The Machinery of Criminal Justice

Bibas, Stephanos

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374681.001.0001

Cited by 70 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…plea, conviction, or sentence). Blacks are more likely to live in urban counties, where courts may be less sympathetic to mistakes due to assembly-line justice and anonymity between prosecutors and defendants (Bibas 2012). Blacks may also have a lower quality of counsel, which could lead to a greater willingness to plead guilty and a greater likelihood of being incarcerated (Wilbanks 1987).…”

Section: Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is some evidence indicating that Blacks are less likely than Whites to plead guilty (Petersilia 1985; Albonetti 1990), which typically leads to more severe sentences (Albonetti 1997). But, it is worth recognizing that plea bargaining happens in over 90% of felony convictions (Bibas 2012), suggesting that differences in guilty pleas alone are not likely to explain the bulk of racial disparities in prison commitments. One of the more rigorous studies on racial disparities in prison conducted by Mustard (2001) found that 55% of the Black-White difference in sentencing for federal offenders (for various crimes) is due to departures from federal guidelines.…”

Section: Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decomposing Racial Disparities in Prison and Drug Treatment Commitments for Criminal Offenders in California

MacDonald¹,

Arkes²,

Nicosia³

et al. 2014

The Journal of Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blacks convicted of drug-related offenses in the U.S. have higher prison-commitment rates than Whites. Studies have been largely unsuccessful in explaining these disparities. This study uses administrative data from a random sample of individuals arrested for drug offenses in California to examine this issue. We use a decomposition model to estimate whether Black-White disparities in commitments to prison or diversions to drug treatment are attributable to differences in the characteristics of criminal cases and whether case characteristics are weighed differently by race. We also examine whether the influence of case characteristics changes after California implemented Proposition 36, which was a mandatory prison diversion program for eligible drug offenders. Our results suggest that Black-White differences in prison commitments are fully explained by criminal case characteristics, but that a significant portion of the differences in treatment diversions remain unexplained. The unexplained variation in drug treatment also does not change after Proposition 36. These findings suggest that case characteristics play a larger role in explaining prison commitments for drug offenders than the discretion of prosecutors and judges. By contrast, diversion to drug treatment appears to be driven more by the discretion of court officials and Black-White disparities remain prominent.

show abstract

Section: Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Decomposing Racial Disparities in Prison and Drug Treatment Commitments for Criminal Offenders in California

MacDonald¹,

Arkes²,

Nicosia³

et al. 2014

The Journal of Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is likely truth to the democratizers' argument that the "administrative ideal of equality across cases" has tended to inhibit the discretion necessary to dispense mercy in individual cases. 429 After all, "[i]n criminal justice as elsewhere, discretion and discrimination travel together." 430 There is no question, for example, that progressive reformers concerned about official discrimination supported determinate sentencing laws and the restriction of parole.…”

Section: Mercymentioning

confidence: 99%

Some Doubts About 'Democratizing' Criminal Justice

Rappaport

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American criminal justice system's ills are by now so familiar as scarcely to bear repeating: unprecedented levels of incarceration, doled out disproportionately across racial groups, and police that seem to antagonize and hurt the nowdistrustful communities they are tasked to serve and protect. Systemic social ailments like these seldom permit straightforward diagnoses, let alone simple cures. In this case, however, a large, diverse, and influential group of experts-the legal academy's "democratizers"-all identify the same disease: the retreat of local democratic control in favor of a bureaucratic "machinery" disconnected from public values and the people themselves. Neighborhood juries, for example, internalize the costs of punishing their own; neighborhood police, "of" and answerable to the community, think twice before drawing their weapons or stopping a local boy on a hunch. The experts and detached professionals who populate our dominant bureaucratic institutions, in contrast, are motivated by different, less salubrious, incentives. Across the gamut of criminal justice decision-making, the democratizers maintain, the influence of the local laity is a moderating, equalizing, and ultimately legitimating one. A generous dose of participatory democracy won't solve all our problems, but it's our best shot to get the criminal justice system back on its feet. This Article's warning is plain: don't take the medicine. "Democratization" wields undeniable rhetorical appeal but will not really fix what ails us-and may just make it worse. The democratization movement, this Article argues, rests on conceptually problematic and empirically dubious premises about the makeup, preferences, and independence of local "communities." It relies on the proudly counterintuitive claim that laypeople are largely lenient and egalitarian, contrary to a wealth of social scientific evidence. And ultimately, democratization's dual commitments are on a collision course. The democratizers simultaneously devote themselves to particular ends-amelioration of the biased and outsized carceral state-and to particular means-participatory democracy. What happens if, as this Article predicts,

show abstract

“…Ostrom (: 7) asserted that “courts are the most understudied major public institution in terms of organizational culture and performance.” Looking at the court system overall, Bibas (: 2) traced “the history of the shift from the popular ideal of criminal justice as a morality play to a speedy plea‐bargaining machine, hidden and insulated from the public.” Bibas, formerly a University of Pennsylvania law professor who now is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, pointed to “three major structural changes [that] define this shift. First, while laymen used to investigate and control prosecution of crime, the professional criminal‐justice bureaucracy has squeezed laymen out.…”

Section: Research On the Court Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Courts in a Fragmented Criminal Justice System

Gest

2018

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson in 1967 outlined a central role for courts in the criminal justice system. That role, however, has been somewhat diminished by the dominance of plea bargaining and the legislative enactment of mandatory minimum sentences that limit judges' discretion. At the same time, judges have become more involved in specialized courts dealing in cases involving drugs and mental illness. A major topic of concern is the lower courts, which in many areas have changed little since the 1960s Commission. In those places, the traditional adversary process is not operating well, with many defendants pleading guilty unnecessarily in a system that may be designed primarily to collect fees. In violent crime cases, the imposition of capital punishment remains a controversial issue for states that is not likely to be resolved by a new national commission. The central court functions of sentencing and overseeing plea bargains are discussed elsewhere in this volume.

show abstract

The Machinery of Criminal Justice

Cited by 70 publications

References 0 publications

Decomposing Racial Disparities in Prison and Drug Treatment Commitments for Criminal Offenders in California

Decomposing Racial Disparities in Prison and Drug Treatment Commitments for Criminal Offenders in California

Some Doubts About 'Democratizing' Criminal Justice

The Courts in a Fragmented Criminal Justice System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About