Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This conceptual article uses an interpretive approach to legal decision-making to explain the operation of crime stereotypes in the courts. A model is proposed to address the social psychological dynamics involved in assessing both conforming and exceptional cases. Evaluated against the backdrop of prevailing stereotypes, conforming cases may be disposed of routinely, while exceptional cases present cognitive dilemmas for court actors. In that stereotypes are internalized as enduring mental structures, the latters' dispositions require a more probing search for an explanation of the crime than is necessary with more typical offenses. Legal decisions in exceptional cases are influenced by the meaning court actors attribute to the offense within the context of the offender's alternative (i.e., noncriminal) social statuses. A series of interrelated propositions based on these arguments is formulated.
Farrell et al. (Sun,) studied this question.