Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and Its Sentencing Consequences

Rehavi, M. Marit; Starr, Sonja B.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1985377

Cited by 42 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The former is looking simply at the sentencing consequence of being convicted for a quantity at or in excess of a mandatory minimum eligibility threshold relative to being convicted for a quantity less than that threshold. The latter parameter differs in that it must not only account for the impact on sentencing of being convicted for a mandatory minimum eligible quantity, but also account for the fact that defendants, prosecutors and judges may potentially manipulate key case characteristics---in this case drug quantity---in response to what they perceive to be the impact on sentencing of being convicted for a mandatory minimum eligible quantity (see, for example, Bushway and Piehl (2007), Shermer andJohnson (2009), andStarr andRehavi (2014) for discussions of this issue regarding non-drug crimes).…”

Section: Iv(c) -The Impact Of Exceeding Mandatory Minimum Eligibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Miethe (1987), Bjerk (2005), Ulmer, Kurlychek, and Kramer (2007), Bushway and Piehl (2007), Piehl and Bushway (2007) look at how state prosecutors manipulate charges and/or decline to pursue a mandatory minimum sentencing policy to circumvent specific state presumptive sentencing guidelines. Relatedly, Rehavi and Starr (2014) show that, even conditional on initial arrest charge, federal prosecutors are more likely to charge black defendants with a mandatory minimum sentence eligible crime than white defendants, which has substantial explanatory power regarding the resulting differences in sentencing across…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An important distinction between Rehavi and Starr's (2014) study and this one is that they focus almost exclusively on non-drug offenses, while this study focuses exclusively on drug offenses. Moreover, while the study below focuses exclusively on what happens after conviction charge (and conviction quantity) has been determined, as Rehavi and Starr (2014) and the other papers cited above make clear, the negotiation and sentence bargaining that occurs after conviction is only part of the overall story given the negotiations that likely also take place prior to conviction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mandatory Minimums and the Sentencing of Federal Drug Crimes

Bjerk¹

2017

The Journal of Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Mandatory Minimums and the Sentencing of Federal Drug Crimes FebruAry 2017Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5-9 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Email: publications@iza.org www.iza.org IZA -Institute of Labor EconomicsDiscussion PaPer series IZA DP No. 10544 This paper shows that the actual impact of these mandatory minimums on sentencing is quite nuanced. A large fraction of mandatory minimum eligible offenders, particularly first-time offenders, are able to avoid these mandatory minimums. Moreover, despite lower quantity eligibility thresholds for crack, a smaller fraction of crack offenders are eligible for mandatory minimums relative to other drugs. Furthermore, while being just eligible for a mandatory minimum increases sentence length on average, the impact is not uniform across drugs. Notably, sentences for crack offenders are generally sufficiently long such that, on average, sentences for crack offenders are not impacted by eligibility for a mandatory minimum. In summary, the discrepancy in federal sentencing between crack offenders and those convicted for other drugs does not appear to be driven by mandatory minimums, but rather other aspects of federal sentencing policy and norms. Mandatory Minimums and the Sentencing of Federal Drug Crimes JEL Classification:J15, K14, K40

show abstract

Section: Iv(c) -The Impact Of Exceeding Mandatory Minimum Eligibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mandatory Minimums and the Sentencing of Federal Drug Crimes

Bjerk¹

2017

The Journal of Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The result is that law reviews and law and social science journals regularly publish quality research done by "uncredentialed" law professors. Moreover, in doing their research, law professors, perhaps because they have so much bright student labor www.annualreviews.org • Growing Up in Law and Societythey can call on, regularly assemble novel data sets that allow unique insights into issues (Beny 2008, Rehavi & Starr 2012.…”

Section: The Legal Academymentioning

confidence: 99%

Growing Up in Law and Society: The Pulls of Policy and Methods

Lempert

2013

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article begins by tracing the aspirations and training that led to Lempert's commitment to the field of law and social science and includes comments on prominent figures in the field, the emergence of empirical legal studies, and other matters. It may interest scholars who seek to understand the history of the field's revival, and those who were among the first generation of Law and Society Association members may see some of their own experience in Lempert's account. The article then discusses policy uses of law and social science research and cautions against the possibility that a study's policy appeal may exceed the weight that can fairly be put on it. Five studies are used as examples: Wilson and Kelling's essay on “broken windows,” Sherman and Berk's work on arrest for spouse abuse, Ehrlich's article on the deterrent effects of the death penalty, Lott and Mustard's work on right-to-carry laws, and Sander's mismatch critique of affirmative action. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance to policy of understanding mechanism and the need for sophistication in the soft methods of study design, along with a good understanding of formal statistics.

show abstract

“…There are a growing number of papers being presented on prosecution and plea bargaining at the annual meetings of both the American Society of Criminology (ASC) and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS). Rehavi and Starr (2012) have recently released a potentially groundbreaking paper on the creation of racial disparity by prosecutors through the disproportionate application of mandatory sentences in the federal system. This paper utilizes brand new data linking indictment and conviction data (see also Johnson, 2012).…”

Section: Editorial Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial Introduction

Bushway¹

2012

Justice Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and Its Sentencing Consequences

Cited by 42 publications

References 40 publications

Mandatory Minimums and the Sentencing of Federal Drug Crimes

Mandatory Minimums and the Sentencing of Federal Drug Crimes

Growing Up in Law and Society: The Pulls of Policy and Methods

Editorial Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About