Alix S . Winter

Research on jury deliberations has largely focused on the implications of deliberations for criminal defendants' outcomes. In contrast, this article considers jurors' outcomes by integrating subjective experience into the study of deliberations. We examine whether jurors' feelings that they had enough time to express themselves vary by jurors' gender, race, or education. Drawing on status characteristics theory and a survey of more than 3,000 real-world jurors, we find that the majority of jurors feel that they had enough time to express themselves. However, blacks and Hispanics, and especially blacks and Hispanics with less education, are less likely to feel so. Jurors' verdict preferences do not account for these findings. Our findings have implications for status characteristics theory and for legal cynicism among members of lower-status social groups.

Researchers have theorized how judges’ decision-making may result in the disproportionate presence of Blacks and Latinos in the criminal justice system. Yet, we have little evidence about how judges make sense of these disparities and what, if anything, they do to address them. By drawing on 59 interviews with state judges in a Northeastern state, we describe, and trace the implications of, judges’ understandings of racial disparities at arraignment, plea hearings, jury selection, and sentencing. Most judges in our sample attribute disparities, in part, to differential treatment by themselves and/or other criminal justice officials, whereas some judges attribute disparities only to the disparate impact of poverty and differences in offending rates. To address disparities, judges report employing two categories of strategies: noninterventionist and interventionist. Noninterventionist strategies concern only a judge’s own differential treatment, whereas interventionist strategies concern other actors’ possible differential treatment, as well as the disparate impact of poverty and facially neutral laws. We reveal how the use of noninterventionist strategies by most judges unintentionally reproduces disparities. Through our examination of judges’ understandings of racial disparities throughout the court process, we enhance understandings of American racial inequality and theorize a situational approach to decision-making in organizational contexts.

This statement responds to the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission’s invitation to comment on issues relating to sentencing policies and practices for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We provide the commission with a brief overview of sociological research on mass incarceration, sentencing practices, and racial/ethnic minorities’ disproportionate contact with criminal justice institutions. We focus on empirical research pertaining to potential sentencing practices, policies, and principles that may assist the commonwealth in reducing racial/ethnic sentencing disparities (G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (4)), and in so doing, promote greater respect for the law (G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (3) (B)), provide just punishment (G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (1); G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (3) (C)), and secure public safety (G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (2); G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (3) (E)). We then draw on this research to comment on the specific topics outlined by the commission at its October 19, 2016 public hearing.