Research on criminal case processing typically examines a single outcome from a particular decision-making point, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about the impact that factors such as defendants' race or ethnicity exert across successive stages of the justice system. Using a unique dataset from the New York County District Attorney's Office that tracks a large sample of diverse criminal cases, this study assesses racial and ethnic disparity for multiple discretionary points of prosecution and sentencing. Findings demonstrate that the effects of race and ethnicity vary by discretionary point and offense category. Black and Latino defendants were more likely to be detained, to receive a custodial plea offer and to be incarcerated, but they were also more likely to benefit from case dismissals. Blacks and Latinos received especially punitive outcomes for person offenses. The findings for Asian defendants were less consistent but in general suggest they were the least likely to be detained, to receive custodial offers, and to be incarcerated. These findings are discussed in the context of contemporary theoretical perspectives on racial bias and cumulative disadvantage in the justice system.

No abstract

The majority of cases in the United States are disposed of through plea bargaining; however, this important discretionary point has received relatively little attention from researchers compared with trial and jury proceedings, and other discretionary points such as arrest and sentencing. Additionally, although evidence is considered an important factor in determining case outcomes, its influence on prosecutors' decisions regarding plea offers is less clear. In this study, we examined the potential impact of evidentiary factors, as well as other legal and extralegal factors, on two plea bargaining decisions, plea-to-a-lesser-charge offers and sentence offers, using data on felony drug cases processed by the New York County District Attorney's office. We found that prosecutors made more punitive charge offers when they had audio/video evidence, eyewitness identification(s), prerecorded buy money used by an undercover officer in a buy-and-bust operation, or had recovered currency. Of all evidence factors analyzed, only the recovery of currency predicted sentence offers. By contrast, three other factors-defendants' detention status, the presence of multiple plea offers, and prior prison sentence-had a much greater impact on charge and sentence offers. Although additional research is needed, it is possible that evidence has a greater impact at the initial stages of a case, particularly on the decision about whether to accept a case for prosecution, than it does on subsequent prosecutorial decisions.

Although social scientists have long studied attitudes toward severity of punishment, theoretically driven, validated measures that gauge a female—male gap in punitiveness are rare and those tested in different countries are even more so. Studies conducted in different geographical locations and/or at different times reveal inconsistent findings on whether such a gap in fact exists and, if so, whether women or men are more punitive. As a result, it is not clear whether individual differences in punitiveness are due to the differences between men and women or to the type of measures used. To address this shortcoming, the current study explored the putative female—male gap in punitiveness by using the same multi-item measure of individual punitiveness with two very different samples, one selected in Georgia (country) and the second in the New York metropolitan area (NYC). The results showed that while females and males were not distinctly different in their views on punishment and sentencing laws in either country, women and men were punitive in different ways. This finding partially supports previously reported results. In addition, individuals in the NYC sample seemed to be comparatively more punitive than the individuals in the Georgian sample. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Although social scientists and legal scholars have made valuable headway in identifying and explaining the relationships between myriad demographic, social, and legal factors and case outcomes, a sizable gap in understanding remains with respect to how cases evolve across decision points and how charges change for different racial and ethnic groups at individual decision points and cumulatively. This gap is partially addressed in this study through the examination of charge decreases, increases, and no change at three essential decision points—case screening for prosecution, arraignment, and final disposition. The results show that, overall, screening and disposition were much more dynamic decision points than was arraignment and that one third of cases experienced a charge decrease at some point. Even though racial differences in charge reductions at case screening were not large, at arraignment and disposition, as well as cumulatively, Black and Latino defendants were less likely than White defendants to have charges decreased. Conversely, Asian defendants experienced even more favorable outcomes than White defendants as they were more likely to have charges reduced and less likely to experience an increase. These findings are framed in the context of focal concerns, cumulative disadvantage, and “charge reasonableness” arguments.