Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU
Dissertations Graduate College
12-1991
The Criminal Justice System: The Impact of Legal and Extra-Legal Variables
Sanderson Charles Jeter Western Michigan University
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations
Part of the Sociology Commons
Recommended Citation Jeter, Sanderson Charles, "The Criminal Justice System: The Impact of Legal and Extra-Legal Variables" (1991). Dissertations. 2004. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2004
This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: THE IMPACT OF LEGAL AND EXTRA-LEGAL VARIABLES
by
Sanderson Charles Jeter
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology
Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan December 1991
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: THE IMPACT OF LEGAL AND EXTRA-LEGAL VARIABLES
Sanderson Charles Jeter, Ph.D.
Western Michigan University, 1991
This dissertation examines the effect of legal and extra-legal
variables on the processing and sentencing outcomes of defendants. The
data for this study were extracted from the case files of Kalamazoo
(Michigan) County Circuit Court. The sample population is comprised of
criminal defendants randomly selected and who were processed in the cir
cuit court from May, 1987 through May, 1988. The statistical procedure
applied was cross - tabulation, utilizing a chi-square measure of associa
tion. Legal and extra-legal variables independently and collectively
have different effects on the processing and sentencing outcomes of de
fendants. Results indicate that legal variables (e.g., type of crime
and prior record) impact more significantly than extra-legal variables
(e.g., race and age) on the processing and sentencing of defendants in
the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court. Recommendations for future studies
are proposed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Order Number 9216461
The criminal justice system: The impact of legal and extra-legal variables
Jeter, Sanderson Charles, Ph.D.
Western Michigan University, 1991
Copyright ©1991 by Jeter, Sanderson Charles. All rights reserved.
UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Copyright by Sanderson Charles Jeter 1991
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation committee,
Drs. Lewis Walker, Edward Pawlak, and Paul C. Friday, for the guidance
they provided throughout the writing of this dissertation. Dr. Walker,
my chairperson, has been supportive during my graduate studies and
guided me through the dissertation process.
I would also like to take this opportunity to give my thanks to
others who have assisted me:
To my family (Dot, Derek, and Sharlee) whose love and understand
ing provided the environment that encouraged the self-confidence for
achievement;
To Shaghil Husain for being supportive and helping me to analyze my
data;
To Karen Rice for typing my drafts and being patient enough to work
through my numerous revisions; and
To my mother who would be proud that her son continues the process
of learning and achieving.
Sanderson Charles Jeter
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... ii
LIST OF TABLES...... vii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM...... 1
Introduction...... 1
Statement of the Problem...... 1
Summary...... 9
II. LITERATURE REVIEW...... 11
Legal Defense of Indigent Defendants...... 11
Legal Defense of Indigent Defendants and Outcome...... 17
Extra-Legal Variables and Outcome...... 18
Indigency Status and Bail...... 22
Summary...... 24
III. METHODS...... 26
Introduction...... 26
Population and Sample...... 27
Source of Data...... 28
Variables...... 30
Dependent Variable: Sentencing Outcome...... 30
Independent Variables: Legal and Extra-Legal...... 31
Legal Variables: Type of Crime, Prior Offense, Bond, Plea...... 31
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents--Continued
CHAPTER
Social Variables: Race, Age, Gender, Employment Status, Marital Status...... 34
Statistical Procedures...... 36
Summary...... 38
IV. FINDINGS...... 4°
Description of Sample...... 40
Answers to the Research Questions...... 44
Race and Type of Crime...... 45
Race and Prior Record, Plea and Type of Bond...... 46
Age and Type of Crime,.. Plea...... 47
Age and Type of Bond...... 50
Gender and Type of Crime...... 50
Employment Status and Type of Crime...... 50
Employment Status and Type of Bond...... 52
Marital Status and Type of Crime...... 53
Marital Status and Type of Bond...... 55
Type of Crime and Bond Posted...... 55
Prior Record and Bond...... 56
Plea and Count by Type of Crime...... 61
Type of Sentence by Type of Offense...... 66
Length of Sentence by Type of Offense...... 68
Type of Sentence by Prior Record...... 68
Type of Sentencing and Plea...... 68
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Concents--Continued
CHAPTER
Posted Bond and Sentencing...... 72
Sentencing Patterns by Race...... 79
Type of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race...... 79
Type of Sentence and Primary Charge by Race: Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record...... 80
Type of Sentence and Primary Charge by Race: Controlling for "No” on Prior Record...... 83
Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race: Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record...... 84
Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race: Controlling for "No" on Prior Record...... 88
Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race (Males Only): Controlling for "Yes/No" on Prior Record...... 89
Sentence by Age...... 89
Sentence by Gender...... 93
Sentence by Employment Status...... 93
Sentence by Marital Status...... 94
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 97
Summary...... 97
Findings and Related Literature: A Discussion 101
Limitations of the Study...... 103
Recommendations...... 104
APPENDICES
A. Indigent Study Instrument...... 106
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents--Continued
APPENDICES
B. Felony Case Status Report...... 112
C. Arraignment Report and Order Limiting Time for Motions...... 114
D. Judgment of Sentence Commitment to Jail...... 116
F. Petition and Order for Court Appointed Attorney...... 118
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 120
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES
1. Missing Data...... 37
2. Sentence of Adjudicated Defendants...... 42
3. Minimum Jail or Prison Sentence in Months...... 42
4. Repeat Defendant Supplement: Prior Record...... 43
5. Bond Posted...... 43
6. Type of Bond Set...... 44
7. Type of Crime by Race...... 45
8. Prior Record by Race...... 46
9. Type of Bond by Race...... 47
10. Type of Crime by Age...... 49
11. Type of Bond by Age...... 51
12. Type of Crime by Gender...... 52
13. Type of Crime by Employment Status...... 53
14. Type of Bond by Employment Status...... 54
15. Type of Crime by Marital Status...... 54
16. Type of Bond by Marital Status...... 56
17. Posted Bond by Type of Crime...... 57
18. Type of Bond by Type of Crime...... 58
