Because the most important court decisions are not regulated by due process, any study concerned with discrimination should examine those informal processes. This study focuses on the processes of charge bargaining and sentence reduction. We identify criteria associated with these decisions and examine the differences in outcomes by gender of the defendant. It is found that dimensions of defense are the most important in determining a plea outcome favorable to the defendant, and that males fare better than females in this process. This suggests that policies stressing equalization of defense resources might be crucial in the regulation of plea bargaining.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alpert, G. P.
and C. R. Huff 1983 “Defending the accused: counsel effectiveness and strategies,” in W. F. McDonald (ed.) The Defense Counsel, Vol. 18, Sage Criminal Justice Annals. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
Banfield, L.
and D. C. Anderson1968“Continuances in Cook County criminal courts.”University of Chicago Law Review35: 259.
3.
Bashara, G. N., Jr.
, and S. C. Gardner 1978 “Plea bargaining: a useful tool in the criminal justice process,” in Criminal Justice Issues: Prompt trial. Detroit, MI: Citizens Research Council of Michigan.
4.
Bernstein, I.
, S. Nagel, J. Cardasia, and C. E. Ross 1979 “Defendant's sex and criminal court decisions,” in R. Alvarez (ed.) Discrimination in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Bernstein, T.
, E. Kick, J. Leong, and B. Schultz1977“Charge reduction an intermediary state in the process of labelling criminal defendants.”Social Forces56 (December): 362-384.
6.
Blumberg, A. S.
1967 Criminal Justice. New York: Quadrangle.
7.
Brosi, K. B.
1979 A Cross City Comparison of Felony Case Processing. Washington, DC: INSLAW.
8.
Brunk, C. G.1979“The problem of voluntariness and coercion in the negotiated plea.”Law and Society Review13 (Winter): 527-554.
9.
Buckle, S. R.
and L. G. Buckle 1977 Bargaining for Justice: Case Disposition and Reform in the Criminal Courts. New York: Praeger.
10.
Chambliss, W. J.
and R. B. Seidman 1971 Law, Order and Power. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11.
Chestney-Lind, M.
1979 “Chivalry reexamined: women and the criminal justice system,” in L. H. Bowker (ed.) Women, Crime and the Criminal Justice System. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
12.
Chiricos, T. G.
and G. P. Waldo1975“Socioeconomic status and criminal sentencing: an empirical assessment of a conflict proposition.”Amer. Soc. Rev.40: 735-772.
13.
Church, T.1979“In defense of bargain justice.”Law and Society Review13 (Winter): 509-526.
14.
Cleary, J. J.1978“Plea negotiation and its effects on sentencing.”Federal Bar J.37: 61-75.
15.
Clements, M.1972“Sex and sentencing.”Southwestern Law J.26: 890-904.
16.
Corbett, J. C.1975“Plea bargaining.”Brooklyn Barrister26: 99-103.
17.
Curran, D. A.1983“Judicial discretion and defendant's sex.”Criminology21, 1: 41-58.
18.
Dodge, D. C.1978“Plea bargaining revisited.”State Court Journal2: 13-18, 38-40.
19.
Eisenstein, J.
and H. Jacob 1977 Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
20.
Ekstrand, L. E.
and W. A. Eckert1978“Defendant's sex as a factor in sentencing.”Experimental Study of Politics6: 90-112.
21.
Enker, A.
1967 “Perspectives on plea bargaining,” in Task Force Report: The Courts. Washington, DC: President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice.
22.
Farnworth, M.
and P. M. Horan1980“Separate justice: an analysis of race differences in court processes.”Social Science Research9: 38-399.
23.
Feeley, M. M.
1979a The Process is Punishment. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
24.
Feeley, M. M.1979b“Pleading guilty in lower courts.”Law and Society13 (Winter): 461-466.
25.
Feinman, C.1979“Sex role stereotypes and justice for women.”Crime and Delinquency24: 88.
26.
Felson, M.
and L. Cohen1981“Quantitative output of the criminal justice system.”Social Indicators Research9: 61-83.
27.
Figueira-Mcdonough, J.
1981a Court Process in Plainfield. Report to the National Institute of Justice (December).
28.
Figueira-Mcdonough, J.
1981b Types of Pleas in Washington, D. C. Report to the National Institute of Justice (October).
29.
Figueira-Mcdonough, J.
, R. Sarri, A. Iglehart, and T. Williams 1980 Women in Prison. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
30.
Figueira-Mcdonough
and T. Williams 1982 “A comparative analysis of processing stages in criminal courts.”Center for Political Studies Paper Series, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
31.
Finklestein, M. O.1975“Statistical analysis of guilty plea practices in the federal courts.”Harvard Law Rev.89: 293-315.
32.
Folberg, H. J.1968“Bargained for guilty plea: an evaluation.”Criminal Law Bull.4: 201-212.
33.
Gottfredson, M. R.
and D. M. Gottfredson 1980 Decision-Making in Criminal Justice: Toward the Rational Exercise of Discretion. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
34.
Green, E.
1961 Judicial Attitudes in Sentencing. London: Macmillan.
35.
Green, F.1964“Inter and intra racial crime relative to sentencing.”J. of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science55: 348-358.
36.
Green, T. S.
, J. D. Ward, and A. Arcuri1975“Fairness and inadequacy of representation.”Columbia Human Rights Rev.7: 495-527.
37.
Hagan, J.1974“Extra legal attributes and criminal sentencing: an assessment of the sociological view point.”Law and Society Rev.8: 357-365.
38.
Hagan, J.
and I. N. Bernstein1979“The sentence bargaining of upperworld and underworld crime in ten federal district courts.”Law and Society Rev.13 (Winter): 467-478.
