Sentencing Decisions Research Articles

Examining American Indian Disadvantage: Social Context and Federal Sentencing Decisions

Prior literature suggests that Blacks and Latinos are sentenced more harshly than similarly situated White offenders. Still, less is known about whether disparities extend to other minority groups, and consequently little is known about the treatment of these neglected groups. Recent research has investigated social context and disparities. However, this body of research has not assessed if social context impacts how other minority groups are treated. To address this gap, this manuscript focuses on American Indians, how they are treated, and if social context amplifies American Indian disadvantage. The minority threat perspective is used and data is analyzed from the Federal Justice Statistics Program Data Series and the U.S. Census. Implications for theory, research, and policy are discussed.

Principled Justice for Indigenous Peoples? An Empirical Analysis of the Application of Gladue Factors in Canadian Lower Courts

This article examines section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which is aimed at reducing the imprisonment of Indigenous offenders and the application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Gladue. Using court observation of docket court sentencing, this article demonstrates that the restrictive context of the lower court sentencing environment, along with the complexity of the sentencing task, influences and reduces the number and kinds of Gladue sentencing factors considered and restricts a judge’s ability to appropriately weigh the factors that ought to play a meaningful role in Indigenous sentencing. Drawing from research literature from the fields of behavioural economics and psychology about cognitive bias, heuristics, and the use of stereotypes, the findings of this study suggest that, faced with these circumstances, judges may rely on heuristics and form judgments about a defendant’s character and their potential future behaviour. In this way, stereotypes relating to offenders’ race permeate their sentencing decisions. The findings that Indigenous sentencing principles are not being employed in a principled way have important implications for the legitimacy of our legal institutions.

Jail Utilization and Court Sentencing: Does Jail Overcrowding Influence State Court Sentencing Decisions?

Drawing upon organizational perspectives and focal concerns theory, this article tests the impacts of jail utilization (i.e. the ratio of jail population: rated capacity) on sentencing practices. Using 18 years of felony sentencing data from Florida and county characteristics, ordinary least squares regression models are estimated to determine whether jail utilization impacts sentencing trends between counties. Latent growth curves assess jail utilization effects within counties over time. Jail utilization is significantly associated with sentencing and this effect is robust across and within counties over time. Across counties the effect is largely non-linear; community-based sanctions are more common in counties that have reached a jail utilization threshold. Jail utilization effects are robust across general and discretionary cases but vary according to local crime rates. The findings suggest that extralegal considerations influence sentencing decisions; i.e. when jail utilization decreases, courts will impose more jail sentences simply because space is available.

Appellate Review of Sentencing Decisions by the Criminal Trials with the participation of Citizen Judge

Appellate Review of Sentencing Decisions by the Criminal Trials with the participation of Citizen Judge

A Randomization-based Analysis of the Effects of Electoral Pressure on Judges' Sentencing Decisions

A Randomization-based Analysis of the Effects of Electoral Pressure on Judges' Sentencing Decisions

Negotiation of justice: the discursive construction of attitudinal positioning in bilingual legal judgments of HKSAR v KWAN WAN KI

Abstract In appeal cases, judges from different levels of courts may have varying perspectives on the same set of facts, leading to different sentencing decisions. This study focuses on a specific traffic incident case in Hong Kong. In this case, a trial judge and a collegial panel at the High Court hold divergent opinions regarding the same set of facts, expressed through two different narrations and varying degrees of leniency in their rulings. By applying the framework of Appraisal Theory within a contextualized analysis, this paper reveals that the trial judge and the appellate judges employ differing amounts of evaluative expressions in reaching their decisions. I argue that evaluative language functions as a discursive strategy for negotiating justice, encompassing the narration of legal facts and the construction of legal arguments across different levels of the court system. Furthermore, through an examination of discrepancies between the two language versions, I contend that evaluative expressions, particularly the degree of attitude within the Appraisal Framework, warrant attention in the practice of legal translation. This attention is crucial for achieving a consistent level of emotive entropy in both language versions.

