Battling Bias: Can Two Implicit Bias Remedies Reduce Juror Racial Bias?

Two studies examined the effectiveness of two implicit bias remedies at reducing racial bias in Black and White mock-jurors’ decisions. Participants were recruited through a Qualtrics Panel Project. Study 1 (murder trial; N = 554): Mage = 46.53; 49.1% female; 50% Black; 50.0% White. Study 2 (battery trial; N = 539): Mage = 46.46; 50.5% female; 49.5% Black; 50.5% White. Half of the participants viewed the UBJ video. Then participants read pretrial instructions (general or UBJ), trial summary, posttrial instructions (general or UBJ), and completed measures. Mock-juror race was expected to moderate the effect of defendant race (Black vs. White) on verdicts, sentences, culpability, and credibility, with jurors being more lenient toward same-race defendants. This interaction would be moderated by the unconscious bias juror (UBJ) video and instructions, reducing bias for White jurors only. Mock-jurors’ counterfactual endorsements would mediate race effects on verdicts. In Study 1, juror race moderated the effect of defendant race on verdicts, culpability, and credibility—White, but not Black, jurors demonstrated greater leniency for Black versus White defendants. The UBJ video moderated the effect of defendant race on murder counterfactual endorsement—when the video was present defendant race did not significantly affect endorsement. This endorsement mediated the effect of defendant race on White jurors’ verdicts. In Study 2, juror race influenced verdicts and sentences—White jurors were more lenient regardless of defendant race. The effect of juror race on sentence was qualified by the UBJ video—when present the effect of race was no longer significant. The UBJ remedies increased all mock jurors’ defendant credibility ratings. In conclusion, the debiasing interventions were ineffective in reducing racial bias in jurors’ verdicts. However, they do impact aspects of juror attribution and may be effective with modification.

Deservingness and Punishment in Juvenile Justice: Do Black Youth Grow Up “Faster” in the Eyes of the Court?

The present study investigated whether race moderates the effect of age on juvenile court dispositions in ways that illuminate a subtler form of racial disparities than has been previously identified. Drawing on prior theory and research, we hypothesize that at young ages, virtually all youth are perceived as children and met with treatment-oriented responses. As youth grow older, however, we anticipate that Black defendants will be perceived as more culpable and more deserving of punishment than similarly-aged White defendants and that disposition patterns will reflect that differential perception. Using data from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice ( N = 124,075), the present study examines a five-category disposition using a multinomial regression model with interactions between age and race variables. We found mixed support for the hypotheses. On the one hand, compared to similarly-aged White defendants, Black defendants became significantly less likely to be diverted—the most treatment-oriented disposition—and significantly more likely to be transferred—the most punitive disposition—as age increased. On the other hand, race did not moderate age effects for dismissal, probation, or commitment. There is thus some evidence that age may be racialized for some dispositions, but not others. Implications for research and policy are discussed.

The Most Discriminatory Federal Judges Give Black and Hispanic Defendants At Least Double the Sentences of White Defendants

In the aggregate, racial inequality in criminal sentencing is an empirically well- established social problem. Yet, data limitations have made it impossible for researchers to systematically determine and name the most racially discriminatory federal judges. The authors use a new, large-scale database to determine and name the observed federal judges who impose the harshest sentence length penalties on Black and Hispanic defendants. Following the focal concerns framework, the authors (1) replicate previous findings that conditional racial disparities in sentence lengths are large in the aggregate, (2) show that judges vary considerably in their estimated degrees of racial discrimination, and (3) list the federal judges who exhibit the clearest evidence of racial discrimination. This list shows that several judges give Black and Hispanic defendants double the sentences they give observationally equivalent white defendants. Accordingly, the results suggest that holding the very most discriminatory judges accountable would yield meaningful improvements in racial equality.

The Influence of Defendant Race/Ethnicity and Police Body-Worn Cameras on Traffic Case Processing

The current study evaluates the impact of defendant race/ethnicity and police body-worn cameras (BWCs) on dismissals and guilty pleas in traffic violations. Despite the frequency of traffic violations and the potential for racial/ethnic bias in these incidents, researchers have yet to examine the outcomes of these violations in court. Research is also needed to assess the potential for BWCs to provide evidence and reduce charging disparities and differential pleas for minority defendants. Traffic violations processed in the Tempe, Arizona Municipal Court before and after BWC deployment were examined using logistic regression. Black and Hispanic defendants were less likely to have their violations dismissed than White defendants, regardless of the presence of a BWC. Hispanic defendants were significantly more likely to plead guilty to traffic violations than White defendants, and BWCs did not eliminate this disparity. BWCs did significantly reduce the likelihood of a guilty plea for Black and White defendants, but the finding was not robust to the inclusion of an interaction term between race and BWCs. BWCs did not significantly moderate the impact of defendant race/ethnicity on either dismissals or guilty pleas. Overall, the results suggest that BWCs have little impact on reducing racial/ethnic disparities in traffic violation processing.

