Maximizing Charges: Overcriminalization and Prosecutorial Practices During the Crime Decline

Schoenfeld, Heather; Durso, Rachel M.; Albrecht, Kat

doi:10.1108/s1059-433720180000077007

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also capture the number of charges at arrest (for detention and conviction) and the number of charges at conviction (for prison and jail). We include whether the charge at filing was a mandatory minimum charge, where mandatory minimums are filed at low levels, which is common in Florida (Schoenfeld et al., 2018). Although they are low in general, they are used slightly more often at filing for White Latinos relative to other groups.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, mandatory minimums and sentencing enhancements directly build in inequalities into sentencing (Fischman & Scanzenbach, 2012; Lynch & Omori, 2014). Even when they are not applied in sentencing, mandatory minimums may be used as a negotiating tool for securing convictions (Schoenfeld, Durso, & Albrecht, 2018).…”

Section: Institutionalized Inequality In Criminal Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Institutionalizing inequality in the courts: Decomposing racial and ethnic disparities in detention, conviction, and sentencing*

Omori

Petersen

2020

Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A significant body of literature has examined racial and ethnic inequalities in sentencing, focusing on how individual court actors make decisions, but fewer scholars have examined whether disparities are institutionalized through legal case factors. After finding racial and ethnic inequalities in pretrial detention, conviction, and incarceration based on 4 years of felony court data (N = 83,924) from Miami‐Dade County, we estimate nonlinear decomposition models to examine how much of the inequalities are explained by differences in criminal history, charging, and for conviction and incarceration, pretrial detention. Results suggest that inequality is greatest between White non‐Latinos and Black Latinos, followed by White non‐Latinos and Black non‐Latinos, ranging from 4 to more than 8 percentage points difference in the probability of pretrial detention, 7–13 points difference in conviction, 5–6 points in prison, and 4–10 points difference in jail. We find few differences between White non‐Latinos and White Latinos. Between half and three‐quarters of the inequality in pretrial detention, conviction, and prison sentences between White non‐Latino and Black people is explained through legal case factors. Our findings indicate that inequality is, in part, institutionalized through legal case factors, suggesting these factors are not “race neutral” but instead racialized and contribute to inequalities in court outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%