Research on Sentencing The Search for Reform, Volume II (1983) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 THE ROLE OF EXTRALEGAL FACTORS IN DETERMINING CRIMINAL CASE DISPOSITION
3 THE ROLE OF EXTRALEGAL FACTORS IN DETERMINING CRIMINAL CASE DISPOSITION
Pages 129-183
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 129... ...
Correlations between outcomes of the various processing stages in the criminal justice system and measured case and defendant characteristics are examined. Discrimination is analyzed by testing for an empirical association between extralegal characteristics, such as race and socioeconomic status, and various decisions in the criminal justice system, holding constant observable, legally relevant case and defendant characteristics.
|
From page 130... ...
It is then possible in principle to make inferences about the extent of discrimination that are not distorted by the inevitable lack of accurate measurements of the primary determinants of case disposition. The methods we propose are relatively complex, but we know of no simpler way to control for the effects of unobservable variables.
|
From page 131... ...
. The next section is a brief discussion of the trade-offs in specifying alternative structural models of the criminal justice system.
|
From page 132... ...
A number of studies examine the choice of legal representation, distinguishing no attorney, a public defender, and privately retained counsel. The choice of legal representation is expected to affect primarily the probability of conviction and the sentence resulting from a plea bargain.
|
From page 133... ...
Third, all the studies that include a variable denoting whether the defendant makes bail infer that it is an important factor in case outcome. Fourth, most of the studies that include legal representation found that it affects case outcome, but the nature of this effect varies considerably among the
|
From page 134... ...
LaFree (1980a) found that for forcible sex offenses, cases involving white victims and black defendants are generally treated more harshly.
|
From page 135... ...
The Conviction Process LaFree (1980a, 1980b) focuses on factors affecting conviction at trial for forcible sex offenses.
|
From page 136... ...
None of the studies proposes an explicit theory of the plea bargaining process. The choice of plea is approached in an exploratory fashion, with different researchers examining the role of different factors.
|
From page 137... ...
found that seriousness of the offense, the defendant's prior record, and the defendant's legal representation influence the bail amount. Defendants represented by courtroom regulars and public defenders on average are required to post lower bonds.
|
From page 138... ...
It is expected that the greater the probability of conviction and the more serious the offense, the greater the incentive of the defendant to retain higher-quality legal representation. A private attorney is assumed to mount the best defense and no attorney the worst.
|
From page 139... ...
LaFree (1980a:850) also found that the racial composition of the victim-defendant dyed affects the charge decision; cases involving a black defendant and a white victim led to a more serious charge.
|
From page 140... ...
It presumably operates through the conviction process by affecting the defendant's ability to put together a successful defense. In some studies the quality of legal representation and the type of plea also seem to play a role.
|
From page 141... ...
BIASES INDUCED BY MEASUREMENT ERROR AND OMITTED VARIABIES The discussion above suggests that it is extremely difficult to measure many of the principal determinants of case disposition. In this section we discuss the implications of measurement error and omitted variables for inferences about the extent of discrimination in the criminal justice system.
|
From page 142... ...
The discussion serves The Statistical Consequences of Failing to Control Adequately for the Primary Determinants We begin with a simple example. Suppose that we are interested in the following relationship:5 y = fix*
|
From page 143... ...
, z, and u. The variable x is called a classical proxy and £ iS referred to as the measurement error in x.7 Suppose that x is used to "control" for x*
|
From page 144... ...
The following discussion of the conditions under which the bias will be large relative to the true effect suggests that the estimates of the role of extralegal variables in the various studies may be seriously distorted. For the case of one variable measured with error, it can be shown that the bias in the estimate of a correctly measured variable will be larger relative to its true coefficient:l° (1)
|
From page 145... ...
and (4) suggest that the bias in the estimates of the role of extralegal factors will be large when the primary determinants of case disposition are measured with considerable error.
|
From page 146... ...
Condition (4) above suggests that under these circumstances, the measurement error in prior record will bias the estimates of the effects of extralegal factors considerably less than the measurement errors involved in seriousness and quality of the evidence.
|
From page 147... ...
