Doctoral Dissertation Research: Three Essays on Judicial Decision-Making

National Opinion Research Center, Chicago IL

Investigators

Abstract

This research examines the impact of electing criminal trial judges on their ability to protect minority rights in the sentencing process. The study utilizes administrative data from Kansas that includes the universe of convicted felons from 1998 to 2010. Kansas is one of only three states that uses both elections (in 14 districts) and appointment (in 17 districts) to choose judges. This variation will allow the PIs to distinguish between judicial appointment modes, controlling for state-specific factors. This research also investigates the extent to which judicial prejudice can be learned or unlearned over time. With more professional experience, it seems plausible that judges could update their prior beliefs as they learn about true race-specific recidivism rates through repeated interactions with both black and white defenders. A "learning-by-doing" model speaks to the concurrent policy debate over the merits of sentencing guidelines. Since the 1980's, the federal government and numerous states have enacted sentencing guidelines in order to provide more structure in the sentencing process, which in theory, limits racial sentencing disparities by constraining judicial discretion. In practice, there has been mixed evidence on their effectiveness, which raises concerns that preventing judges from utilizing their expertise is unwarranted. If judges do engage in more race-based sentencing earlier rather than later in their careers, then this would suggest tying the guidelines to tenure might be a more effective implementation of this policy.