Judicial Politics and Sentencing Decisions∗
نویسندگان
چکیده
Racial and gender disparities are prevalent in the criminal justice system, but the sources of these disparities remain largely unknown. This paper investigates whether judge political affiliation contributes to these disparities using data on over 500,000 federal defendants linked to sentencing judge. Exploiting random case assignment, we find that Republican appointed judges sentence black defendants to 3.0 more months than similar non-blacks and female defendants to 2.1 fewer months than similar males, compared to Democratic appointed judges. Disparities by judge political affiliation cannot be explained by other judge characteristics and grow substantially larger when judges are granted more discretion. JEL Codes: H1, J15, J71, K0, K14
منابع مشابه
Judicial Attributes and Sentencing - Deviation Cases : Do Sex , Race , and Politics Matter ?
Most scholars focus on whether the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines effectively constrain judges or result in disparate decisions based on a court’s or defendant’s location. With few exceptions, studies of the effect of judicial attributes on federal-district-court-sentencing cases have been stymied by the United States Sentencing Commission’s refusal to release judges’ names in their databases of se...
متن کاملSummary. Sentencing law and sentencing decision making
The initial context of this research – judicial cooperation with regard to consistency in sentencing This dissertation is part of a research project in which the phenomenon of judicial cooperation in several areas of the law has been taken as a starting point. The concept of judicial cooperation describes informal structures and products thereof of judicial policymaking for the purpose of the s...
متن کاملPlaying dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making.
Judicial sentencing decisions should be guided by facts, not by chance. The present research however demonstrates that the sentencing decisions of experienced legal professionals are influenced by irrelevant sentencing demands even if they are blatantly determined at random. Participating legal experts anchored their sentencing decisions on a given sentencing demand and assimilated toward it ev...
متن کاملDirecting Retribution: On the Political Control of Lower Court Judges
The sentencing decisions of trial judges are constrained by statutory limits imposed by legislatures. At the same time, judges in many states face periodic review, often by the electorate. We develop a model in which the effects of these features of a judge’s political landscape on judicial behavior interact. The model yields several intriguing results: First, if legislators care about the prop...
متن کاملRefocusing on Gender: Can Focal Concerns Theory Explain Gender Disparities in Sentencing Outcomes?
Title of thesis: REFOCUSING ON GENDER: CAN FOCAL CONCERNS THEORY EXPLAIN GENDER DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING OUTCOMES? Rebecca L. Richardson, Master of Arts, 2015 Thesis directed by: Professor Brian Johnson Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice Focal concerns theory argues that sentencing decisions reflect judges’ beliefs about three primary considerations: blameworthiness of the defendan...
متن کامل