Punishing the 'others': Citizenship and state social control in the United States and Germany

This dissertation examines the punishment consequences of citizenship status in U.S. and German criminal courts. The conceptual and analytical models of sentencing merge two distinct theoretical traditions -- citizenship studies and the sociology of punishment. Utilizing an ideal-type comparison of case outcomes in the United States and Germany -- two advanced western democracies with strong rule of law traditions but markedly different conceptions of citizenship and nationhood -- this dissertation investigates the sentencing of non-state members using a unique cross-national, mixed-methodological research design. Specifically, data from the U.S. federal courts and German court system from 1998 to 2010 are used to estimate the punishment gap between citizen and noncitizen offenders across a range of statistical analyses. These results are then combined with judge interviews from both countries to identify and explicate the mechanisms linking national membership to punishment considerations.;Two main findings emerge from this analysis. First, citizenship is a powerful predictor of increased punishment in U.S. and German courts. The results indicate that the effect of citizenship on sentencing is equal to or greater in magnitude than factors traditionally stressed in legal inequality research, such as race/ethnicity or gender. Particularly in U.S. federal courts, the evidence is clear that national boundaries are more salient than racial/ethnic distinctions. Second, noncitizens are punished more harshly in both countries despite fundamentally different legal, political, and normative conceptions of citizenship, suggesting that national boundaries are significant in criminal courts even in countries that have distinct definitions of national membership.;The interviews suggest a variety of intervening mechanisms explain these findings. First, a prominent theme emerged that judges in both countries resented that noncitizens would compound their immigrant status with criminal transgressions and violate their countries hospitality. Second, foreigners lack of social bonds to society affected judges sentencing decisions through a variety of pathways, including defendants' lack of gainful employment or native language proficiency. In the U.S., some judges also felt their sentencing options were limited because foreign defendants would likely be deported. Third, several judges viewed noncitizens criminality as rooted in cultural practices, and thus a message needed to be sent to other members of the immigrant group. These themes often overlapped, demonstrating an intricate web of relationships that explain the differential legal treatment of non-state members.