The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Law, Social Standing and Racial Disparities in Imprisonment
Abstract
A central and recurring concern in the sociology of criminal law is racial disparity in imprisonment—blacks are much more likely than whites to be imprisoned for crimes. Sociological theories disagree over the sources of imprisonment disparity. Prior research has ignored the social, economic, and legal characteristics of states and regions of the country that may contribute to disparity. The present study finds differences in the social standing of blacks relative to whites that explain substantial and statistically significant variation in racial disparity in imprisonment across states after racial differences in involvement in crime are controlled. Blacks are more likely than whites to be imprisoned in states where the black population is a small percentage of the total population and predominantly urban. The implications of these findings for a structural theory of punishment are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“studies suggest that after controlling for criminal behavior, African Americans are more likely than Caucasians to become incarcerated [Bridges and Crutchfield (1988)]”
From An algorithm for removing sensitive information: Application to race-independent recidivism prediction (2019) · cites this paper as Bridges and Crutchfield (1988)
In the citing paper
“Typically, post-release re-offense is measured by re-arrest, and there are many reasons to believe that re-arrest may be a biased measure of re-offense with respect to race.”
From An algorithm for removing sensitive information: Application to race-independent recidivism prediction (2019) · cites this paper as Bridges and Crutchfield (1988)
Citations
Cites
Extra-Legal Factors in Chicago's Criminal Courts: Testing the Conflict Model of Criminal Justice
Lizotte, A. J. (1978) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/800105 · Cited by 201
The Effect of Race on Sentencing: A Re-Examination of An Unsettled Question
Spohn, C., Gruhl, J., & Welch, S. (1982) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.2307/3053550 · Cited by 186
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Difference, Disparity, and Race/Ethnic Bias in Federal Sentencing
Everett, R. S., & Wojtkiewicz, R. A. (2002) · Journal of Quantitative Criminology · doi:10.1023/a:1015258732676 · Cited by 187
Johndrow, J. E., & Lum, K. (2019) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/18-aoas1201 · Cited by 141
LIN, J., GRATTET, R., & PETERSILIA, J. (2010) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00201.x · Cited by 127
Metadata
- Authors
- Bridges, G. S., & Crutchfield, R. D.
- Venue
- Social Forces
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1988-03
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 699
- ISSN
- 0037-7732
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 2
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
