Plea Bargaining and Trial Decisions in Context: An Examination of Disparities in Punishment

Abstract

Racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system have been well documented in prior research. Despite this, few studies have explored the extent of disparities after accepting a plea bargain compared with proceeding to trial. The distinction between plea bargaining and going to trial is highlighted because judicial officials are more constrained by the law when making punitive decisions following a trial. Thus, there should be fewer disparities in punitive outcomes among defendants who went to trial. Using Florida Sentencing Guidelines data from 2010 to 2017 combined with county-level data from the 2010 United States Census, the current study contributes to prior research by investigating whether the size of the Black and Latino populations influences disparities in punitive outcomes among Black, White, and Latino defendants after accepting a plea bargain and going to trial. The results suggest that Blacks sentenced in counties with a growing Black population are less likely to receive a jail sentence but more likely to receive a prison sentence after accepting a plea bargain. However, they are less likely to receive a prison sentence after proceeding to trial when sentenced in areas with a larger share of Black residents. In contrast, Latino defendants who accept a plea bargain are more likely to receive a jail sentence but less likely to be sentenced to prison in areas with a growing ethnic presence. Furthermore, Black defendants sentenced in areas with a change in Black populations receive shorter sentences after accepting a plea bargain. Our analyses provide an intricate story about race/ethnicity, place, and threat in the state of Florida. Overall, the results show that the social context matters, but differently pertaining to punishment outcomes disposed of by plea bargains and trials.