Predictive Validity of Pretrial Risk Assessments: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Bail reform is sweeping the nation and many jurisdictions are looking to pretrial risk assessment as one potential strategy to support these efforts. This article summarizes the findings of a systematic review of research examining the predictive validity of pretrial risk assessments. We reviewed 11 studies (13 publications) examining the predictive validity of six pretrial risk assessment instruments reported in the gray and peer-reviewed literature as of December, 2018. Findings typically show good to excellent predictive validity. Differences in predictive validity for men and women were mixed and small. When it could be examined, predictive validity was generally comparable across racial/ethnic subgroups; however, three comparisons revealed notably lower, albeit still fair to good, predictive validity for defendants of color than White defendants. Findings suggest that pretrial risk assessments predict pretrial outcomes with acceptable accuracy, but also emphasize the need for continued investigation of predictive validity across gender and racial/ethnic subgroups.

Discrimination in Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Defense Among African American and white Defendants

Racial discrimination in the legal system and mental health care system has been well documented by previous research. Issues of race, law, and mental health meet at a cross-section when it comes to cases involving minority defendants and the insanity plea. Under the constitution of the United States it is the duty of a venrisperson is to reach a fair and unbiased verdict. However, the reality is that there are many ways that a juror can become biased by their personal attitudes. Racial prejudice can effect a jurors ability to make an impartial decision. Attitudes about those who have mental illness can effect the way in which a juror assigns responsibility to a defendant. And a persons attitude toward the insanity plea could influence their decision making. Of the very few defendants successful at using the insanity plea, they tend to be white older men with severe mental illness (Cirincione, 1995). This study aims to implicate the role that racial prejudice and attitudes have on jurors in Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) pleas between Affrican American and white defendants with diagnosed with Schizophrenia.

Misdemeanor Disenfranchisement? The Demobilizing Effects of Brief Jail Spells on Potential Voters

This paper presents new causal estimates of incarceration’s effect on voting, using administrative data on criminal sentencing and voter turnout. I use the random case assignment process of a major county court system as a source of exogenous variation in the sentencing of misdemeanor cases. Focusing on misdemeanor defendants allows for generalization to a large population, as such cases are very common. Among first-time misdemeanor defendants, I find evidence that receiving a short jail sentence decreases voting in the next election by several percentage points. Results differ starkly by race. White defendants show no demobilization, while Black defendants show substantial turnout decreases due to jail time. Evidence from pre-arrest voter histories suggest that this difference could be due to racial differences in exposure to arrest. These results paint a picture of large-scale, racially-disparate voter demobilization in the wake of incarceration.

Race, Ethnicity, and Trial Avoidance: A Multilevel Analysis

Minority criminal defendants are more likely than White defendants to exercise their right to trial, which is concerning given that research also consistently finds trial sentences to be harsher than those obtained via pleas. However, guilty pleas are not the only disposition available for avoiding a trial; pretrial diversions and case dismissals also serve as mechanisms for trial avoidance. Using hierarchical linear modeling, we find that Black criminal defendants are more likely than Whites to go to trial rather than receive other case disposition. Relationships for Hispanic defendants are less consistent. Fewer county-level effects emerge than expected, providing little to no support for racial threat theory. Results suggest that Black defendants are less often able or willing to avoid a trial, a finding which highlights and perhaps helps to explain racial disparities in final sentencing outcomes.

Racial Bias in Bail Decisions*

This article develops a new test for identifying racial bias in the context of bail decisions—a high-stakes setting with large disparities between white and black defendants. We motivate our analysis using Becker’s model of racial bias, which predicts that rates of pretrial misconduct will be identical for marginal white and marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially unbiased. In contrast, marginal white defendants will have higher rates of misconduct than marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially biased, whether that bias is driven by racial animus, inaccurate racial stereotypes, or any other form of bias. To test the model, we use the release tendencies of quasi-randomly assigned bail judges to identify the relevant race-specific misconduct rates. Estimates from Miami and Philadelphia show that bail judges are racially biased against black defendants, with substantially more racial bias among both inexperienced and part-time judges. We find suggestive evidence that this racial bias is driven by bail judges relying on inaccurate stereotypes that exaggerate the relative danger of releasing black defendants.

Victim Impact

During the summer of 2014, an explosive arrest was splashed across Midwestern newspapers: a young gay black man in a conservative county in Missouri and the accusations against him quickly became a flashpoint for racial and sexual politics—leading some critics to charge that HIV-specific criminal laws target gay black men. This chapter draws on an original dataset of convictions under HIV-specific criminal laws in six states to evaluate whether the enforcement of HIV exposure and disclosure laws has discriminatory effects. Findings show that victim characteristics—rather than defendant demographics—shape uneven patterns in the application of the law. This victim impact flips expected patterns of discrimination on their head, resulting in more convictions among heterosexual and white defendants; at sentencing, black defendants are punished more severely, women are treated more leniently, and men accused of not disclosing their HIV status to women are punished more harshly than those accused by men. This chapter digests these trends using the tools of sociology, epidemiology, and criminology to offer a specific diagnosis for reform.