Neighborhoods, Criminal Incidents, Race, and Sentencing: Exploring the Racial and Social Context of Disparities in Incarceration Sentences

Donnelly, Ellen A.

doi:10.1093/bjc/azab046

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, our findings add to prior research examining the moderating effects of case processing and legally relevant factors on race/ethnicity (B. D. Johnson, 2003Johnson, , 2014Donnelly & MacDonald, 2018;wooldredge et al, 2015). As with prior research, these effects are concentrated among Black and Latinx defendants.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Pathways to Offense Charging: Examining Defense Decision-Making During Case Processing

Henry

Henderson

2023

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosecutors are afforded significant discretionary power in the current justice system. While much attention has been given to the factors that influence charging decisions, little is known about decision-making in the charging process itself. Moreover, research has yet to examine the mechanisms used to initiate charging: grand jury indictments or the information. As these charging processes are characteristically different and may have significant implications for case processing and justice outcomes, it is important to explore what factors influence decision-making at this early stage. The current study addresses these shortcomings using case-processing data from a large urban jurisdiction. Results indicate significant differences between defendants charged via grand jury and information processes. In addition, charging pathways have important consequences for case outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Pathways to Offense Charging: Examining Defense Decision-Making During Case Processing

Henry

Henderson

2023

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, the study provides further evidence to support the import of early representation in the judicial process. As important, representation at initial appearance is one potential mechanism to mitigate some of the downstream racial disparities that can result from pretrial detention (Donnelly & MacDonald, 2018). Most research has centered on the existence of racial disparities in the criminal legal system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Racial and ethnic disparities in detention are often tied to differences in the cash bail process (Burdeen, 2016; Page et al., 2019). Black individuals are more likely to be denied bail or less likely to be given non‐monetary bail, like release on recognizance; when bail is set, Black individuals are significantly less able to afford bail (Demuth, 2003; Demuth & Steffensmeier, 2004; Donnelly & MacDonald, 2018; Schlesinger, 2005; Wooldredge, 2012).…”

Section: The Racial and Ethnic Inequalities Of Pretrial Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Right to counsel? A mixed‐methods evaluation of the St. Louis County initial appearance program

Morgan,

Shamserad,

Huebner

2024

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research summaryLegal representation is a critical right in the criminal legal process, yet it is unclear when representation is guaranteed. Further, many individuals find obtaining legal representation difficult and expensive. The current study is an evaluation of an initial appearance program implemented in St. Louis County, Missouri. This mixed‐methods study focuses on understanding if and how providing counsel at initial appearance affects the bond amount, release type, and length of pretrial detention. Data from official court records and interviews with project staff and stakeholders suggest that early, free representation at arraignment can facilitate release on recognizance and lowered bail amounts. Results from a series of interaction models suggest that this type of programming may be able to help reduce some racial disparities. Our thematic analysis indicates that courtroom stakeholders see value in the program for the defendants, the criminal process, and the courtroom workgroup dynamics during pretrial stages.Policy implicationsThe results reflect the need for early representation in the legal process. Representation can potentially reduce some of the racial and ethnic disparities in case processing, which are relatively stark and can lead to downstream effects like a greater likelihood of recidivism and conviction. Currently, most funding for public defenders is inequitable to that of the prosecutor's office, and this work speaks to the necessity of providing representation that begins with the initial appearance and continues throughout the life of the case. This work also highlights how outside funding can be used to support more equitable and fair case processing in the criminal legal system.

show abstract

“…Pretrial detention increases defendants’ probability of conviction, primarily through an increase in guilty pleas (Dobbie et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2016; Heaton et al., 2017; Stevenson, 2018), and is associated with increased likelihood of postconviction incarceration (Heaton et al., 2017; Williams, 2003) and longer carceral sentences (Heaton et al., 2017; Sacks & Ackerman, 2014; Stevenson, 2018; Williams, 2003). Thus, the inequalities in bail outcomes noted above contribute to inequalities in conviction and sentencing outcomes (Donnelly & MacDonald, 2018; Kutateladze et al., 2014; Omori & Petersen, 2020), generating cumulative disadvantages (DiPrete & Eirich, 2006) in the court process. Bail decisions also impact defendants beyond their court cases.…”

Section: Research On Bail Decisions and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“The roughest form of social work:” How court officials justify bail decisions

Winter,

Clair

2023

Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growing research has analyzed quantitative patterns of bail decisions and outcomes, but we know far less about how court officials justify their bail decisions. To enhance understanding of how bail decisions—and their resulting pretrial outcomes—are generated, we interviewed 104 judges, prosecutors, and public defenders in a northeastern state. Court officials in our study reported three primary justifications at bail: ensuring defendants return to court, preventing crime, and lessening harm. The first two justifications have been suggested in the literature, but the latter is novel and encompasses two secondary justifications: lessening criminal legal system harm and lessening societal harm. We show how these justifications and the decisions they enable blend risk management with rehabilitation and emerge from court officials’ shared assumption of defendants’ social marginality but varied beliefs about what to do about such marginality pretrial. Each justification allows for distinct, but at times overlapping, bail decisions. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of court official decision‐making, research on racial and socioeconomic inequality, and bail reform policy.

show abstract

Neighborhoods, Criminal Incidents, Race, and Sentencing: Exploring the Racial and Social Context of Disparities in Incarceration Sentences

Cited by 16 publications

References 54 publications

Pathways to Offense Charging: Examining Defense Decision-Making During Case Processing

Pathways to Offense Charging: Examining Defense Decision-Making During Case Processing

Right to counsel? A mixed‐methods evaluation of the St. Louis County initial appearance program

“The roughest form of social work:” How court officials justify bail decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About