Who is Diverted? Case Selection for Court‐Monitored Mental Health Treatment

Specialized courts raise questions about the decisions that bring some defendants into such courts and keep others out. Because of risks perceived in diverting mentally ill defendants, decisions to select defendants for mental health courts are especially interesting. I estimate a model of the decision to divert defendants into court‐monitored mental health treatment. I find that gender and age combine to disadvantage young male defendants and older female defendants. The findings point to the importance of structuring selection processes in the design of specialized courts. They shed light on the consequences of including treatment personnel in justice system decisions.     

Gender Disparities in Sentencing Departures: An Examination of U.S. Federal Courts

Using data from the United States Sentencing Commission, the present study examines the role of guideline departures in the sentencing of male and female defendants in federal courts. Findings indicate that female defendants continue to have lower odds of incarceration and to receive shorter sentence length terms, even after legal, extralegal, and contextual factors are controlled. The largest gender difference in the odds of incarceration was found for defendants who received substantial assistance departures, while male and female defendants in this same category were given the most similar sentence lengths. When departure status was examined as a dependent variable, it was found that female defendants were more likely to receive a sentencing departure. Finally, for both males and female defendants sentenced on multiple counts, those who went to trial and had prior criminal histories were less likely to receive sentencing departures. But defendants with higher guidelines sentences, those who had committed drug offenses, and those with more education were more likely to receive a sentencing departure.     

Outcomes of civil protective orders: results from one state

This study compares final sentencing decisions ordered by judges to federal and state sentencing guidelines for protective order violations. The authors reviewed violations that were pled before the largest district court in Utah and found that in the majority of cases, defendants were not sentenced in accordance with federal and state guidelines. Although state guidelines mandate defendants who violate a protective order to attend a batterer intervention program, less than one fourth of defendants were sentenced to attend such programs. Fewer than half of the defendants were arrested and incarcerated, as opposed to the 100% mandated by state sentencing guidelines. Federal guidelines mandate that all defendants be ordered to surrender firearms, but only six defendants were given that order. This study shows that the judicial system could be more aggressive in improving the safety of victims of intimate partner violence by using the full extent of the sentencing guidelines.     

Assessing Cumulative Disadvantage against Minority Female Defendants in State Courts

Abstract

Prior sentencing research, especially research on cumulative disadvantage, has mainly focused on the treatment of male defendants. Little attention has been paid to female defendants, particularly minority female defendants. Drawing on the selective chivalry, evil women, and focal concerns perspectives and using data from the 1990–2009 State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS), this paper investigates the impact of race/ethnicity for female defendants across individual and successive stages in the sentencing process. The results indicate that ethnicity does not operate via indirect or direct pathways, and therefore no evidence of cumulative disadvantage against Hispanic female defendants was detected. The results, however, do suggest that race operates through direct and indirect pathways to cause more punitive sentencing outcomes for Black female defendants compared to White female defendants, thus providing evidence of cumulative disadvantage against Black female defendants. Theoretical, research, and policy implications are discussed.     

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN PRETRIAL RELEASE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES: A COMPARISON OF HISPANIC,BLACK, AND WHITE FELONY ARRESTEES*

The present study uses data on the processing of felony defendants in large urban courts to examine Hispanic, black, and white differences at the pretrial release stage. The major finding is that Hispanic defendants are more likely to be detained than white and black defendants. And, racial/ethnic differences are most pronounced in drug cases. In fact, Hispanic defendants suffer a triple burden at the pretrial release stage as they are the group most likely to be required to pay bail to gain release, the group that receives the highest bail amounts, and the group least able to pay bail. These findings are consistent with a focal concerns perspective of criminal case processing that suggests Hispanics as a newly immigrated group are especially prone to harsher treatment in the criminal case process.     

The percentage deposit bail system: An alternative to the professional bondsman

Bail bondsmen in the United States help defendants gain pretrial release. The preminums paid to bondsmen are not returned to the defendants. A percentage deposit bail project in two Massachusetts courts allowed defendants to gain their release by depositing 5% of the amount of bail with the court. These deposits were returned in full to the defendants upon completion of their cases, saving them large sums of money. Moreover, the rate at which defendants failed to appear in court as scheduled was no higher under this percentage deposit system than under the traditional bail bondsman system.     

