Racial Disparities in Legal Outcomes: On Policing, Charging Decisions, and Criminal Trial Proceedings
Abstract
Life-altering decisions are made every day in the legal world. Police officers make split-second judgments about whether an individual poses a threat. Prosecutors sort through conflicting accounts of an event in determining whether to charge a suspect. Juries try to reconcile complex evidence in criminal trials and render a unanimous verdict. These decisions often hinge on interpretations of subjective, ambiguous information. Besides being difficult, these decisions are also ripe with the potential for bias, despite their high-stakes nature. The present article focuses on one potential bias, racial disparity in legal outcomes. Here, “bias” refers not just to intentional discrimination or decisions based on overt prejudice (although, of course, as for everyone, some police officers, attorneys, judges, and jurors likely hold conscious prejudices and act on them). Rather, our review of the behavioral science research literature indicates that unconscious—or implicit—racial biases also taint legal decision making. Specifically, this review examines the influence of race on (a) policing, (b) charging decisions, and (c) criminal trial outcomes. Policy interventions include bias training, increasing institutional diversity, and empirically documenting the disparities’ scope. Addressing these disparities also requires acknowledging that all of us, regardless of personal ideology or professional oath, are susceptible to such biases, even when making life-and-death decisions.
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?
Prosecutors seek more severe penalties and judges render more punitive sentences for Black and Latinx defendants.
“In addition, prosecutors seek more severe penalties and judges render more punitive sentences for Black and Latinx defendants”
From A call to dismantle systemic racism in criminal legal systems. (2022) · cites this paper as Sommers & Marotta, 2014
Cites
The essence of innocence: Consequences of dehumanizing Black children.
Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Di Leone, B. A. L., Culotta, C. M., & DiTomasso, N. A. (2014) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0035663 · Cited by 1,134 · see citing works
Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses
Xu, X., Zuo, X., Wang, X., & Han, S. (2009) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2418-09.2009 · Cited by 798 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A call to dismantle systemic racism in criminal legal systems.
Najdowski, C. J., & Stevenson, M. C. (2022) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000510 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sommers, S. R., & Marotta, S. A.
- Affiliations
- Tufts University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sommers, Samuel R.
- Venue
- Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-10
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 103-111
- ISSN
- 2372-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 2372-7330
- OpenAlex
- W2159139168
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 6.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- racial disparities, implicit bias, legal decision-making, policing, charging decisions, prosecutorial decisions, criminal trials, jury decision-making, bias training, institutional diversity, criminal justice
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