10/15/2025
By Karen Mullins

The School of Criminology and Justice Studies is proud to announce a Dissertation Proposal Defense by James Bacigalupo, entitled: Words and Sentences: How Judicial Partisanship Influences Rhetoric and Punishment in Domestic Terrorism Cases.

Date: Friday, Oct. 31
Time: 1-2:30 p.m.
Location: HSSB room 342 or via Zoom

Committee:

  • Chair: Arie Perliger, Ph.D., Professor, University of Massachusetts Lowell
  • Rebecca Dunlea Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Massachusetts Lowell
  • Joshua Long Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Massachusetts Lowell
  • Jason Rydberg, Ph.D, Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Lowell

Abstract:

When it comes to criminal sentencing, the consensus is that legal variables cannot fully explain outcomes. However, not all extralegal factors have received equal attention. Characteristics such as the defendant’s race and gender have been widely studied, while other factors, including judicial-level influences have been examined far less. Given the intensity of political polarization in the U.S., judicial sentencing decisions may be vulnerable to partisan bias. Because domestic terrorists are associated with a political ideology, they may be susceptible to this unequal treatment. Moreover, prior work on terrorist adjudication has found sentencing disparities related to defendant ideology, which is where it would be expected to emerge. Additionally, research shows that individuals tend to have a more punitive attitude toward political out-group extremists than toward those aligned with their own side. In light of this evidence, this study empirically examines whether the political affiliation of federal judges contributes to unwarranted variation in the punishment of domestic terrorist defendants based on their ideology. Drawing on attribution theory, social identity theory, and focal concerns theory, this study uses two approaches. First, multivariate regression will be used to analyze a dataset of over 1,500 federal domestic terrorist cases from the 1970s to 2020, testing the interaction between judicial political affiliation and defendant ideology on sentencing outcomes. Second, court transcripts from a sample of these cases will be analyzed with Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) software to determine whether judicial remarks during the sentencing process reveal differences in psychological, emotional and attitudinal content.