BREAKING THE CYCLE OF DRUGS AND CRIME: FINDINGS FROM THE BIRMINGHAM BTC DEMONSTRATION

Research Summary: We compared 137 felony defendants arrested before the implementation of Breaking the Cycle, a pretrial intervention with felony defendants that included drug testing, supervision, and drug treatment as needed, to 245 BTC participants. We found Significant lower rates of arrest and self-reported drug use and crime among BTC participants during the next year.
Policy Implications: Systematic intervention aimed at all drug-involved felony defendants, not just selected defendants, is effective, but may encounter substantial challenges in achieving collaboration across criminal justice agencies, services providers, and levels/branches of government.     

犯罪嫌疑人、被告人诉讼人权与诉讼权利比较研究

基于人的身份 ,犯罪嫌疑人、被告人享有广泛的实体人权 ,基于被嫌疑的身份 ,犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的实体人权将会受到一定的限制或剥夺。为了保障其实体人权免受不正当侵害 ,国际人权法为犯罪嫌疑人、被告人设定了许多诉讼人权 ,与此相应的是 ,我国法律赋予了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人广泛的诉讼权利。但与国际人权法规定相比 ,我国法律规定仍有较大差距 ,有进一步完善之必要。     

A study of amnesia in homicide cases and forensic psychiatric experts' examination of such claims

About one third of defendants in homicide cases claim amnesia during the time of their alleged act. Examining the authenticity of claimed amnesia is a special challenge for forensic experts. Because the experts' conclusions have legal implications, it is useful to study the characteristics of defendants who claim amnesia regarding a homicidal act and how forensic experts assess these defendants' claims. The forensic psychiatric reports from 2001 to 2007 on 102 Norwegian defendants charged with homicide were assessed quantitatively with a structured rating form. Due to multiple comparisons p of .003 was chosen. Twenty-six defendants claimed partial and 17 claimed total amnesia. No significant differences in the characteristics of the defendants were found between the partial, total, and no amnesia claiming groups. Claims of partial or total amnesia did not change the procedures and content of the forensic experts' examination. A memory test was applied in only one case. Despite the seriousness of the crime and the difficulty of assessing amnesia, the experts did not apply psychological testing of memory function or appropriate tests of possible malingering. Guidelines or standardized procedures for evaluation of defendants who claim amnesia should be developed. This could eventually contribute to more reliable and valid evaluations by forensic experts and increase the probability of just court outcomes.     

When courts and experts disagree: Discordance between insanity recommendations and adjudications

Discordance between state examiner recommendations of culpability and subsequent insanity adjudications was investigated. The discordant group was compared with groups of defendants where concordance occurred between recommendation and adjudication. Data were collected from casefile materials (totalN=80) and comparisons were made on defendant's background, the offense, and the forensic evaluation. To determine how purposeful and goal directed the offense was, offenses were rated on a rationality scale. Results indicated that defendants in the discordance group committed emotionally charged or unusual offenses, were likely to have a psychiatric history (65%) and were more likely to have been found incompetent to stand trial than defendants recommended and adjudicated culpable. The discordant group was dissimilar to defendants recommended and adjudicated insane in frequency of prior felony arrest (65%), alcohol/drug use at time of offense (55%), paucity of psychosis (20%) and higher frequency of claimed amnesia (35%). On the rationality scale, discordant defendants were intermediate between those defendants recommended and adjudicated insane, who typically committed irrational offenses, and those defendants recommended and adjudicated culpable, who typically committed purposeful and goal directed offenses.     

Defendants pleading insanity: an analysis of outcome

The authors examined the cohort of all defendants pleading not guilty by reason of insanity over a 12-month period in Baltimore City's superior trial court. During that time, 143 of the 11,497 defendants indicted (1.2%) pled not criminally responsible. Fourteen of those defendants (10%) were subsequently found not guilty by reason of insanity. The authors found marked agreement between the prosecution and defense with only two cases leading to full trials where the issue of insanity was argued. The evaluating physician's opinion as to criminal responsibility and Axis I diagnosis, and the most serious underlying charge discriminated between those defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity and those defendants found guilty or not guilty by the court. Other demographic factors such as age, number of dependents, educational level, severity of illness, and criminal background did not discriminate between the two groups.     

