CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 187Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Justice and PenologyEducation Discipline and Inequality

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Difference, Disparity, and Race/Ethnic Bias in Federal Sentencing

Everett, Ronald S., Wojtkiewicz, Roger A.·2002·Journal of Quantitative Criminology
DOI 10.1023/a:1015258732676
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1015258732676

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Becker, E. R. (1991). Flexibility and discretion available to the sentencing judge under the guideline regime. Federal Probation LV: 10-15.
  2. Bridges, G. S., and Conley, D. (1995). Racial Disproportionality in County Juvenile Ffacilities. Department of Social and Health Services, State of Washington, Olympia, WA.
  3. Maxfield, L. D., and Kramer, J. H. (1998). Substantial Assistance: An Empirical Yardstick Gauging Equity in Current Federal Policy and Practice. United States Sentencing Commission, Washington, DC.
  4. Myers, S. L., Jr. (1993). Racial disparities in sentencing: Can sentencing reforms reduce discrimination in punishment. Colorado Law Review 64: 781-808.
  5. Nagel, I. H., and Schulhofer, S. J. (1992). A tale of three cities: An empirical study of charging and bargaining practices under the federal sentencing guidelines. Southern California Law Review 66: 501-566.
  6. Steury, E. H. (1989). Prosecutorial and judicial discretion. In Champion, D. J. (ed.), The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: Implications for Criminal Justice, Praeger, New York.
  7. Tjoflat, G. B. (1991). The untapped potential for judicial discretion under the federal sentencing guidelines: Advice for counsel. Federal Probation LV: 4-15.
  8. Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing Matters. Oxford University Press, New York.
  9. United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. (1983). Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1983, Report No. 98-225. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
  10. United States Sentencing Commission. (1995). Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
  11. United States Sentencing Commission. (1991b). Guidelines Manual. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
  12. United States Sentencing Commission. (1987). Supplementary Report on the Initial Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
  13. Wilkins, W. W. (1992). Response to Judge Heaney. American Criminal Law Review 29: 795-821.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 187

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Everett, R. S., & Wojtkiewicz, R. A.
Affiliations
  • National Institute of Justice (US)
  • Ball State University (US)
Corresponding author
Wojtkiewicz, Roger A.
Venue
Journal of Quantitative Criminology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2002-06
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
189-211
ISSN
  • 0748-4518 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7799
DOI
10.1023/a:1015258732676
OpenAlex
W11221521
Cited by
187
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
FWCI
5.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Journal of Quantitative Criminology (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
federal sentencing, sentencing guidelines, racial disparities, ethnic disparities, racial bias, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, attribution theory, uncertainty avoidance, conflict theory, criminal justice

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