Advertisement

Effects of Judicial Selection on Criminal Sentencing

  • Aleksandar Tomic
  • Jahn K. Hakes

Abstract

Hardly an election goes by without politicians appealing to voters by saying they are tough on crime. Legislators and government executives most commonly make these claims of intolerance to crime. However, in some states the judges are also chosen by popular elections. In other states, the governor or the state legislature appoints judges. This variation in methods of judicial selection can help reveal whether political pressures lead to systematic differences in incarceration and sentencing choices between elected and appointed judges. Although judges are supposed to be impartial interpreters of the law, as rational agents they are subject to political pressure from either their constituents or the appointing body, be it the governor or the state legislature. If the voters demand a tough stance on crime, then elected judges should pass strict sentences to maintain voter support. Appointed judges are selected for office by elected politicians, and thus are not too far removed from the same pressure to pass harsher sentences. State-level funding of prisons makes state officials accountable for prison overcrowding. Thus, judges appointed by state legislatures and governors will have relatively more incentive to find punishments other than incarceration for minor felons.

Keywords

Sentence Length High Court Plea Bargain Longe Sentence Public Defender 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. American Judicature Society. Judicial Selection in the States: Appellate and General Jurisdiction Courts. http://www.ajs.org/selection/Jud%20Sel%20 Chart-Oct%202002.pdf.
  2. Becker, Gary S. 1968. Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. The Journal of Political Economy, 76(2): 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besley, Timothy and Anne Case. 2003. Political Institutions and Policy Choices: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(1): 7–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besley, Timothy and Stephen Coate. 2000a. Elected versus Appointed Regulators: Theory and Evidence, NBER Working Paper 7579.Google Scholar
  5. —. 2000b. Issue Unbundling via Citizens’ Initiatives, NBER Working Paper 8036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brace, Paul and Melinda Gann Hall. 1990. Neo-institutionalism and Dissent in State Supreme Courts. Journal of Politics, 52: 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. —. 1993. Integrated Models of Judicial Dissent. Journal of Politics, 55: 914–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. —. 1995. Studying Courts Comparatively: The View from the American States. Political Research Quarterly, 48: 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Annual Survey of Jails: Jurisdiction-Level Data. (serial, computer file). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  10. Bushway, Sean and Ann Morris Piehl. 2001. Judging Judicial Discretion: Legal Factors and Racial Discrimination in Sentencing. Law & Society Review, 35(4): 733–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Canon, Bradley C. and Dean Jaros. 1970. External Variables, Institutional Structure and Dissent on State Supreme Courts. Polity, 4: 185–200.Google Scholar
  12. Clinton, William Jefferson. 2001. Erasing America’s Color Lines, New York Times, January 15.Google Scholar
  13. Crain, Mark W. and Robert E. McCormick. 1984. Regulators as an Interest Group, in James M. Buchanan and Robert D. Tollison (eds.). The Theory of Public Choice II. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. DiIulio, John J., Jr. 1996. Prisons Are a Bargain, by Any Measure, New York Times, January 16.Google Scholar
  15. Donohue, John and Steven Levitt. 2001. The Impact of Race on Policing, Arrest Patterns, and Crime. Journal of Law and Economics, 44: 2, 367–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dominitz, Jeff. 2003. How Do the Laws of Probability Constrain Legislative and Judicial Efforts to Stop Racial Profiling? American Law and Economics Review, 5(2): 412–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene, William H. 2000. Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, Melinda Gann. 1995. Justices as Representatives: Elections and Judicial Politics in the American States. American Politics Quarterly, 75: 136–151.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, Melinda Gann and Paul Brace. 1996. Justices’ Responses to Case Facts: An Interactive Model. American Politics Quarterly, 24(2): 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanssen, F. Andrew. 1999. The Effect of Judicial Institutions on Uncertainty and the Rate of Litigation: The Election Versus Appointment of State Judges. Journal of Legal Studies, 28(1): 205–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. —. 2001. Is there a Politically Optimal Level of Judicial Independence? Stanford Law School, John M. Olin Working Paper 218.Google Scholar
  22. Heckman, James.1976. The Common Structure of Stat istical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models, Annals of Economic and Social Measurement. 5: 475–492.Google Scholar
  23. Helland, Eric and Alexander Tabarrok. 1999. Court Politics: The Political Economy of Tort Awards. Journal of Law and Economics, 42(1): 157–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. —. 2000. Runaway Judges? Selection Effects and the Jury. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 16(2): 306–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. —. 2002. The Effect of Electoral Institutions on Tort Awards. American Law and Economics Review, 4(2): 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jensen, Jennifer M. and Thad Beyle. 2003. Of Footnotes, Missing Data, and Lessons for 50-State Data Collection: The Gubernatorial Campaign Finance Project, 1977–2001. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 3: 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knowles, John, Nicola Persico, and Petra Todd. 2001. Racial Bias in Motor-Vehicle Searches: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Political Economy, 109(1): 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levitt, Steven D. 1997. Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime. American Economic Review, 87(3): 270–290.Google Scholar
  29. Mustard, David B. 2001. Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1): 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peltzman, Sam. 1976. Toward a More General Theory of Regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2): 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Posner, Richard. 1994. What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does). Supreme Court Economic Review, 3(1): 1–41.Google Scholar
  32. Shepherd, Joanna M. 2002. Fear of the First Strike: The Full Effect of California’s Two- and Three-Strikes Legislation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 31(1): 159–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skogan, Wesley G. and Tracey L. Mears. 2004. Lawful Policing. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593: 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stigler, G. J. 1971. The Theory of Economic Regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. State Court Processing Statistics, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998: Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties [Computer file]. Conducted by Pretrial Services Resource Center [producer], 2001. 3rd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2002.Google Scholar
  36. Wright, Ronald F. 1998. Three Strikes Legislation and Sentencing Commission Objectives. Law and Policy, 18: 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Independent Institute 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aleksandar Tomic
  • Jahn K. Hakes

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations