Dr. Berk and colleagues comment

Berk, Robert N.; Cooperberg, P L; Gold, Richard Palmer; Rohrmann, Charles A.; Ferrucci, Joseph T.

doi:10.1148/radiology.147.3.888-a

Cited by 14 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We model incarceration decisions (probation, jail, or state prison) using logistic regression and incarceration length decisions using ordinary least squares (OLS) procedures. For the sentence length models, we correct for potential selection bias as described by Berk (1983), Peterson and Hagan (1984), and others (e.g., Spohn, 1990). To measure more completely the influence of the conviction offense on sentencing decisions, we simultaneously control for offense type (a block of 15 dummy variables, see bottom of Table 2) and severity (the guidelines' 10-point severity scale).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to structure sentencing through guidelines involve a fundamental dilemma for the sociology of law—guidelines attempt to emphasize formal rationality and uniformity (Savelsberg, 1992) while allowing discretion to tailor sentences to fit situations and characteristics of individual defendants when courts deem it warranted (substantive rationality). This exercise of substantive rationality in sentencing based on “extralegal” criteria deemed relevant by local court actors risks the kind of unwarranted disparity that guidelines were intended to reduce. We view local courts as arenas in which two sets of sentencing standards meet—formal rational ones articulated by guidelines vs. substantive, extralegal criteria deemed relevant by local court actors. We use statistical and qualitative data from Pennsylvania, a state whose courts have operated under sentencing guidelines for over a decade. Our analysis examines extralegal differences in three county courts' sentencing outcomes, and then documents ways in which substantive rational sentencing criteria are intertwined with defendants' exercise of their right to trial and their race and gender.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Offenses were given the following seriousness codes: 1=runaway, truancy, curfew violation, ungovernable behavior, alcohol possession, and other status offenses; 2=other misdemeanors; 3=(all misdemeanors) drug law violation, weapons offense, driving intoxicated (third offense), and disturbing the peace; 4=(all misdemeanors) arson, criminal mischief, forgery, criminal trespass, theft with value less than $300, and unauthorized use of a vehicle; 5=other felonies; 6=(all felonies) drug law violation, weapons offense; 7=(all felonies) burglary, theft with value over $300, criminal mischief, arson, and forgery; and 8=murder, manslaughter, assault (all degrees), and sexual assault (all degrees). 8 Social scientists have voiced a concern regarding the possibility of bias in regression coefficients when the sample on which they are based is censored (see for example Berk, 1983). Clearly, the procedure used in the present research, including at the stage of final disposition only those adjudicated delinquent, presents this possibility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Race And Juvenile Court Decision Making Revisited

Johnson

Secret

1990

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unfortunately, racism, perpetrated by virtually all of America's governmental institutions, has long been a fact and problem of American life. Prior research suggests that America's juvenile justice systems have not been void of the negative effects of racism; thus, racial equity in dispositional decisions is a major issue in dispensing juvenile justice. The study presented in this research examined Nebraska Crime Commission data over a consecutive six year period and found, all else being equal, that black youths are usually more likely to receive harsher treatment than are whites in terms of: (1) experiencing pre-hearing detention, (2) being formally prosecuted by petition, and (3) receiving a harsher final penalty. With regard to judging an accused youth to be delinquent, the analysis reveals a reversal of the foregoing relationship between race and harshness of the decision.The research concludes with some policy recommendations to remove racial biases from juvenile justice processing.The principle of equality before the law is an ideal firmly and long established in the American legal culture (Miethe and Moore, 1986). This fundamental rule-of-law principle of American jurisprudence stands for the proposition that all persons stand equally before the law, and that the law should not favor individuals on the basis of extralegal factors such as race or color (Marbury v. Madison, 1803).' Over the last two decades considerable research has examined the relationship between race and decision-making in the juvenile justice system. No doubt this research has been spawned, in large part, by the fact that black juveniles are vastly overrepresented in juvenile correctional facilities in relation to their relative proportions in the general

show abstract

“…Sentencing is a process of selection with multiple stages and multiple actors (Berk, 1983). In an important article, Klepper et al (1983) lay out clearly the importance of studying each stage separately in order to appropriately identify the causal effect of variables such as race.…”

Section: Discretion In Criminal Sentencingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Science Research and the Legal Threat to Presumptive Sentencing Guidelines

Bushway

Piehl

2007

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary: The general tone of articles by policy makers is satisfaction that presumptive sentencing, as practiced in the United States, although threatened, has not been greatly damaged by Blakely v. Washington and related cases. Sentencing research, because it usually does not consider how discretion operates before and after the sentencing stage, does not actually provide an empirical basis for such satisfaction. Illustrations from several jurisdictions show that the presumptive sentence guidelines may not have been as effective at reducing discretion and disparity as policy makers seem to believe. In addition, the policy choices embedded in the sentencing grid itself can contribute to disparity, and the grid can and should be analyzed to assess its role. Policy Implications: Although not definitive, these analyses suggest that policy makers need to be more cautious with any conclusion about the relative benefits of presumptive versus voluntary guidelines. Analyses of sentencing variation must vary with the institutional setting. In a presumptive sentencing state, more of the total sentencing variation is likely to be contained in the grid or exercised in the charge bargaining stage (or earlier) compared with a less‐structured sentencing system, where appreciable variation may remain at the sentencing stage.

show abstract

Dr. Berk and colleagues comment

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity

Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity

Race And Juvenile Court Decision Making Revisited

Social Science Research and the Legal Threat to Presumptive Sentencing Guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About