Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22

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

Lynch, Mona·2019·Law & Social Inquiry
DOI 10.1111/lsi.12334
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lsi.12334

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. 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
  2. Feeley, 1994, “Actuarial Justice: The Emerging New Criminal Law.” In The Futures of Criminology, 173
  3. 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
  4. Schmitt, 2013, Why Judges Matter at Sentencing: A Reply to Starr and Rehavi, Yale Law Journal Online, 123, 251
  5. 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
  6. Stablein, 1999, Studying Organization: Theory and Methods, 347
  7. US Sentencing Commission, 2015, Guidelines Manual
  8. US Sentencing Commission, 2016, Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview
  9. US Sentencing Commission, 2017, The Past Predicts the Future: Criminal History and Recidivism of Federal Offenders
  10. Weber, 1978, Economy and Society

Cited by

See all 22

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
DOI
10.1111/lsi.12334
Cited by
22
References
62
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
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

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.