Investigating the role of artificial intelligence in the US criminal justice system

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine public perceptions and attitudes toward using artificial intelligence (AI) in the US criminal justice system.Design/methodology/approachThe authors took a quantitative approach and administered an online survey using the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. The instrument was developed by integrating prior literature to create multiple scales for measuring public perceptions and attitudes.FindingsThe findings suggest that despite the various attempts, there are still significant perceptions of sociodemographic bias in the criminal justice system and technology alone cannot alleviate them. However, AI can assist judges in making fairer and more objective decisions by using triangulation – offering additional data points to offset individual biases.Social implicationsOther scholars can build upon the findings and extend the work to shed more light on some problems of growing concern for society – bias and inequality in criminal sentencing. AI can be a valuable tool to assist judges in the decision-making process by offering diverse viewpoints. Furthermore, the authors bridge the gap between the fields of technology and criminal justice and demonstrate how the two can be successfully integrated for the benefit of society.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is among the first studies to examine a complex societal problem like the introduction of technology in a high-stakes environment – the US criminal justice system. Understanding how AI is perceived by society is necessary to develop more transparent and unbiased algorithms for assisting judges in making fair and equitable sentencing decisions. In addition, the authors developed and validated a new scale that can be used to further examine this novel approach to criminal sentencing in the future.

Assessing the roles of shape prototypicality and sexual dimorphism in ratings of the trustworthiness of faces

Perceptions of the trustworthiness of faces predict important social outcomes, including economic exchange and criminal sentencing decisions. However, the specific facial characteristics that drive trustworthiness perceptions remain poorly understood. Here we investigated this issue by exploring possible relationships between ratings of the trustworthiness of face images and objective assessments of two aspects of face shape that researchers have previously argued are important for perceptions of trustworthiness: distinctiveness and sexual dimorphism. Here we report that faces with more distinctive shapes are rated as less trustworthy, but that sexual dimorphism of face shape is not significantly correlated with trustworthiness ratings. These results suggest that distinctiveness of face shape plays a more important role in trustworthiness perceptions than does sexual dimorphism and suggest that perceptions of trustworthiness may stem, at least in part, from the ‘anomalous-is-bad’ stereotype.

Moral intuitions, punishment ideology, and judicial sentencing

ABSTRACT Considerable research examines discretion in judicial sentencing. However, little is known about the role of moral values or ideological beliefs in judicial sentencing decisions. The current study draws on insights from moral psychology to propose a model of judicial decision-making in which moral intuitions may inform sentencing both directly and indirectly via ideological beliefs about punishment (including general punitiveness and concern for offenders). We test this model using a statewide survey of Pennsylvania Common Pleas Criminal Court judges (N = 132), which included hypothetical sentencing vignettes. Results indicate that although moral intuitions were related to punishment ideology, moral intuitions were largely unrelated to judicial sentencing decisions, with a few exceptions. We interpret the results as suggesting that while moral and ideological preferences may be relevant under some circumstances, the role of morality in judicial decision-making may be constrained by legal or organizational factors.

Degrees of negative judgement

Abstract Studies on sentencing are dominated by normative studies prescribing how judges should sentence. Few studies examine how judges actually sentence. This study provides an insight into the empirical reality of judges’ sentencing practices by examining their negative judgements (of propriety) of offenders and their behaviour in six sentencing remarks. It finds that judges are doing more appraisal work when their sentencing decisions are below or much higher than the starting point, but less appraisal work when their sentencing decisions are just a few years above the starting point. Such findings demonstrate that the starting point has a binding power on judges’ sentencing practices despite judges having the discretion to arrive at a sentencing decision of any length (whatever the starting point). Findings of the current study could provide meaningful starting points for future examination of large quantities of sentencing remarks.

Tipping the Scales Toward Death: Why Some Aggravators Weigh More Than Others

At the sentencing phase of modern capital trials, the jury endorses and weighs aggravators against mitigators to determine the appropriate sentence. We present a “dual process” theory of capital sentencing decisions that might explain how and why certain aggravators “tip the scales” toward a death sentence. Sentencing standards provide a rational framework for deciding whether a defendant should live or die, but within this framework there is room for moral intuition, specifically in the weighing of aggravators and mitigators. Certain aggravators might trigger moral intuition and emotion, and, in turn, justify a death sentence when there is substantial mitigation. We conduct a case study of cases that resulted in a death sentence in Nevada, 1976–2016. Aggravators like sexual assault, a child victim, and multiple murders were more likely to be endorsed in cases where there were more, or an equal number of, mitigators and aggravators. We highlight particularly illustrative cases.

