CONCEPTUALIZING LEGALLY RELEVANT FACTORS UNDER GUIDELINES: A REPLY TO ULMER
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Some other studies of state court sentencing found that Native Americans were not punished significantly differently from whites.
“Some other studies of state court sentencing (Engen & Gainey 2000, Rodriguez 2003) included but did not focus on Native Americans in their analyses and found that Native Americans were not punished significantly differently from whites.”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Engen & Gainey 2000
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Judging Judicial Discretion: Legal Factors and Racial Discrimination in Sentencing
Bushway, S. D., & Morrison Piehl, A. (2001) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.2307/3185415 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
Sentencing Native Americans in US Federal Courts: An Examination of Disparity
Franklin, T. W. (2013) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.605072 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda
Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2019) · Annual Review of Criminology · doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024805 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Punishment in Indian Country: Ironies of Federal Punishment of Native Americans
Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2018) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2017.1341540 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- ENGEN, R. L., & GAINEY, R. R.
- Affiliations
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Old Dominion University (US)
- Venue
- Criminology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1245-1252
- ISSN
- 0011-1384 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-9125
- OpenAlex
- W2074022305
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Criminology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Law and Policy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- legal guidelines, sentencing, sentencing guidelines, judicial discretion
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
