Cited by 142Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Justice and PenologyEducation Discipline and Inequality

Structural bias in the sentencing of felony defendants

Open access
Sutton, John R.·2013·Social Science Research

Abstract

As incarceration rates have risen in the US, so has the overrepresentation of African Americans and Latinos among prison inmates. Whether and to what degree these disparities are due to bias in the criminal courts remains a contentious issue. This article pursues two lines of argument toward a structural account of bias in the criminal law, focusing on (1) cumulative disadvantages that may accrue over successive stages of the criminal justice process, and (2) the contexts of racial disadvantage in which courts are embedded. These arguments are tested using case-level data on male defendants charged with felony crimes in urban US counties in 2000. Multilevel binary and ordinal logit models are used to estimate contextual effects on pretrial detention, guilty pleas, and sentence severity, and cumulative effects are estimated as conditional probabilities that are allowed to vary by race across all three outcomes. Results yield strong, but qualified, evidence of cumulative disadvantage accruing to black and Latino defendants, but do not support the contextual hypotheses. When the cumulative effects of bias are taken into account, the estimated probability of the average African American or Latino felon going to prison is 26% higher than that of the average Anglo.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People of color are disproportionately more likely than White people to be subjected to pretrial detention, incarceration, and community supervision.

    “People of color are also disproportionately more likely to be subjected to pretrial detention (Schlesinger, 2005, 2007; Sutton, 2013), incarceration (Bishop et al., 2020), and community supervision (i.e., probation and parole; Phelps, 2020).”

    From A call to dismantle systemic racism in criminal legal systems. (2022) · cites this paper as Sutton, 2013

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 125 · Cited by 142

Authors
Sutton, J. R.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Sutton, John R.
Venue
Social Science Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
1207-1221
ISSN
0049-089X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3125629653
Cited by
142
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3
FWCI
21.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Science Research (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education Discipline and Inequality
Keywords
structural bias, racial disparities in sentencing, felony defendants, pretrial detention, guilty plea, sentence severity, cumulative disadvantage, African American defendants, incarceration, criminal justice process, urban counties

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review