What are Tort Awards Really Like? The Untold Story from the State Courts*

The popular press frequently reports exorbitant money damage awards by juries. These stories cause paroxysms in the business community because juries are viewed as favoring plaintiffs over corporations. A growing body of literature has examined aspects of this complex issue, but within a limited framework. Prior studies, which are based on data from the early 1980s or before, tend to focus on federal court cases, primarily product liability and medical malpractice torts, only jury verdicts, and single jurisdictions when state courts are included. The objective of this article is to contribute to the literature by examining all tort cases reaching either a bench or a jury trial verdict during a sample period in 1989 in twenty-seven general jurisdiction trial courts. Research is organized around three basic questions. What do torts look like? Do particular types of plaintiffs/defendants gain a higher percent of favorable verdicts? When plaintiffs are awarded money damages, what is the importance of litigant status, while controlling for other factors, in influencing the size of the awards? The article begins by describing the landscape of torts - the typical configurations of the contending litigants, the composition of torts by area of law, the types of trials, verdict patterns, and the average size of awards. Basic contours of the landscape reflect the elemental facts that individuals generally are plaintiffs in these cases and the opposite tendency of corporations, insurance companies, and governments to appear as defendants. Next a model is outlined and tested to determine how strongly different possible determinants shape the size of tort awards in the twenty-seven state trial courts. Does the size of the award depend on the configuration of the parties after taking into account the type of tort, the type of trial, the length of disposition time, and the state in which the court is located? The results indicate that the group of variables representing the various pairing of litigants accounts for most of the explained variation in award size. These findings support the notion that the status of the litigants is an important factor in influencing awards. Because the variables representing some of the individual states are also significant, the evidence also suggests no single, uniform pattern applies across all the courts. Instead, the state context shapes the basic parameters of plaintiff and defendant success.     

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING DEPARTURES ACROSS MODES OF CONVICTION*

Recent analyses of guideline sentencing practices have demonstrated that sentences departing from guidelines serve as a significant locus of racial/ethnic and other extralegal disparity. Little is known, however, about the ways that different courtroom processes, such as modes of conviction, condition these effects. Using recent data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS), I analyze the overall effects of race/ethnicity and other factors on judicial decisions to depart from the sentencing guidelines, and then I reexamine these relationships according to four modes of conviction (non‐negotiated pleas, negotiated pleas, bench trials, and jury trials). I argue that the mode of conviction provides a useful indicator of the differential exercise of discretion by different courtroom actors in the sentencing process. As such, it is likely to condition the use of stereotypical patterned responses, thus moderating the effects of race/ethnicity and other relevant sentencing factors. Findings support this expectation, demonstrating that extralegal effects vary considerably across modes of conviction. These results raise important questions about the role of different courtroom actors in contributing to racial and ethnic disparities under sentencing guidelines.     

Statistical Procedures for Analyzing Factors Affecting Judicial Sentences Using Simultaneously Derived Crime Seriousness and Sentence Severity Scales

A variety of characteristics of the defendant, the case, and the court potentially could affect judicial sentences. Building on a recently published method for scaling the seriousness of the crimes and the severity of sentences, this paper describes procedures for investigating factors affecting sentence severity. An empirical example illustrates the procedures, as well as the problems of interpretation and analysis that arise in statistical studies of sentencing.     

Using Cosponsorship to Estimate Ideal Points

Ideal point estimates based on roll‐call vote results have provided leverage for a variety of theory testing efforts. Recently, scholars have suggested using cosponsorship data as a proxy for roll‐call votes. Conceptually similar to roll‐call votes, cosponsorship data are appealing for a variety of reasons. However, the data‐generating process for cosponsorship is untheorized and little studied. We examine the properties of ideal point estimates from cosponsorship data. We find that the ability to estimate ideal points from cosponsorship data is contingent on the underlying data‐generating process; reliance on such measures requires strong and often unrealistic assumptions.     

TRANSFERRED JUVENILES IN THE ERA OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES: EXAMINING JUDICIAL DEPARTURES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT*

This study contributes to contemporary research on the punishment of juvenile offenders in adult court by analyzing the use of guidelines departures for transferred juveniles in two states, one with presumptive sentencing guidelines (Pennsylvania) and one with voluntary guidelines (Maryland). Propensity score matching is first used to create more comparable samples of juvenile and young adult offenders, and then Tobit regressions are employed to estimate the effect of juvenile status on the likelihood and length of departures. Our findings indicate that juvenile status significantly affects the use of upward departures in Pennsylvania, and the use of both downward and upward departures in Maryland. Judicial reasons for departure are examined to provide additional insight into the complex dynamics surrounding exceptional sentences for juvenile offenders sentenced in adult court.     

THE POWER OF DIVERSION: INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS AND SENTENCING DISPARITY UNDER PRESUMPTIVE GUIDELINES*

Fiscal constraints and shifting political climates in corrections have recently led to a renewed interest in intermediate punishments. Despite their growing prevalence, though, relatively little empirical research has examined the judicial use of alternative sanctions as a sentencing option. By using 3 years of data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS), this study investigates little‐researched questions regarding the use of sentencing alternatives among offenders and across contexts. Results indicate that male and minority offenders are the least likely to receive intermediate sanctions, both as a diversionary jail or prison sentence and as a substitute for probation. The probability of receiving an intermediate sanction also varies significantly across judges and court contexts and is related to county‐level funding for these programs, among other factors. Findings are discussed as they relate to contemporary theoretical perspectives on the perceived suitability of intermediate punishments and on the unique role that offender agency plays in the sentencing of these cases. Directions for future research are discussed.     

Tactics,traditions and opportunities: British and French crop‐trashing actions in comparative perspective

This article compares the tactic of trashing genetically modified crops in activist campaigns in Britain and France. In Britain, most crop trashing was carried out covertly, while in France most activists undertook open, public actions. In seeking an explanation for this, the article shows that the analysis of political opportunities, dominant in comparative studies of social movements, can only take us so far. While it helps explain the occurrence of direct action, it is much less useful in explaining the tactical differences between each country. It is argued that a fuller explanation requires an understanding of how action was shaped by different activist traditions. In France, action was staged as a demonstration of serious, responsible, collective Republican citizenship; in the United Kingdom, activists combined a sceptical view of legality developing from anarchist individualism with an explicitly non‐threatening, playful, ethos. The article concludes that a focus on activist traditions can provide an effective bridge between structural and cultural approaches to understanding the determinants of social movement action.     

A. D. Woozley and the Concept of Right Answers in Law*

Abstract. In the debates about legal determinacy, an important but often neglected issue is what is meant in the legal context by saying that a question has a right answer. By way of a critique of A. D. Woozley's discussion of “right answers,” I try to show how this issue is connected with issues of legal truth, legal mistake, and precedent.