39.
Hahn, N.
and E. Stanko (eds.) 1982 Judge, Lawyer, Victim, Thief: Women and the Criminal Justice System. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press.
40.
Haney, C.
and M.J. Lowy1979“Review of Heumann's plea bargaining.”Law and Society Rev.13 (Winter): 633-649.
41.
Hart, H.L.A.
1967 Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
42.
Heuman, M.1975“Note on plea bargaining and case pressure.”Law and Society Rev.9: 515-523.
43.
Heuman, M.
1978 Plea Bargaining: The Experience of Prosecutors, Judges and Defense Attorneys. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.
44.
Hewitt, J. D.1977“The effects of individual resources on judicial sentencing.”Public Data Use5: 30-51.
45.
Hoanie, A. 1978 Stratagems and Values: An Analysis of Plea Bargaining in an Urban Criminal Court. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.
46.
Horan, R. M.
, M. A. Myers, and M. Farnworth1982“Prior record and court processes: the role of latent theory in criminology research.”Sociology and Social Research.
47.
Jacoby, J. E.
1980 The American Prosecutor: A Search for Identity. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
48.
Kravitz, K.
1978 Issues in Sentencing: A Selected Bibliography. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
49.
Levin, M. A.
1977 Urban Politics and the Criminal Courts. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
50.
Littrell, W. B.
1979 Bureaucratic Justice: Police, Prosecutors and Plea Bargaining. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
51.
Mather, L. M.
1979 Plea Bargaining or Trial? The Process of Criminal Case Disposition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
52.
Maynard, D. W.1982“Defendants attributes in plea bargaining: notes on the modeling of sentencing decision.”J. of Criminal Law and Criminology29, 4: 347-359.
53.
Mcdonald, W. F.
, J. A. Cramer and H. S. Miller 1977 Plea Bargaining in the United States. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
54.
Miller, H. S.
, W. F. Mcdonald, and J. A. Cramer 1978 Plea Bargaining in the United States. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, LEAA, U.S. Department of Justice.
55.
Morgan, J.
and R. Messenger 1973 THAID: A Sequential Analysis Program for the Analysis of Nominal Scale Dependent Variable. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
56.
Morris, N.
and G. Hawkins 1977 Letter to the President on Crime Control. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
57.
Myers, M.
and J. Hagan1979“Private and public trouble: prosecutors and the allocation of court resources.”Social Problems26 (April): 439-450.
58.
Nagel, S.
and M. Neff 1976 Impact on Plea Bargaining of Judicial Process Changes. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
59.
Nagel, S.
and L. J. Weitzman1971“Women as litigants.”Hastings Law J.23 (November): 171-198.
60.
Nardulli, P. F.1979“The caseload controversy and the study of criminal courts.”J. of Criminal Law and Criminology70: 89-180.
61.
Newman, D. J.1973“Reshape the deal.”Trial9: 11-15.
62.
Noonan, J.
1976 Persons and Masks of the Law. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
63.
Packer, H. L.
1968 The Limits of Criminal Sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
64.
Parisi, N.
1982 “Are females treated differently? A review of the theories and evidence on sentencing and parole decisions,” pp. 205-220 in N. Rafter and E. Stanko (eds.) Judge, Lawyer, Victim and Thief. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press.
65.
Pope, C. E.
1975 Sentencing of California Felony Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Criminal Justice Research Center.
66.
Promis Newsletter 5 1981, March Washington, D.C.; INSLAW.
67.
Rhodes, W. M.
1978 Plea Bargaining: Who Gains, Who Loses?Washington, DC: Institute for Law and Social Research.
68.
Rosett, A.
and D. R. Cressey 1976 Justice by Consent: Plea Bargains in the American Courthouse. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott.
69.
Sarat, A.1977“Understanding trial courts: a critique of social science approaches.”Judicature61: 318-325.
70.
Schuman, K.1979“Review of J. Eisenstein and H. Jacob's felony justice.”Law and Society Rev.13 (Winter): 629-631.
71.
Schur, E.
1971 Labelling Deviant Behavior. New York: Harper and Row.
72.
Scientific Information Retrieval
1979 A New Approach to Integrated Data Base Management for the Researcher. Evanston, IL: Author.
73.
Simon, R. J.
and N. Sharma 1979 The Female Defendant in Washington. Washington, DC: Inslaw.
74.
Sonquist, J.
, E. Baker, and J. Morgan 1971 Searching for Structure. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
75.
Sutton, L. P.
1978 Variations in Federal Criminal Sentences: A Statistical Assessment at the National Level. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
76.
Taylor, T.
, P. Walton, and J. Young 1973 The New Criminology. London/Boston: Routledge and Kegan, Paul.
77.
Thomas, E. S.1974“Plea bargaining: clash between theory and practice.”Loyola Law Rev.20: 303-312.
78.
Thomssen, C. L.
and P. J. Falkowski 1979 Plea Bargaining in Minnesota: Final Report of the Plea Negotiation Study. St. Paul, NM: Crime Control Planning Board.
79.
Tjaden, P. G.
and C. D. Tjaden 1981 “Differential treatment of the female felon: myth or reality,” in M. Q. Warren (ed.) Comparing Male and Female Offenders. Sage Research Progress Series in Criminology, Vol. 21. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
80.
Visher, C. A.1983“Gender, police, arrest decisions and notions of chivalry.”Criminology21 (February): 5-28.
81.
Weimer, D. 1978 “Improving prosecution: the inducement and implementation of innovation for prosecution management.” Ph.D. dissertation, Berkeley, CA.
82.
Wooton, B.
1963 Crime and the Criminal Law. London: Stevens and Sons.