Collateral Legal Consequences and Criminal Sentencing

AbstractA criminal conviction can trigger numerous burdensome legal consequences beyond the formal sentence. Some charge that these “collateral” legal consequences (CLCs) constitute additional measures of punishment, which raises the further question of whether judges should consider these CLCs when making sentencing decisions, reducing the formal sentence in proportion to the severity of the CLCs the defendant will face. The idea that all CLCs constitute forms of punishment reflects a particular conception of punishment, which I call the “minimalist view.” In this paper, I argue against the minimalist view. I contend that on a more adequate conception of punishment, some but not all CLCs constitute punishment. I also argue that whether judges should consider CLCs in sentencing decisions depends on whether the relevant CLCs constitute punishment.

Ramadan fasting increases leniency in judges from Pakistan and India.

We estimate the impact of the Ramadan fasting ritual on criminal sentencing decisions in Pakistan and India from half a century of daily data. We use random case assignment and exogenous variation in fasting intensity during Ramadan due to the rotating Islamic calendar and the geographical latitude of the district courts to document the large effects of Ramadan fasting on decision-making. Our sample comprises roughly a half million cases and 10,000 judges from Pakistan and India. Ritual intensity increases Muslim judges' acquittal rates, lowers their appeal and reversal rates, and does not come at the cost of increased recidivism or heightened outgroup bias. Overall, our results indicate that the Ramadan fasting ritual followed by a billion Muslims worldwide induces more lenient decisions.

Victim impact statement and lay judges’ decision making: exploring cross-cultural and individual differences in East Asia

ABSTRACT Research has shown that emotional testimony given by victims or their family can affect jurors’ or lay judges’ decision-making processes, but little attention has been paid to cross-cultural and individual variations. The present study examined whether cultural and individual differences were associated with how victim impact statement (VIS) affected mock lay judges’ decision making in East Asian contexts. Participants from Japan (n = 74) and Taiwan (n = 64) reviewed a transcript of a lay participation (or Saiban-In) trial with or without an emotional VIS by the bereaved family and then made verdict and sentencing decisions individually. The results showed no main and interaction effects of VIS and culture on verdict decision, perceived strength of evidence, and sentence decision. Regression analyses showed that Need for Affect predicted higher perceived strength of evidence against the defendant and more guilty verdicts, and the effects were stronger in the VIS condition. We concluded that emotional VIS in a written format may not be biasing by nature in East Asian contexts; however, including a VIS could risk the possibility of bias in the fact-finding process of lay judges with a higher tendency to approach emotional information.

Sentencing: New trajectories in law By E.A.O.Freer, Abingdon: Routledge. 2021. pp. 131. £44.99 (hbk); pp. 146. £16.99 (pbk). ISBN: 9780067862619; 9781032063027

Sentencing: New trajectories in law By E.A.O.Freer, Abingdon: Routledge. 2021. pp. 131. £44.99 (hbk); pp. 146. £16.99 (pbk). ISBN: 9780067862619; 9781032063027

The eye of the beholder: Increased likelihood of prison sentences for people perceived to have Hispanic ethnicity.

Hispanic individuals are a growing proportion of the general and carceral populations in the United States. This study examined the relationship between the type of sentences (prison, jail/probation) given to White, non-Hispanic individuals and to similarly situated individuals who were perceived to be Hispanic (any race) or perceived to be White but, based on validated estimates, self-identified as Hispanic. Psychological theory indicates that, for group-based stereotypes and attitudes to impact decisions, decisionmakers must first identify and categorize target individuals as members of the relevant group. Following this theory, we predicted that individuals perceived by members of the criminal justice system to be Hispanic will be more likely to be sentenced to prison than similarly situated individuals perceived to be White. However, sentences of individuals predicted to have been misperceived as White but to self-identify as Hispanic will not differ from those of individuals accurately perceived as White. We analyzed official state records of more than 220,000 unique sentencing decisions for nearly 200,000 individuals under state correctional supervision between 2005 and 2018, including demographic characteristics, statutory crime-seriousness and criminal-history scores from state sentencing guidelines, and sentencing outcomes. Even after controlling for crime severity and criminal history, we found that individuals who were labeled as Hispanic in criminal justice records were nearly twice as likely to be sentenced to prison as those who were labeled as White (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.86, 2.04]). By comparison, individuals who were labeled in criminal justice records as White but, on the basis of validated estimates, were predicted to self-identify as Hispanic had the same likelihood of being sentenced to prison as individuals who were accurately perceived to be White (OR = 1.01, 95% CI [0.94, 1.07]). Results suggest that ethnic stereotypes or attitudes regarding Hispanic individuals may negatively impact criminal sentencing decisions regarding people perceived as Hispanic by actors in the legal system. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Does "Jamal" receive a harsher sentence than "James"? First-name bias in the criminal sentencing of Black men.

