Cited by 71Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Justice and PenologyEducation Discipline and Inequality

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

Omori, Marisa, Petersen, Nick·2020·Criminology

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1745-9125.12257

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • This review expands upon previous research that has examined racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in convictions and sentencing, showing that similar disparities also exist during the pretrial stage.

    “This expands upon previous research that has examined racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in convictions and sentencing, showing that similar disparities also exist during the pretrial stage (Omori & Petersen, 2020;Paul et al., 2020).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Omori, M., & Petersen, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri–St. Louis (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
Corresponding author
Omori, Marisa
Venue
Criminology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-09-24
Volume
58
Issue
4
Pages
678-713
ISSN
  • 0011-1384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-9125
OpenAlex
W3089064781
Cited by
71
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6
FWCI
8.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
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
racial disparities in criminal justice, ethnic disparities, pretrial detention, conviction rates, incarceration, sentencing, criminal history, charging decisions, Miami-Dade County

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