CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 751Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Justice and PenologyLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems

An Integration of Theories to Explain Judicial Discretion

Albonetti, Celesta A.·1991·Social Problems
DOI 10.2307/800532
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Based on an integration of work on uncertainty avoidance in decision making with research on causal attribution in punishment, the author hypothesizes that judges attempt to manage uncertainty by developing “patterned responses” that are the product of an attribution process involving assessments of the offender's likelihood of committing future crime. Washington, D. C, felony sentencing data generated by the Prosecutor's Management and Information System (PROMIS) were used to test this integrated theoretical model. Support for the theoretical integration is provided by the evidence of the effects of prior record, defendant's race, use of a weapon, pretrial release, and the interaction between defendant's race and bail outcome on sentence severity. Contrary to common suppositions, information on defendant-victim relationship and victim provocation was unrelated to sentence severity. Further research should examine judges' attempt to reduce uncertainty by relying on stereotypes and attributions linked to the likelihood of recidivism.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/800532

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Prosecutorial and court decisions are made in a context of bounded rationality, in that court actors make decisions with insufficient information, which produces uncertainty.

    “Albonetti (1987Albonetti ( , 1991) ) argued that prosecutorial and court decisions are made in a context of bounded rationality, in that court actors make decisions with insufficient information, which produces uncertainty.”

    From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Albonetti 1991

  • Decision makers fall back on attributions about reoffending risk and/or rehabilitation potential that can be linked to race, ethnicity, gender, and other social status stereotypes, which can result in extralegal sentencing disparity connected to these statuses.

    “Decision makers then fall back on attributions about reoffending risk and/or rehabilitation potential that can be linked to race, ethnicity, gender, and other social status stereotypes.This can then result in extralegal sentencing disparity connected to these statuses.”

    From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Albonetti 1991

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Albonetti, C. A.
Affiliations
Texas A&M University (US)
Corresponding author
Albonetti, Celesta A.
Venue
Social Problems
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1991-05
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
247-266
ISSN
  • 0037-7791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-8533
DOI
10.2307/800532
OpenAlex
W2096314767
Cited by
751
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 34
FWCI
15.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Social Problems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Keywords
judicial discretion, sentencing, uncertainty avoidance, causal attribution, recidivism, offender risk assessment, racial disparities in sentencing, criminal history, bail, weapon use, stereotypes, felony sentencing

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