Abstract
The legal and social professions have long been concerned with the problem of whether the fact that those incarcerated in prison tend to be drawn from the ranks of the poor unemployed and low social status is indicative of willful discrimination against the underprivileged. In this paper we apply the traditional analytical tools of economics to develop the conditions required for an efficient tradeoff between the probability of conviction and the length of prison sentence for both rich and poor. We show that the generally accepted approach of equal punishment for equal crimes tends to “overdeter” the rich and “underdeter” the poor, which results in a gross overrepresentation of the poor in the prison population. In order to eliminate this overrepresentation, the poor must receive a more severe sentence than the rich for an equivalent crime. This appears to contradict normal definitions of “equity” and we address this issue. We also show that an increase in the total crime budget when used efficiently must always result in longer sentences but can, under appropriate conditions, require a lower probability of apprehension.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach.J. Polit. Econ. 76: 169–217.
Burke, P. J., Turk, A. T. (1975). Factors affecting post-arrest dispositions: A model for analysis.Soc. Prob. 22: 313–332.
Chambliss, W. J. (1969).Crime and the Legal. Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Chiricos, T. G., and Waldo, G. P. (1975). Socioeconomic status and criminal sentencing: An empirical assessment of a conflict proposition.Am. Social. Rev. 40: 753–772.
Clarke, S. H., and Koch, G. G. (1976). The influence of income and other factors on whether criminal defendants go to prison.Law Soc. Rev. 11: 57–92.
Ehrlich, I. (1973). Participation in illegal activities: A theoretical and empirical investigation.J. Polit. Econ. 81: 521–567.
Fabrikant, R. S. (1977). A long overdue comment on Shoup's standards for distributing a free government service: Crime prevention.Publ Finance/Finances Publ. 111–118.
Farrell, R. A. (1971). Class linkage of legal treatment of homosexuals.Criminology 9: 49–68.
Farrell, R. A., and Swigert, V. L. (1978). Legal disposition of inter-group and intra-group homicides.Social. Q. 19: 565–576.
Hopkins, A. (1977). Is there a class bias in criminal sentencing.Am. Social. Rev. 42: 176–177.
Judson, C. J., Pandell, J. J., Owens, J. B., McIntosh, J. L., and Matschullat, D. L. (1969). A study of the California penalty jury in first degree murder cases.Stan. Law Rev. 21: 1297–1431.
Lizotte, A. J. (1978). Extra-legal factors in Chicago's criminal courts: Testing the conflict model of criminal justice.Soc. Prob. 25: 564–580.
Nagel, S. (1969).The Legal Process from a Criminal Perspective, Dorsey Press, Homewood, I11.
National Research Council, Panel on Sentencing Research (1983). Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Martin, S. E., and Tonry, M. H. (eds.), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Polinsky, M. A. and Shavell, S. (1984). The optimal use of fines and imprisonment.J. Publ. Econ. 24: 89–99.
Shoup, C. (1964). Standards for the distribution of a free public service.Publ. Finance/Finances Publ. 19: No. 4.
Stigler, G. J. (1970). The optimal enforcement of laws.J. Polit. Econ. 78: 526–534.
Terry, R. (1967). Discrimination in the handling of juvenile offenders by social control agencies,J Res. Crime Delinq. 4: 218.
Thornberry, T. P. (1973). Race, socioeconomic status and sentencing in the juvenile justice system.J. Crim. Law Criminol. 64: 90–98.
Willick, D. H., Gehlker, G., and Watts, A. M. (1975). Social class as a factor affecting judicial disposition.Criminology 13: 57–77.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Spiegel, U., Templeman, J. Economics of discriminatory sentencing. J Quant Criminol 5, 317–332 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01062557
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01062557