Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
C. Spohn, John Gruhl, S. Welch (1981)
THE EFFECT OF RACE ON SENTENCING: A RE-EXAMINATION OF AN UNSE"TT'LED QUESTIONLaw & Society Review, 16
James Wilson (1984)
Crime and public policyContemporary Sociology, 13
G. LaFree (1981)
Official Reactions to Social Problems: Police Decisions in Sexual Assault CasesSocial Problems, 28
J. Braithwaite (1981)
The Myth of Social Class and Criminality ReconsideredAmerican Sociological Review, 46
Carl Pope (1976)
The influence of social and legal factors on sentence dispositions: A preliminary analysis of offender-based transaction statisticsJournal of Criminal Justice, 4
G. Kleck (1981)
Racial Discrimination in Criminal Sentencing: A Critical Evaluation of the Evidence with Additional Evidence on the Death Penalty.American Sociological Review, 46
P. Burke, A. Turk (1975)
Factors Affecting Postarrest Dispositions: A Model for AnalysisSocial Problems, 22
Ted Chiricos, G. Waldo (1975)
Socioeconomic status and criminal sentencing: An empirical assessment of a conflict proposition.American Sociological Review, 40
M. Hindelang (1969)
Equality Under the LawJournal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 60
G. Glass, B. Mcgaw, M. Smith (1981)
Meta-analysis in social research
James Unnever, C. Frazier, J. Henretta (1980)
Race Differences in Criminal SentencingSociological Quarterly, 21
M. Smith (1980)
Sex bias in counseling and psychotherapy.Psychological bulletin, 87 2
C. Tittle, W. Villemez, Douglas Smith (1978)
THE MYTH OF SOCIAL CLASS AND CRIMINALITY: AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE*American Sociological Review, 43
J. Hagan (1974)
Extra-Legal Attributes and Criminal Sentencing: An Assessment of a Sociological ViewpointLaw & Society Review, 8
M. Farnworth, P. Horan (1980)
Separate justice: An analysis of race differences in court processesSocial Science Research, 9
Herman Schwendinger, S. Balkan, R. Berger, Janet Schmidt (1980)
Crime and deviance in America: A critical approach
G. Kleck (1982)
On the use of self-report data to determine the class distribution of criminal and delinquent behaviorAmerican Sociological Review, 47
G. LaFree (1980)
The effect of sexual stratification by race on official reactions to rape.American sociological review, 45 5
R. Thomson, M. Zingraff (1981)
Detecting Sentencing Disparity: Some Problems and EvidenceAmerican Journal of Sociology, 86
J. Braithwaite (1979)
Inequality, crime, and public policy
Scott Decker (1979)
Law and Society ReviewJournal of Drug Issues, 9
E. Sagarin (1980)
Taboos in criminology
C. Tittle, W. Villemez, Douglas Smith (1982)
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: More on the Class/Criminality ControversyAmerican Sociological Review, 47
A recent review concluded that the weight of available evidence contradicts a hypothesis of widespread overt racial discrimination in sentencing in the United States. Yet brief summaries of this body of research, found in textbooks, monographs, and the literature review sections of journal articles, commonly conveyed the opposite impression, sustaining an image of extensive support for the hypothesis. These summaries are examined to determine how this misleading Impression was conveyed. Five common practices are identified:Selective Citation: A biased selection of studies were reviewed or cited.Letting the Evidence Speak for Itself: Overrepresentation of blacks in prison or among the executed relative to their share of the population was noted, with readers left to “draw their own conclusions,”The Mixed Bag: Impressive lists of studies supposedly supporting a discrimination hypothesis were padded, by lumping together studies concerning a variety of criminal justice processes besides sentencing, and various legally Irrelevant defendant traits besides race.Research Democracy—“All Studies are Created Equal”: Equal weight was Implicitly given to all studies regardless of methodological rigor, in a field where it was the least rigorous studies which were most likely to support the discrimination hypothesis.Magnanimous Neutrality: The available evidence was described as “mixed” or “ambiguous,” which, while technically accurate, was a misleading description of evidence which largely contradicted the discrimination hypothesis.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Sep 1, 1985
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.