The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
“The Narrative of the Number: Quantification in Criminal Court
Abstract
Scholars have documented the explosion in quantification of social phenomena within organizational settings.A key site of the quantitative turn has been in the penallegal field, with purported transformative effects.This article draws from a field research project examining the on-the-ground implementation of the federal sentencing guidelines to explore how the guidelines' numbers-based logic is both articulated and reconstituted by legal actors in the adversarial process.Complementing macro-level work that examines the transformative effects of quantification at the social-structural level, I take a micro-level, empirically grounded approach that analytically focuses on day-to-day interactions in court to reveal quantification's possibilities and limits.I identify three adversarial strategies that narrate the meaning of the guideline calculation to demonstrate how the complex quantitative guidelines system becomes incorporated into narrative form to know, assess, and judge legal subjects.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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
“Yet it soon turned out that instead of eliminating discretion, the sentencing guidelines led to a displacement of discretion.”
From Technologies of Crime Prediction: The Reception of Algorithms in Policing and Criminal Courts (2021) · cites this paper as Lynch 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226550 · Cited by 28,308
Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison
D'Amico, R. (1978) · Telos · doi:10.3817/0678036169 · Cited by 19,439
Foucault, M. (1982) · Critical Inquiry · doi:10.1086/448181 · Cited by 8,496
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226185941.001.0001 · Cited by 7,617
The Narrative Construction of Reality
Bruner, J. (1991) · Critical Inquiry · doi:10.1086/448619 · Cited by 5,728
Hacking, I. (1990) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819766 · Cited by 3,646
Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/517897 · Cited by 2,600
The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications
Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01112.x · Cited by 2,109
Commensuration as a Social Process
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.313 · Cited by 2,085
`How many cases do I need?': On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research
Small, M. L. (2009) · Ethnography · doi:10.1177/1466138108099586 · Cited by 2,023
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Albonetti, 1997, Sentencing Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Effects of Defendant Characteristics, Guilty Pleas, and Departures on Sentence Outcomes for Drug Offenses, 1991-1992.” Law and, Society Review, 31, 789
- Feeley, 1994, “Actuarial Justice: The Emerging New Criminal Law.” In The Futures of Criminology, 173
- Nagel, 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
- Schmitt, 2013, Why Judges Matter at Sentencing: A Reply to Starr and Rehavi, Yale Law Journal Online, 123, 251
- Schulhofer, 1996, Plea Negotiations Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Guideline Circumvention and its Dynamics in the Post-Mistretta Period, Northwestern University Law Review, 91, 1284
- Stablein, 1999, Studying Organization: Theory and Methods, 347
- US Sentencing Commission, 2015, Guidelines Manual
- US Sentencing Commission, 2016, Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview
- US Sentencing Commission, 2017, The Past Predicts the Future: Criminal History and Recidivism of Federal Offenders
- Weber, 1978, Economy and Society
Cited by
Technologies of Crime Prediction: The Reception of Algorithms in Policing and Criminal Courts
Brayne, S., & Christin, A. (2021) · Social Problems · doi:10.1093/socpro/spaa004 · Cited by 279
Metadata
- Authors
- Lynch, M.
- Venue
- Law & Social Inquiry
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2019-01-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-57
- ISSN
- 0897-6546
- 1747-4469
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 62
- Language
- en
- Funders
- National Science Foundation, Law and Social Science Program (1251700)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “The Narrative of the Number: Quantification in Criminal Court. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/lsi.12334
- The paper
- Lynch, M. (2019). “The Narrative of the Number: Quantification in Criminal Court. Law & Social Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12334
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.