Cited by 35Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisPolicing Practices and PerceptionsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Racial Disparities in Legal Outcomes: On Policing, Charging Decisions, and Criminal Trial Proceedings

Sommers, Samuel R., Marotta, Satia A.·2014·Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences

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

Crossref · 10.1177/2372732214548431

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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