Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts

Mustard, David B.

doi:10.1086/320276

Cited by 472 publications

(334 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

309

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The initial descriptions of the crime were artificially impersonal and did not specify perpetrator gender, a major source of sentencing bias (Mustard, 2001;Steffensmeier, et al, 2006). Therefore, in study 2, the offender was named Eric.…”

Section: Methods 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous scholarly work has identified a number of extraneous factors that distort judicial decisions. For instance, sentencing can be biased by perpetrator race (Mitchell, Haw, Pfeifer, & Meissner, 2005;Sweeney & Haney, 1992), gender (Daly & Tonry, 1997;Doerner 5 & Demuth, 2010), socio-economic status (Mustard, 2001), age (Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 2006), and sexual orientation (Farr, 2000). These are character-based sources of bias, as they originate in perceived stable characteristics of the perpetrator.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The animal in you: Animalistic descriptions of a violent crime increase punishment of perpetrator

Vasquez

Loughnan

Gootjes-Dreesbach

et al. 2014

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criminal acts are sometimes described using animal metaphors. What is the impact of a violent crime being described in an animalistic vs. a non-animalistic way on the subsequent retribution towards the perpetrator? In two studies we experimentally varied animalistic descriptions of a violent crime and examined its effect on the severity of the punishment for the act. In Study 1, we showed that compared to non-animalistic descriptions, animalistic descriptions resulted in significantly harsher punishment for the perpetrator. In Study 2, we replicated this effect and further demonstrated that this harsher sentencing is explained by an increase in perceived risk of recidivism. Our findings suggest that animalistic descriptions of crimes lead to more retaliation against the perpetrator by inducing the perception that he is likely to continue engaging in violence.

show abstract

Section: Methods 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The animal in you: Animalistic descriptions of a violent crime increase punishment of perpetrator

Vasquez

Loughnan

Gootjes-Dreesbach

et al. 2014

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A more recent paper by Mustard (2001) improves on previous work by including additional controls in the regression analysis. Using federal data provided by the USSC, he examines the impact of race on the incarceration and sentencing decisions, as well as on departures from the sentencing guidelines.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?

Abrams¹,

Bertrand²,

Mullainathan³

2012

The Journal of Legal Studies

224

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are minorities treated differently by the legal system? Systematic racial differences in case characteristics, many unobservable, make this a difficult question to answer directly. In this paper, we estimate whether judges differ from each other in how they sentence minorities, avoiding potential bias from unobservable case characteristics by exploiting the random assignment of cases to judges. We measure the between-judge variation in the difference in incarceration rates and sentence lengths between AfricanAmerican and White defendants. We perform a Monte Carlo simulation in order to explicitly construct the appropriate counterfactual, where race does not influence judicial sentencing. In our data set, which includes felony cases from Cook County, Illinois, we find statistically significant between-judge variation in incarceration rates, although not in sentence lengths.

show abstract

“…Federal judges issue far more downward departures for white defendants than African-American defendants, even when accounting for the type of crime (Mustard 2001). If race is playing a role in sentencing, one might expect that allowing for more discretion in departures would increase disparities.…”

Section: Foreign Litigantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Rachlinski¹,

Wistrich²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 AbstractDo judges make decisions that are truly impartial? A wide range of experimental and field studies reveal that several extra-legal factors influence judicial decision making. Demographic characteristics of judges and litigants affect judges' decisions. Judges also rely heavily on intuitive reasoning in deciding cases, making them vulnerable to the use of mental shortcuts that can lead to mistakes. Furthermore, judges sometimes rely on facts outside the record and rule more favorably towards litigants who are more sympathetic or with whom they share demographic characteristics. On the whole, judges are excellent decision makers, and sometimes resist common errors of judgment that influence ordinary adults. The weight of the evidence, however, suggests that judges are vulnerable to systematic deviations from the ideal of judicial impartiality.

show abstract

Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts

Cited by 472 publications

References 16 publications

The animal in you: Animalistic descriptions of a violent crime increase punishment of perpetrator

The animal in you: Animalistic descriptions of a violent crime increase punishment of perpetrator

Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About