USING RANDOM JUDGE ASSIGNMENTS TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTS OF INCARCERATION AND PROBATION ON RECIDIVISM AMONG DRUG OFFENDERS*

Most prior studies of recidivism have used observational data to estimate the causal effect of imprisonment or probation on the probability that a convicted individual is rearrested after release. Few studies have taken advantage of the fact that, in some jurisdictions, defendants are assigned randomly to judges who vary in sentencing tendencies. This study investigates whether defendants who are assigned randomly to more punitive judges have different recidivism probabilities than defendants who are assigned to relatively lenient judges. We track 1,003 defendants charged with drug-related offenses who were assigned randomly to nine judicial calendars between June 1, 2002 and May 9, 2003. Judges on these calendars meted out sentences that varied substantially in terms of prison and probation time. We tracked defendants using court records across a 4-year period after the disposition of their cases to determine whether they subsequently were rearrested. Our results indicate that randomly assigned variations in prison and probation time have no detectable effect on rates of rearrest. The findings suggest that, at least among those facing drug-related charges, incarceration and supervision seem not to deter subsequent criminal behavior.     

Not separate but equal? The impact of multiple-defendant trials on juror decision-making

Suspects accused of involvement in the same crime can be tried in one multiple-defendant trial. While research has long demonstrated the difficulties of being a juror, no published work has examined whether multiple-defendant trials compound these difficulties. The current research recruited both student and community samples to determine whether trying multiple defendants would increase conviction rates for individual defendants. Every participant watched one of three trial videos – a single defendant against whom the State had a strong case (single-strong), a single-defendant against whom the State had a weak case (single-weak), or a multiple-defendant trial combining both defendants (multiple-defendant). The findings demonstrated an overshare effect – when the defendants were tried together, overall conviction rates for both defendants increased relative to when they were tried alone, though the pattern of results differed by study sample. Although we are unable to provide a definitive mechanism underlying the results, the best explanation seems to be that multiple-defendant trials prompt jurors to engage in a joint evaluation of the defendants, rather than single evaluations of each. Consequently, participant-jurors’ perceptions of each defendant are impacted by how they compare with one another. Thus, the current research casts some doubt on the fairness of multiple-defendant trials.     

ADVERSARIAL AND NONADVERSARIAL JUSTICE: A COMPARISON OF GUILTY PLEAS AND TRIALS*

Despite the frequency of guilty pleas, researchers disagree about the ability of plea bargaining to provide justice. Critics argue that plea bargaining deprives defendants of due process rights and procedural safeguards Proponents argue that guilty pleas save resources for cases that require trial and allow officials flexibility to tailor justice to individual defendants. This article explores these issues by examining the effect of defendant and case characteristics on sentence severity for 3,269 male robbery and burglary defendants who either pled guilty or were tried in six U.S. jurisdictions, three of which had recently attempted to eliminate or greatly reduce plea bargaining and three with few restrictions on plea bargaining. The results confirm some criticisms of plea bargaining, but refute others. More criminally experienced defendants and defendants who pled guilty at the earliest opportunity did not receive sentencing leniency. Moreover, to a large extent, the same variables predict sentence severity for guilty pleas and trials. In contrast, the results show that defendants convicted at trial received more severe sanctions than defendants who pled guilty, controlling for case severity, evidence, and offender characteristics The results also suggest that the jurisdictions which attempted to control plea bargaining through more centralized control of assistance succeeded in tightening the fit between case characteristics and sentences for both cases adjudicated by guilty plea and trial.     

A comparison of criminal sexual conduct defendants based on victim age

This study compared defendants charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct whose victims were <6 years of age with defendants whose victims were 12 or more years of age. The study included 163 men referred to the evaluation unit of a state center for forensic psychiatry. Thirty-eight men had younger victims (YVs) and 125 men had older victims (OVs). The variables of comparison were defendant demographic and psychiatric variables frequently identified in the sex offender literature. Controlling for other demographic and psychiatric variables by use of logistic regression modeling, elderly defendants (60 years or greater), and incest offenders were three times more likely to have YVs (Odds Ratio [OR] 3.08 and 3.11, respectively). Unlike previous studies defendants with serious psychiatric pathology (psychosis or mania) were no more likely to have YVs (OR 0.66) than were defendants without psychosis.     

Assessing the Influence of Familial Paternalism on Child Neglect Sentencing Decisions

Familial responsibilities have been found to significantly reduce the severity of sentencing outcomes of defendants in the criminal court. Additional research also has suggested that this leniency might be contingent on the type of offense, with defendants who commit crimes which imply that they are unfit parents (e.g., drug offenses) not receiving a significant reduction in their likelihood of incarceration. Utilizing familial paternalism as the theoretical basis, the current study examines whether having children influences the sentences of defendants charged with forms of criminal child neglect. The findings indicate that having children does result in significantly reduced odds of incarceration for defendants charged with child neglect. These findings support the arguments set forth by familial paternalism. However, they do not support the inference that defendants convicted of child neglect are presumed to be unfit parents. Implication of these results and directions for future research are discussed.     