This suggests that measurement error bias could substantially obscure the true incidence of discrimination in the criminal justice system. In the following subsection we present four examples of how measurement error bias might have distorted inferences in the literature about the incidence of discrimination in the criminal justice system.
|
From page 148... ...
A similar explanation may account for the finding in a number of studies that defendants with higher-quality legal representation experience more favorable case dispositions, holding constant a number of other legally relevant factors. Suppose that higher-income individuals commit less serious crimes and that the quality of legal representation is highly (positively)
|
From page 149... ...
AN ILLUSTRATIVE STRUCTURAL MODEL OF CRIMINAL CASE DISPOSITIONS A natural response to the interpretation difficulties raised in the previous section is to model explicitly the various links among observable variables and the unobservable theoretical constructs that are hypothesized to be the primary determinants of case disposition. Such models are often described as "structural models involving latent variables" and have found applications in economics, political science, psychology, and sociology.ll The effects of unobserved variables may be estimable if we can observe multiple variables (often called "indicators")
|
From page 150... ...
's with various subscripts. Observed exogenous variables believed to have direct effects on the indicators are denoted by z's with various subscripts and observed exogenous variables believed to affect case disposition through the latent variables are denoted by x's with various subscripts.
|
From page 151... ...
In the event of an affirmative decision to press charges, the prosecutor may subsequently choose to nolle the charges.13 We combine the rejection and nolle decisions into a single prosecutorial decision concerning whether to prosecute a case. Studies suggest that the decision to prosecute or dismiss depends principally on the gravity of the offense, the quality of the evidence, and the record of prior criminal activity of the accused.
|
From page 152... ...
and Z3, and 621 and 823 are structural parameters to be estimated. The third structural equation represents the (4)
|
From page 153... ...
The fifth structural equation represents the accused's decision to make the payment required to be released on bail.l6 The likelihood of the accused being released on bail will be determined primarily by the amount of bail, y4, and the defendant's wealth, measured by Z2 Let y5 be an index variable determining the probability of the accused making bail. We assume y5 is determined by Ys = Y54Y4 + 052Z2 + us ~ where US is a disturbance term and y54 and 852 are parameters to be estimated.
|
From page 154... ...
Presentence reports may contain especially valuable information because in many instances they all but recommend the type of sentence the accused should receive. Presentence reports are often lengthy documents that emphasize the convicted criminal's psychological traits, prior criminal record, and the seriousness of the offense.
|
From page 155... ...
where Z1 is the race of the accused (as defined above) , e is the education of the accused, ~1 is a K1 x 1 vector of observable variables affecting seriousness but appearing nowhere else in the model, c1 is a disturbance, and
|
From page 156... ...
* is a K2 x 1 vector of observable variables affecting the quality of the evidence but appearing nowhere else in the model, £2 is a disturbance, and X, 621, 62e, and a2 are K2 + 3 parameters to be estimated.
|
From page 157... ...
through (15) are the structural equations of the illustrative model of criminal case disposition.
|
From page 158... ...
Our structural parameters, in contrast, yield direct tests of the incidence of discrimination in the criminal justice system. Hence an obviously important question is: Can the structural parameters of direct interest be estimated from observable data?
|
From page 159... ...
, ye) ' be the 9 x 1 vector containing the indicators of the structural model.
|
From page 160... ...
To provide further insight into unobservable variable models generally and the identification issue in particular, consider the following simple model, which embodies the essential features of the reduced form of our illustrative model:27 Y1 = ~ 1Z + V1 ~ Y2 = 62Z + V2 , and Y3 = 63z + v3 , (17a)
|
From page 161... ...
161 N N a; o U cn au 'lo U U U]
|
From page 162... ...
162 + ~ ~+ + ~D + ~+= Om + + + + ~+ =1 ~+ ~x ~ + 1 ~J ,<: '- ~L _' ~,< ~ ~a1 ~D cr.
|
From page 163... ...
This is a simplified version of the structure of the reduced-form disturbances of our illustrative model. It captures the essential features of the reduced-form disturbances in our structural model.28 The principal value of this simple model is that it allows us to demonstrate fairly simply the way identification was verified for our more complicated structural model (and the way identification can generally be verified in structural equation models)
|
From page 164... ...
