A Study of the Recorder's Court: Does Sentencing Disparity Exist and if so, Why? Público
Nagin, Nicole Lyn (2012)
Abstract
Abstract
A Study of the Recorder's Court:
Does Sentencing Disparity Exist and if so, Why?
The judiciary, unlike the legislature, is not designed to be
responsive to the desires of the
people; rather its role is to decide disputes consistent with the
Constitution and laws. In criminal cases,
courts determine the validity of charges brought against a
defendant. Some individuals are found
innocent and can walk away from the court unscathed, while other
defendants are judged guilty of a
crime and sentenced. In all situations, sentences affect how
citizens view the judiciary. This perception is
significant because the judiciary's authority depends upon the
public's belief in the legitimacy of the
courts. Although designed to make decisions on the basis of law,
history demonstrates that other
characteristics can influence sentencing outcomes made by the
judiciary. Since the early 1920s, social
scientists have tried to explain sentencing disparity where
similarly situated defendants receive unequal
penalties There are three theories that describe how sentencing
outcomes can be reached. The first
theory explains that a defendant's race and gender determines how
the court imposes sentences due to
continued racial discrimination and gender bias in the judicial
system. The second theory, judicial
background characteristics, states that that the background of the
judge, including race and gender,
influences sentencing outcomes. The final theory, judicial
socialization, runs counter to the background
characteristic theory. This theory states that because all judges
go through the same socialization
process (i.e. legal education, judicial norms in court), their
decisions are made in the same way and are
not influenced by their backgrounds . The purpose of this study is
to test the applicability of these three
different approaches in understanding sentencing outcomes in the
context of the Recorder's Court.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Theories of Sentencing Disparity Pg. 1
Chapter 2: Recorder's Court Pg. 17
Chapter 3: Research Design Pg. 23
Chapter 4: Results Pg. 30
Chapter 5: Conclusion & Further Research Pg. 55
Table of Graphs and Tables
Graph 1: 2008 Traffic Violation Caseload Nationwide Pg. 17
Chart 1: Process of Arraignment Appearance Pg. 20
Chart 2: Options for Sentences Pg. 25
Table 1: Background Characteristics: Judge Race and Gender Pg.
31
Table 2: Defendant's Characteristics Pg. 33
Table 3: Judicial Socialization Pg. 36
Table 4: Sentencing Outcomes Pg. 37
Table 5: Pleas and Sentence Outcomes without Lawyers Pg. 39
Table 6: State Minimum Requirement by Judge with Sentence Outcome
Pg. 40
Table 7: State Minimum Requirement by Defendant's Characteristics
with Sentence Outcome Pg. 41
Table 8: State Minimum Requirement by Judicial Socialization &
Sentence Outcome Pg. 42
Table 9: Sentence Outcomes with State Minimum Requirement Pg.
44
Table 10: Judicial Background Characteristics and Sentencing Pg.
45
Table 11: Defendant's Characteristics and Sentencing Pg. 46
Table 12: Hispanic Sentence Outcomes with Translators Pg. 47
Table 13: Sentence outcome by Judge by Defendant's Race Pg.
49
Table 14: Sentence outcome by Judge by Gender of the Defendant Pg.
51
Table 15: Judicial Socialization & Sentencing Pg. 52
Table 16: Judge by Violation Type Pg. 53
Table 17: Sentence Outcomes of Ordinance Violations &
Non-Ordinance Violations for Judge C Pg. 54
Table 18: Results of the Study Pg. 55
Appendix Pg. 62
Bibliography Pg. 63
About this Honors Thesis
| School | |
|---|---|
| Department | |
| Degree | |
| Submission | |
| Language |
|
| Research Field | |
| Palavra-chave | |
| Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor | |
| Committee Members |
Primary PDF
| Thumbnail | Title | Date Uploaded | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
A Study of the Recorder's Court: Does Sentencing Disparity Exist and if so, Why? () | 2018-08-28 16:29:05 -0400 |
|
Supplemental Files
| Thumbnail | Title | Date Uploaded | Actions |
|---|