Effects of advanced age and dementia on restoration of competence to stand trial

Elderly defendants (age 65+) and defendants with dementia adjudicated incompetent to stand trial and hospitalized for restoration to competence (RTC) often present unique challenges to clinicians charged with their restoration. In this study, we attempted to better identify predictors of successful RTC by building upon previous research correlating increased age with decreased likelihood of RTC. We identified elderly non-demented defendants (n = 31) and defendants diagnosed with dementia (n = 47) from a state database of 1380 individuals hospitalized for competence restoration from 1988–2004. Using regression analysis and correcting for demographic variables and common admission psychiatric diagnoses, we studied the relationship of age at hospital admission and dementia diagnosis on the likelihood of successful RTC. Both advanced age and dementia diagnosis were associated with decreased RTC. After correcting for dementia diagnosis, increased age retained its negative correlation with restoration success. Both elderly non-demented defendants and defendants diagnosed with dementia were significantly less likely to be restored to competence than all other RTC admissions (n = 1302). However, a substantial percentage of both demented and elderly non-demented defendants were successfully restored to competence, potentially justifying restoration attempts for both of these groups of defendants.     

Competency Restoration: An Examination of the Differences Between Defendants Predicted Restorable and Not Restorable to Competency

According to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jackson v. Indiana (1972), examiners must determine if a defendant has substantial probability of regaining competency through treatment in the foreseeable future. Previous research has indicated that, given the low base rate of defendants unable to be restored to competency, examiners are relatively poor at predicting which defendants will regain competency. Determining the characteristics of not restorable incompetent defendants and restorable incompetent defendants is a necessary first step toward improving examiners' ability to predict a defendant's likelihood of regaining competency. This study examined the competency evaluation reports of 468 defendants evaluated for competency to stand trial. Incompetent defendants significantly differed from competent defendants with regard to age, employment status, ethnicity, criminal charges, and psychiatric diagnosis. Few significant differences existed between defendants predicted restorable and those predicted not restorable by mental health examiners—the differences that did exist were related mainly to nonpsychiatric variables.     

Opening Pandora’s Box: How Does Defendant Race Influence Plea Bargaining?

Minority overrepresentation in the criminal justice system has long been an important topic of research and policy debate. In New York City, recent changes in the Rockefeller Drug Laws and the controversy around police stop-and-frisk practices have placed an even greater emphasis on the need for studying the possible impact of defendants’ race and ethnicity on criminal justice outcomes. Relatively little contemporary research, though, examines plea-bargaining outcomes. Using unique data on misdemeanor marijuana cases, this study examines the impact of defendants’ race on prosecutors’ decisions to make (a) plea offers for a lesser charge and (b) sentence offers for non-custodial punishments. Preliminary findings indicated that black defendants were less likely to receive reduced charge offers, and both black and Latino defendants were more likely to receive custodial sentence offers. However, these disparities were largely explained by legal factors, evidence, arrest circumstances, and court actor characteristics, though black defendants were still more likely to receive custodial sentence offers after including these controls. No differences were found between white and Asian defendants. Implications for research and prosecutorial practices are discussed.     

Plea decision-making: the influence of attorney expertise,trustworthiness, and recommendation

ABSTRACT

Attorney recommendations influence defendant plea decisions; and the degree of influence likely rests on the perceived trustworthiness and level of expertise of the attorney (factors of source credibility). We explored attorney source credibility factors and how these characteristics influence defendants’ plea decision-making. MTurk participants read a hypothetical plea scenario and were asked to imagine themselves as the defendant in a DWI/DUI case making a plea decision; in the scenario, we manipulated the defense attorney’s level of trustworthiness, expertise, and plea recommendation. There was a significant interaction between attorney recommendation and trustworthiness on defendants’ plea decisions; participants who were advised to accept the guilty plea were more likely to plead guilty when the attorney was high in trustworthiness compared to low in trustworthiness. Attorney trustworthiness did not affect plea decisions for defendants advised to reject the guilty plea. Importantly, attorney trustworthiness affected defendants’ decision to follow the attorney’s recommendation and ultimate plea decision (regardless of expertise), and attorney expertise affected defendants’ confidence in their decision (regardless of trustworthiness). Results suggest individual-level characteristics of defense attorneys affect the influence of the attorney and their recommendation, and ultimately defendants’ plea decision-making.