Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:57:53.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Income and Other Factors on Whether Criminal Defendants go to Prison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Stevens H. Clarke  and
Gary G. Koch
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The experiences of 798 burglary and larceny defendants in the criminal courts of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, in 1971 were studied to identify the factors having the greatest influence on the defendant's likelihood of emerging from court with an active prison sentence. The following variables were found to have a significant effect, listed in order of importance: (1) severity of offense (defined in terms of value of property taken and degree of skill required)—positive effect; (2) defendant's income—negative effect; (3) prior arrest record—positive effect; (4) strength of case against defendant as determined by promptness of arrest—positive effect. The influence of the defendant's sex could not be measured because there were too few females in the sample. Race, age, and employment were found to be of little or no importance. The four most important variables had a generally additive effect on prison probability.

Further analysis showed that the defendant's income affected not whether he was convicted of an offense, but the likelihood of going to prison after conviction. Most of this effect could be explained by the low-income defendant's poorer opportunity for pretrial release and greater likelihood of having a court-appointed rather than privately retained attorney. This suggests that the apparent disadvantage of the low-income defendant could be overcome by improvement of pretrial release and defense service.

The study's implications with regard to sentencing procedures are discussed. Judges' wide latitude in imposing sentence may enable the defendant's income to exert the large influence that it apparently does, but narrowing judicial discretion may not reduce the effect of income if present plea bargaining practices continue.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Fall 1976 , pp. 57 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

*

The preparation of this document was partially supported by grant 73NI-040002 from the National Institute of law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, and grant GM 7000404 from the National Institutes of Health, Institute of General Medical Sciences. The granting agencies do not necessarily concur in any conclusions or statements contained herein. We gratefully acknowledge the help of Jean L. Freeman and Nancy L. Snypes.

References

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1968) Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION (1976) Reply to Attorney General Levi (Feb. 9), summarized in 7(4) Criminal Justice Newsletter 2 (Feb. 16).Google Scholar
ANTUNES, George and A. Lee, HUNT (1973) “The Impact of Certainty and Severity of Punishment on Levels of Crime in American States: An Extended Analysis^” 64 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 486.Google Scholar
BAILEY, William, David, MARTIN and Louis, GRAY (1974) “Crime and Deterrence: A Correlational Analysis,” 11 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 124.Google Scholar
BURKE, Peter and Austin, TURK (1975) “Factors Affecting Postarrest Dispositions: A Model for Analysis,” 22 Social Problems 313.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, Bob (1970) Driver Injury in Automobile Accidents Involving Certain Car Models. Chapel Hill, N.C.: N. C. Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
CHIRICOS, Theodore and Gordon, WALDO (1975) “Socioeconomic Status and Criminal Sentencing: An Empirical Assessment of a Conflict Proposition,” 40 American Sociological Review 753.Google Scholar
CLARKE, Stevens (1975) The Bail System in Charlotte, 1971-73. Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service (Publication No. PB-239827A/S).Google Scholar
COCHRAN, William (1954) “Some Methods for Strengthening the Common Chi-Square Test,” 10 Biometrics 417.Google Scholar
ERICKSON, Maynard and Frank, GIBBS (1973) “The Deterrence Question: Some Alternative Methods of Analysis,” 54 Social Science Quarterly 534.Google Scholar
FLEISS, Joseph (1973) Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
FRANKEL, Marvin (1972) Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order. New York: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
GOLDMAN, Nathan (1963) The Differential Selection of Juvenile Offenders for Court Appearance. Hackensack, N. J.: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.Google Scholar
GREENWOOD, Peter, WILDHORN, Sorrel, POGGIO, Eugene C., STRUMWASSER, Michael J. and Peter De, LEON (1973) Prosecution of Adult Felony Defendants in Los Angeles County: A Policy Perspective. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
GRIZZLE, James, Frank, STARMER and Gary, KOCH (1969) “Analysis of Categorical Data by Linear Models,” 25 Biometrics 489.Google Scholar
HERMANN, Robert, William, GALLAGHER and Eric, SINGLE (1975) Plaintiffs Memorandum in Roballo v. New York City Criminal Court. New York: New York Legal Aid Society.Google Scholar
KASANOF, Robert and Eric, SINGLE (1972a) Plaintiffs Memorandum in Bellamy v. Judges of New York City Criminal Court. New York: New York Legal Aid Society.Google Scholar
Eric, SINGLE (1972b) “The Unconstitutional Administration of Bail: Bellamy v. The Judges of New York City,” 8 Criminal Law Bulletin 507.Google Scholar
KOBRIN, Solomon, LUBECK, Steven, HANSEN, E. Wayne and Robert, YEAMAN (1972) The Deterrent Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Sanction Strategies. Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service (Publication No. PB-214570).Google Scholar
KOCH, Gary and Donald, REINFURT (1973) An Analysis of the Relationship between Driver Injury and Vehicle Age for Automobiles Involved in North Carolina Accidents During 1966-1970. Chapel Hill, N. C: N. C. Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
LANDES, William (1974) “Legality and Reality: Some Evidence on Criminal Procedure,” 3 Journal of Legal Studies 287.Google Scholar
LEHNEN, Robert and Gary, KOCH (1973) “A Comparison of Conventional and Categorical Regression Techniques in Political Analysis.” Presented at Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, New Orleans (December).Google Scholar
LEVI, Edward H. (1976), Speech to Wisconsin Governor's Conference on Employment and the Prevention of Crime (Feb. 2), summarized in 7(4) Criminal Justice Newsletter 1 (Feb. 16).Google Scholar
MANTEL, Nathan and William, HAENSZEL (1959) “Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data from Retrospective Studies of Disease,” 22 Journal of the National Cancer Institute 719.Google Scholar
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND GOALS (1973) Report: The Courts. Washington: National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals.Google Scholar
TERRY, Robert (1967) “Discrimination in the Handling of Juvenile Offenders by Social-Control Agencies,” 4 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 218.Google Scholar
THORNBERRY, Terence (1973) “Race, Socioeconomic Status and Sentencing in the Juvenile Justice System,” 64 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 90.Google Scholar
TIFFANY, Lawrence, Yakov, AVICHAI and Geoffrey, PETERS (1975) “A Statistical Analysis of Sentencing in Federal Courts,” 4 Journal of Legal Studies 369.Google Scholar
TITTLE, Charles (1969) “Crime Rates and Legal Sanctions,” 16 Social Problems 409.Google Scholar
WOLFGANG, Marvin, Robert, FIGLIO and Thorsten, SELLIN (1972) Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
WOLFGANG, Marvin and Marc, RIEDEL (1973) “Race, Judicial Discretion, and the Death Penalty,” 407 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 118.Google Scholar