Race, class, and criminal adjudication: Is the US criminal justice system as biased as is often assumed? A meta-analytic review

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Christopher J. Ferguson, Sven Smith
{"title":"Race, class, and criminal adjudication: Is the US criminal justice system as biased as is often assumed? A meta-analytic review","authors":"Christopher J. Ferguson,&nbsp;Sven Smith","doi":"10.1016/j.avb.2023.101905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>It is widely reported that the US criminal justice system<span> is systematically biased in regard to criminal adjudication based on race and class. Specifically, there is concern that Black and Latino defendants as well as poorer defendants receive harsher sentences than Whites or Asians or wealthier defendants. We tested this in a meta-analytic review of 51 studies including 120 effect sizes. Several databases in psychology, criminal justice and medicine were searched for relevant articles. Overall results suggested that neither class nor race biases for criminal adjudications for either violent or property crimes could be reliably detected. For all crimes, effect sizes (in terms of r) for Black vs White comparisons were.054, for Latinos vs Whites, 0.057 and for Asians vs Whites −0.028. There was significant heterogeneity between studies, particularly for Asian vs White comparisons. Effect sizes were smaller than our evidentiary threshold, indicating they are indistinguishable from statistical noise. For </span></span>drug<span><span> crimes, evidentiary standards were met, although effect sizes were very small. Better quality studies were less likely to produce results supportive of disparities. Studies with citation bias produced higher effect sizes than did studies without citation bias suggesting that researcher </span>expectancy effects may be driving some outcomes in this field, resulting in an overestimation of true effects. Taken together, these results do not support beliefs that the US criminal justice system is systemically biased at current. Negativity bias and the overinterpretation of statistically significant “noise” from large sample studies appear to have allowed the perception or bias to be maintained among scholars, despite a weak evidentiary base. Suggestions for improvement in this field are offered. Narratives of “systemic racism” as relates to the criminal justice system do not appear to be a constructive framework from which to understand this nuanced issue.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":51360,"journal":{"name":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 101905"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178923000927","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is widely reported that the US criminal justice system is systematically biased in regard to criminal adjudication based on race and class. Specifically, there is concern that Black and Latino defendants as well as poorer defendants receive harsher sentences than Whites or Asians or wealthier defendants. We tested this in a meta-analytic review of 51 studies including 120 effect sizes. Several databases in psychology, criminal justice and medicine were searched for relevant articles. Overall results suggested that neither class nor race biases for criminal adjudications for either violent or property crimes could be reliably detected. For all crimes, effect sizes (in terms of r) for Black vs White comparisons were.054, for Latinos vs Whites, 0.057 and for Asians vs Whites −0.028. There was significant heterogeneity between studies, particularly for Asian vs White comparisons. Effect sizes were smaller than our evidentiary threshold, indicating they are indistinguishable from statistical noise. For drug crimes, evidentiary standards were met, although effect sizes were very small. Better quality studies were less likely to produce results supportive of disparities. Studies with citation bias produced higher effect sizes than did studies without citation bias suggesting that researcher expectancy effects may be driving some outcomes in this field, resulting in an overestimation of true effects. Taken together, these results do not support beliefs that the US criminal justice system is systemically biased at current. Negativity bias and the overinterpretation of statistically significant “noise” from large sample studies appear to have allowed the perception or bias to be maintained among scholars, despite a weak evidentiary base. Suggestions for improvement in this field are offered. Narratives of “systemic racism” as relates to the criminal justice system do not appear to be a constructive framework from which to understand this nuanced issue.

种族、阶级和刑事判决:美国刑事司法系统是否像人们通常认为的那样存在偏见?元分析综述
据广泛报道,美国刑事司法系统在基于种族和阶级的刑事判决方面存在系统性偏见。具体而言,黑人和拉丁裔被告以及较贫穷的被告比白人、亚洲人或较富裕的被告受到更严厉的判决,这引起了人们的关注。我们对 51 项研究(包括 120 个效应大小)进行了元分析综述,检验了这一观点。我们在多个心理学、刑事司法和医学数据库中搜索了相关文章。总体结果表明,在暴力犯罪或财产犯罪的刑事判决中,既不能可靠地检测出阶级偏见,也不能可靠地检测出种族偏见。在所有犯罪中,黑人与白人对比的效应大小(r 值)为 0.054,拉美裔与白人对比的效应大小为 0.057,亚裔与白人对比的效应大小为-0.028。不同研究之间存在明显的异质性,尤其是亚裔与白人的比较。效应大小小于我们的证据阈值,表明它们与统计噪音没有区别。在毒品犯罪方面,虽然效应大小非常小,但符合证据标准。质量较高的研究不太可能产生支持差异的结果。有引用偏差的研究产生的效应大小高于无引用偏差的研究,这表明研究者的期望效应可能会推动该领域的某些结果,从而导致对真实效应的高估。综上所述,这些结果并不支持美国刑事司法系统目前存在系统性偏见的观点。尽管证据基础薄弱,但否定性偏差和对大样本研究中具有统计意义的 "噪音 "的过度解读似乎使得学者们仍然认为存在偏差。本文对这一领域的改进提出了建议。与刑事司法系统有关的 "系统性种族主义 "的叙述似乎不是理解这一微妙问题的建设性框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Aggression and Violent Behavior, A Review Journal is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes substantive and integrative reviews, as well as summary reports of innovative ongoing clinical research programs on a wide range of topics germane to the field of aggression and violent behavior. Papers encompass a large variety of issues, populations, and domains, including homicide (serial, spree, and mass murder: sexual homicide), sexual deviance and assault (rape, serial rape, child molestation, paraphilias), child and youth violence (firesetting, gang violence, juvenile sexual offending), family violence (child physical and sexual abuse, child neglect, incest, spouse and elder abuse), genetic predispositions, and the physiological basis of aggression.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信