Using archival and experimental methods, we tested the role that racial associations of first names play in criminal sentencing. We hypothesized that Black defendants with more stereotypically Black names (e.g., Jamal) would receive more punitive sentences than Black defendants with more stereotypically White names (e.g., James). In an archival study, we obtained a random sample of 296 real-world records of Black male prison inmates in Florida and asked participants to rate the extent to which each inmate's first name was stereotypically Black or stereotypically White. We then tested the extent to which racial stereotypicality was associated with sentence length, controlling for relevant legal features of each case (e.g., criminal record, severity of convicted offenses). In a follow-up experiment, participant judges assigned sentences in cases in which the Black male defendant was randomly assigned a more stereotypically Black or White name from our archival study. Controlling for a wide array of factors-including criminal record-we found that inmates with more stereotypically Black versus White first names received longer sentences β = 0.09, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [0.01, 0.16]: 409 days longer for names 1 standard deviation above versus below the mean on racial stereotypicality. In our experiment, participant judges recommended significantly longer sentences to Black inmates with more stereotypically Black names above and beyond the severity of the charges or their criminal history, β = 0.07, 95% CI [0.02, 0.13]. Our results identify how racial associations with first names can bias consequential sentencing decisions despite the impartial aims of the legal system. More broadly, our findings illustrate how racial biases manifest in distinctions made among members of historically marginalized groups, not just between members of different groups. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Comment on “Temperature and Decisions: Evidence from 207,000 Court Cases”

Heyes and Saberian (2019b) estimate from 2000–2004 data that outdoor temperature reduces US immigration judges’ propensity to grant asylum. This estimate is the result of coding and data errors and of sample selection. Correcting the errors reduces the point estimate by two-thirds, with a wide 95 percent confidence interval straddling zero. Enlarging the sample to 1990–2019 flips the point estimate’s sign and rules out the effect size reported by Heyes and Saberian with very high confidence. An analysis of all criminal sentencing decisions by US federal district judges from 1992 to 2003 yields no evidence of temperature or other weather effects either. (JEL K37, K41, Q54)

With or without a purpose? Judges’ appraisal of offenders or their behaviour in six sentencing remarks

Abstract This study examines judges’ language use in sentencing remarks in the Crown Courts of England and Wales. Six sentencing remarks were selected from all those available on the UK judiciary website (by October 2016). The cases selected for closer analysis are as similar to each other as possible, so as to ensure that the differences in the discursive features of the sentencing remarks largely reflect the differences in judges’ sentencing practices. It is found that judges selectively use an appraisal strategy – using moralised purposes to invoke judgements of offenders or their behaviour – across the six sentencing remarks. Judges’ use (or non-use) of the appraisal strategy is found to be correlating with their sentencing decisions: i.e., judges opt for the appraisal strategy when their sentencing decisions are below or further above the starting point, but not when the decisions are just a few years above the starting point. The finding reveals that the statutory starting point exercises a binding effect on the judges’ sentencing practices despite the judges having the discretion to disregard the starting point. Such a finding not only provides an insight into the judges’ sentencing practices, but also demonstrates that appraisal analysis is an effective means to get access to sentencing, which seemed so inaccessible to academic research.

MCCLESKEY ACCUSED Justice Powell and The Moral Price of Institutional Pride

<i>MCCLESKEY</i> ACCUSED Justice Powell and The Moral Price of Institutional Pride