Verification of the identification status of our illustrative structural model is a straightforward if tedious application of this principle.32 HOW THE ILLUSTRATIVE STRUCTURAL MODEL ALLOWS DI SENTANGLI NG THE VA RI OUS SOURCE S OF RACE-OUTCOME CORRELATIONS: A HEURISTIC DI SCUSSION The fundamental difficulty in empirical examinations of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is the fact that correlations between race and case outcomes are likely to reflect both discriminatory and nondiscriminatory factors at distinct stages of the criminal justice process. Distinguishing empirically among these various sources of correlation appears to be the appropriate focus of future empirical studies.
|
From page 165... ...
Thus, a priori restrictions are the source of identification in structural equation models. Restrictions that are inappropriate, however, introduce biases.
|
From page 166... ...
The structural coefficients of race are 611' 621, 611, 631, 641, 671, 681' and 891- Inspection of Tables 3-1 and 3-2 reveals that these parameters appear in no other reduced-form coefficients, nor do they appear in the variances and covariances of the reduced-form disturbances. Thus even if all the other structural parameters In n1 were known, only these mixtures of structural parameters can be helpful in identifying 611, 621, 011, 831, 841, 071' 081, and 891.
|
From page 167... ...
These include the choice between a bench and a jury trial, whether the accused volunteers restitution, whether the accused enters a drug or alcohol rehabi libation program, and more detailed information concerning the extent of the defense effort. IDENTIFICATION IN LATENT VARIABLE MODELS WITH SAMPLE SELECTI ON Sample selection is a natural feature of the criminal justice system.
|
From page 168... ...
, but in fact yield solutions for all of the structural parameters.37 Sample selection does not introduce any additional parameters to be estimated and does not reduce the number
|
From page 169... ...
This problem does not appear to affect the estimability of structural equation models precisely because they control completely for the effects of unobservable variables. In the context of the present application this conclusion must be qualified in one important respect.
|
From page 170... ...
in our illustrative model. The dependent variable in this model is an index of the strength of the case for purposes of prosecution.
|
From page 171... ...
desirable extensions of the illustrative model. Finally, we discuss issues relating to the fact that often only qualitative rather than continuous data concerning various outcomes of the criminal justice system are available.
|
From page 172... ...
. Finally, Bayesian analysis explicitly incorporating subjective prior information about the structural parameters may also contribute to our knowledge concerning the role of extralegal factors in affecting criminal case disposition.
|
From page 173... ...
, an additional unobservable variable representing culpability might be introduced into the model. Another desirable extension of the illustrative structural model would involve use of an explicit theory to structure the suspected correlations between race and seriousness and case quality.
|
From page 174... ...
discusses latent variable models with qualitative indicators. Maximumrlikelihood techniques, while somewhat complex in this context, are likely to provide a feasible approach to estimation CONCLUDING REMARKS , ~ In our view, the empirical literature on the criminal justice system has evolved in a natural and appropriate way.
|
From page 175... ...
Satisfactory resolution of the role of extralegal factors in determining criminal case disposition will be difficult. Structural equation mode ;na chest helm hill it is not a panacea.
|
From page 176... ...
We avoid the plea bargain issue, despite its importance, because of the apparent lack of any widely held views concerning the determinants of the plea bargain decision. Incorporation of especially controversial relationships in the illustrative model could seriously compromise our objectives.
|
From page 177... ...
14. We use 0's throughout for coefficients of unobservable variables and B's for coefficients of observable variables.
|
From page 178... ...
are redefined here in order to emphasize the analogies between the simplified model employed here and our illustrative model of the criminal justice process .
|
From page 179... ...
If that is the case, however, this indicator would still be quite valuable. Suppose that defendants anticipate discrimination in the way described by the other structural equations.
|
From page 180... ...
42. Note, however, that one would not want to delete equations representing decisions resulting in sample selections because it is precisely the structure provided by these equations that allows us to correct the sample selection bias.
|
From page 181... ...
New York: Wiley. 1973 Structural equation models: an overview.
|
From page 182... ...
J 1977 Extra-legal factors in Chicago's criminal courts: testing the conflict model of criminal justice.
|
From page 183... ...
W 1975 A statistical analysis of sentencing in federal courts: defendants convicted after trial, 1967-1968.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.