Using data from the United States Sentencing Commission (2014-2022), this study analyzes the impact of a defendant's gender in the sentencing of federal homicide cases. Previous research shows that female defendants experience leniency in criminal sentencing compared to male counterparts. However, studies also suggest harsher punishments are given to female defendants when the crime is violent. This may be influenced by the social construct of gender, where traits including aggression and violence are perceived to be inherently male, and male violence is often expected and excused. Focusing exclusively on federal homicide cases from fiscal years 2014-2022 (N = 3017), I ran linear regression analyses controlling for legal and extralegal factors to analyze the effect of gender on sentence length. I hypothesize that in the case of federal homicide, male defendants will receive shorter sentences compared to female counterparts. This study focuses how gender influences sentencing outcomes in federal courts. It is crucial to understand how gender influences judicial sentencing in order to promote a just legal system.

Individuals released with a felony conviction are almost always required to serve a period of Department of Corrections (DOC) mandated supervision that can range anywhere from 12-36 months. This period of DOC supervision is often referred to as "parole," "community corrections," "community custody" or "community supervision." For the purposes of this study, I utilize the term "community corrections" in direct comparison to parole. At its inception, community corrections was offered as a rehabilitative back-end alternative to incarceration. Today, rehabilitation has been replaced by control and surveillance. As of December 2023, 24,804 individuals were under the control of community corrections in Washington State (DOC publication). This population accounts for almost 65% of the total number of individuals currently controlled by Washington State's Department of Corrections (DOC publication). Despite the far-reaching consequences of community corrections, the experiences of the individuals under its control have long gone underreported. In this study, I explore how individuals navigate the challenges of community corrections. I will collect data from a series of 10-12 qualitative interviews with individuals who have experienced community corrections following a felony conviction. While I am currently in the process of finishing my interviews and conducting my full analysis, one initial finding reveals that individuals navigate the challenges of community corrections by building tools of resilience. Existing research explores the various challenges present in the lives of individuals on community corrections. Few, however, demonstrate the resiliency of these individuals. This research has the potential to amplify the voices and experiences of individuals who are surviving, and in most cases thriving, in spite of an institution whose primary purpose is to send individuals back to prison.

In this research project, I investigate experiences of men and women who have participated in the King County Drug Diversion Court. Drug court is a rehabilitative alternative to individuals facing incarceration for drug related offenses. Eligible drug court participants undergo a five-phase program with the potential for charge dismissal. However, drug court critics raise concerns about coercion and control. Participants in drug court juggle various commitments, including maintaining constant communication with case managers, undergoing regular urinary analyses, finding employment, and fulfilling familial obligations. In this study, I explore how these challenges, often stemming from a one-size-fits-all approach that does not account for gendered life experiences, impact the overall effectiveness of drug court programs.The existing literature predominantly focuses on male participants, neglecting the unique gendered issues faced by women in drug court programs. Research indicates that female participants encounter specific challenges, including homelessness, substance abuse, mental illness, unemployment, and a higher likelihood of being the sole caregiver to a child. This study will address the gap in understanding how gender shapes the experience of navigating drug court. To do so, I am conducting semi-structured interviews with impacted people of varying gender identities, to glean insight into participants' family history, experiences within drug court, and perspectives on its impact. Additionally, I am interviewing drug court actors for further contextualization. After interviewing, anonymizing, and transcribing, I expect to find that gender identity impacts peoples' experiences in drug court. My findings illuminate the nuanced gendered experiences within the King County Drug Diversion Court, contributing valuable insights for justice system reform and policymaking. By combining ethnographic methods, qualitative interviews, and insights from existing research, this study illuminates the gendered dynamics within the King County Drug Diversion Court, ultimately informing policy and practice and contributing to a more equitable criminal justice system.

On June 29, 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled that using affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional in the case, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. This research analyzes arguments presented by both parties to reveal the effects of this policy removal on the future of underrepresented minority students applying to college. I analyze Harvard’s admission statistics through regression models cultivated by each party’s expert witness to identify the lack of true diversity in Harvard’s admission process. The statistical findings the experts present highlight the use of the Asian American experience to justify the removal of affirmative action measures in higher education. Additionally, I conduct a complex legal analysis of prior Supreme Court cases through the lens of reparation jurisprudence to expose the lucrative, and performative, system of affirmative action in higher education. The Court’s decision to remove affirmative action requires universities to develop a new form of admission criteria that aids underrepresented minority students in the college admission process. Statistical evidence provided by the Department of Education and economist, Richard D. Kahlenberg, points to a new form of affirmative action that considers varying intersectional factors to develop a complex method of class-based affirmative action. Such studies identify the benefits of looking at various demographic factors contributing to an applicant’s experience to cultivate a diverse class of students that goes deeper than race.

This research investigates the impact of ethnic diversity on corporate boards in relation to the frequency of security class actions faced by firms. Security class action lawsuits hold significant concern for today's corporations and society at large due to their implications for accountability, investor protection, and the reinforcement of ethical standards. In this study, our team focuses on ethnic diversity as a vital contributor to enhanced monitoring and ethical practices by integrating varied cultural insights and ethical standards, thereby strengthening corporate governance and ethical oversight. We hypothesize that firms with greater ethnic diversity among their board members are less likely to encounter security class action lawsuits. To test this hypothesis, we sourced data on security class action lawsuits from the Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, and derived information regarding the ethnicity of board members from the Wharton Research Data Services Institutional Shareholders Services (WRDS ISS) database supplemented by various web sources. Employing a linear regression model to analyze the data, the empirical results substantiate the hypothesis, revealing that S&P1,500 firms with at least one director of minority ethnicity during the sample period of 2009 to 2015 are significantly less likely to face security class action lawsuits. This finding suggests that ethnic diversity on corporate boards is not only a marker of inclusivity but also serves as a protective measure against legal challenges. The study's implication is clear: promoting ethnic diversity within corporate boards is a strategic move for firms and shareholders, potentially reducing litigation risks and associated costs. This research contributes to the broader discourse on corporate governance, emphasizing the practical benefits of ethnic diversity in high-level decision-making bodies.