Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

With the use of expert evidence increasing in civil and criminal trials, there is concern jurors' decisions are affected by factors that are irrelevant to the quality of the expert opinion. Past research suggests that the likeability of an expert significantly affects juror attributions of credibility and merit. However, we know little about the effects of expert likeability when detailed information about expertise is provided. Two studies examined the effect of an expert's likeability on the persuasiveness judgments and sentencing decisions of 456 jury-eligible respondents. Participants viewed and/or read an expert's testimony (lower vs. higher quality) before rating expert persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and weight), and making a sentencing decision in a Capitol murder case (death penalty vs. life in prison). Lower quality evidence was significantly less persuasive than higher quality evidence. Less likeable experts were also significantly less persuasive than either neutral or more likeable experts. This “penalty” for less likeable experts was observed irrespective of evidence quality. However, only perceptions of the foundational validity of the expert's discipline, the expert's trustworthiness and the clarity and conservativeness of the expert opinion significantly predicted sentencing decisions. Thus, the present study demonstrates that while likeability does influence persuasiveness, it does not necessarily affect sentencing outcomes.

Within-race variations in sentencing outcomes: Nationality and punishment among Asians in United States federal courts

There is robust evidence that Asians are not treated differently from Whites and receive greater leniency than Blacks and Hispanics in criminal punishment. Some research findings even suggest that Asians receive the most favorable sentencing outcomes among all racial/ethnic groups. This line of research, however, has not paid attention to Asian nationality groups. Particularly, it is unclear whether there is within-race variation among offenders from different Asian countries. Using the data compiled by the United States Sentencing Commission to examine whether and how an Asian's nationality affects criminal punishment, this study focuses on sentences imposed on offenders who are Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Korean, Pakistani, and Vietnamese nationals. Results from logistic, ordinary least squares, and Tobit regression analyses indicate that with legal and extralegal factors held constant, Asians of different nationalities face varying odds of incarceration or downward departures, and they receive dissimilar sentence lengths.

Sentencing Females Convicted of Sex Offenses: Examining Measures of Perceived Dangerousness and the Decision to Incarcerate

From media attention to legislative actions, individuals convicted of sex offenses are often perceived as dangerous and a threat to society. Previous research, however, has demonstrated that perceived dangerousness is gender-specific, often minimizing culpability for women convicted of sex offenses. Consequently, previous research on sentencing outcomes of these individuals have largely been male-only samples, leaving a gap in the literature as it pertains to females convicted of sex offenses. The current study sought to fill this gap by examining the impact that those convicted, victims, and offense characteristics had on sentencing outcomes for women convicted of sex offenses. We analyzed a sample of 262 females convicted of a sex offense in a Southern state. The results demonstrated that official case characteristics, along with victim characteristics, play an influential role in the judicial decision to impose an incarceration sentence.

Drug sentencing in Brazil: factors influencing sentencing outcomes in the criminal courts of Recife/PE

Purpose This paper aims to examine sentencing decisions for drug-trafficking offences in the criminal courts of the city of Recife to address a gap in quantitative research on drug sentencing and incarceration in Brazil. Design/methodology/approach Using original data obtained from the Court of Justice for Pernambuco, the research used multivariate regression analysis to investigate the effect of case processing, offender, and offence characteristics on sentence length. Findings A key finding of the research is the influence of two legal factors on sentence length: admitting to a drug-trafficking offence and being categorized as “mitigated trafficking”. Results also indicate that first-time defendants were more likely to be categorized as mitigated trafficking, stressing the importance of criminal history on predicting sentencing outcomes. “Mitigated trafficking” is a distinct category of drug-trafficking created by the Drug Law nº. 11.343 (2006) to protect defendants considered novices in the illicit drug market from receiving longer imprisonment sentences. Practical implications The findings suggest that the policy strategy of having a legal distinction for a specific type of defendant appears to be effective in impacting sentence length for drug-trafficking convictions. Future research could explore how similar strategies could be adopted to influence sentencing for other vulnerable groups. However, focussing on a defendant records or prior convictions as an eligibility criterion could disproportionately impact defendants who are caught in a cycle of re-offending for socio-economic reasons or a need to finance a substance use disorder. Originality/value This research address a gap in quantitative sentencing research in Brazil and contributes to the broader literature by presenting results that are aligned with previous studies conducted in North America.

Examining the Relationship between the Lethality Assessment/Domestic Violence High-risk Team Monitoring (LAP/DVHRT) Program and Prosecution Outcomes

Lethality assessment (LAP) and team monitoring of high-risk offenders (DVHRT) are recent U.S. policy innovations designed to identify domestic violence offenders who are at high risk for perpetrating serious or lethal violence against their intimate partners. One goal of LAP/DVHRT is to increase offenders’ accountability for domestic violence within the legal system. This study examines associations between LAP/DVHRT and prosecution and sentencing outcomes using data on domestic violence offenses ( n = 88) involving 37 offenders monitored by a DVHRT and 51 nonmonitored comparison offenders who were identified as high risk on the LAP. We use logistic and OLS regression to estimate models of six prosecution and sentencing outcomes for the full sample and for a sample matched using the coarsened exact matching technique ( n = 73). Multivariate results indicate that when the treatment and comparison samples are matched and control variables are included in regression models, the LAP/DVHRT program is not associated with prosecution or conviction rates, number of charges, or bail amount. DVHRT monitoring is positively associated with sentence length in multivariate analysis and in models using the matched sample. Findings suggest that the LAP/DVHRT program increases offender accountability in the form of incapacitation at the sentencing stages.

The Offense-Specific Nature of Gender and Familial Responsibility in United States Federal Sentencing, 2010–2016

Prior sentencing research has identified leniency afforded to females (compared with males) and those with familial responsibility (compared with those without). Studies have also found that the effect of defendant gender, familial responsibility, and their intersections depend on the type of offense examined. What remains unclear is the situations in which these factors matter more or less. The purpose of this study is to disaggregate extralegal effects by understanding how gender, familial responsibility, and their intersections influence federal sentencing outcomes across various offense types. Findings from this study suggest that gender, familial responsibility, and their combinations exert different influences depending on the (a) dependent variable and (b) offense type examined.

Trends in Sentencing of Federal Drug Offenders: Findings From U.S. District Courts 2002–2017

This study uses 16 years (2002–2017) of federal criminal drug sentences from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) to examine trends in two criminal sentencing outcomes: whether a defendant received a prison sentence and the length of a prison sentence. Logistic and ordinary least squares regression analyses were used to assess criminal sentencing outcomes. Moderation analyses are conducted to assess variation in sentencing for specific drug offenses over time. Results demonstrate that sentencing for federal drug crimes has become less severe over time. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in sentencing across different drug types, with pharmaceutical opioid cases receiving the least leniency over time regarding the incarceration decision and methamphetamine cases experiencing the lowest reduction in the length of prison sentences from 2002 to 2017. Finally, our analysis stratified by race/ethnicity suggested that there is heterogeneity in sentencing outcomes for federal drug offenders, conditional on racial and ethnic background.