecutions. Given the data set is a census of prosecutors, it was necessary to add 10 new variables to the data based on the presence and absence of state hate crime laws and their characteristics. The data were subjected to logistic regression, and it was determined that the three strongest predictors of whether prosecutors pursue hate crime are the presence of (a) race, ethnicity, and religion as protected groups in state hate crime law, (b) sexual orientation as a protected status within state law, (c) the presence of an institutional vandalism provision in state-level hate crime law, and (d) if the prosecutor’s office assigned staff to handle community-related activities. The findings are discussed along with suggestions for future research.

Questions that apply to this article:

1. What were the three strongest predictors of whether a prosecutor pursued a hate crime?
2. Interpret the coefficient for enhancement (Table 4).
3. What did the results of the logistic regression indicate?