19. Cost of Bond by Type of Crime...... 59
20. Type of Bond by Prior Record...... 60
21. Cost of Bond by Prior Record...... 61
22. Type of Plea by Type of Crime...... 62
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. List of Tables--Continued
23. Type of Crime by Type of Bond: Controlling For Race (Black)...... 64
24. Type of Crime by Type of Bond: Controlling For Race (White)...... 65
25. Type of Sentence by Type of Offense...... 67
26. Length of Sentence by Type of Crime...... 69
27. Sentence by Prior Record...... 70
28. Plea: First Count...... 71
29. Length of Sentence by Plea...... 71
30. Sentence by Posted Bond...... 72
31. Type of Sentence by Type of Crime: Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record...... 74
32. Type of Sentence by Type of Crime: Controlling for "No" on Prior Record...... 75
33. Length of Sentence by Type of Crime: Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record...... 77
34. Length of Sentence by Type of Crime: Controlling for "No" on Prior Record...... 78
35. Race and Type of Sentence...... 80
36. Type of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race...... 81
37. Type of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race: Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record...... 82
38. Type of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race: Controlling for "No" on Prior Record...... 83
39. Length of Sentence by Race...... 85
40. Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race: Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record...... 86
41. Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race: Controlling for "No" on Prior Record...... 87
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. List of Tables--Continued
42. Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race (Males Only) : Controlling for "No" on Prior Record...... 90
43. Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race (Males Only): Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record...... 91
44. Sentence by Age...... 92
45. Sentence by Gender...... 93
46. Sentence by Employment Status...... 94
47. Type of Sentence by Marital Status...... 95
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
In recent years virtually every component (e.g., police, courts,
correctional agencies) of the criminal justice system has been criti
cized. One of the most enduring criticisms is the contention that only
rich people receive justice in America because the criminal justice
system is designed to protect the vested interests of the rich (Carlin,
Howard & Messinger, 1967; Chambliss & Seidman, 1971; Lizotte, 1978;
Orcutt, 1983). This criticism maintains that a two-traclc system of
justice exists in America resulting in differential processing and
sentencing outcomes, in spite of numerous Supreme Court and lower court
decisions ensuring the rights of all criminal defendants, regardless of
socio-economic status (Herman, Single & Boston, 1977). This disser
tation examines justice in Kalamazoo County, Michigan, to ascertain the
extent to which this criticism is valid. Specifically, the study focuses
on the impact of legal and extra-legal variables on the processing and
sentencing outcomes of defendants in Kalamazoo County.
Statement of the Problem
Two of the basic goals of the criminal justice system, especially
the courts, are: (1) to safeguard and protect the individual rights of
the accused, and (2) to punish wrong-doers in society. However, the
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. courts stand accused of failing to reach those goal's. Roth critics
and practitioners agree that there are numerous internal and external
problems which are useful in explaining why they prevent criminal
justice agencies from operating in less than a just manner. There is
a perception that courts and other agencies in the criminal justice
system treat repeat defendants leniently which has resulted in a pheno
menon identified as a revolving door syndrome (Petersilia, Greenwood &
Lavin, 1977). The perception of lenient treatment of repeat defendants
is contrary to the view that wrong-doers should be effectively punished.
Further, there is a perception that the criminal justice system
does not operate in a manner that ensures that the rights of all citi
zens are protected. According to Katz (1982)
a statement of law that warned but these rights apply only to those who can obtain the legal skills necessary to invoke them would be absurd. An affirmation of unequal access to the law would nullify the moral claim of any constitutional provision, statute, administrative regulation, or judicial decision. As an empirical matter, not just as a contention of philosophy, the value of equal access is an essential element of the com mon sense understanding of a legal system, just as are the virtues of a general, public, intelligible, and consistent reasoning. (p. 1)
According to critics and some practitioners, the criminal justice system
dispenses differential justice based on the social class of a defendant.
The social class thesis is theoretically based on Marxist ideology of
class conflict in a capitalist society in which two great classes would
emerge with one class being dominant and in control of all of the major
societal institutions. Thus, according to Marxist ideology, the primary
interests of the ruling class will be protected, not the interests of
the subordinate class (i.e., the poor and minority). Therefore, justice
is dispensed differentially in a capitalist society based on extra-legal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3
factors (Auerback, 1976; Downie, 1971; Lefcourt, 1974; Lizotte, 1978;
Orcutt, 1983; Quinney, 1977; Reiman & Headlee, 1979).
Carlin et al. (1967), regarding bias against the poor, purported
that
it has long been argued that the law is not a neutral instru ment, but rather that it is oriented in favor of those groups or classes in society having the power to bend the legal order to their advantage. The contention is that today, as in the past, the law primarily selves to protect and enhance the rights and interests of property holders and those in positions of wealth and authority. (p. 4)
According to Chambliss and Seidman (1971), "the poor do not receive the
same treatment at the hands of the agents of social control as the well-
to-do or middle class. This differential treatment is systematic and
complete" (p. 475).
The differential justice assertion is based on the assumption that
defendants without sufficient monetary resources are at a distinct dis
advantage within our criminal justice system which accounts for the
harsher outcomes in their case dispositions (Houlden & Balkin, 1985;
Lizotte, 1978). In fact, Herman et al. (1977) maintain that
many criticisms boil down to the claim that we have a "two- track" system of justice in which people who have money obtain good representation and lenient outcomes while the poor get inferior representation that leads to harsher outcomes. (p. 21)
Although the U.S. Supreme Court and state courts have extensively
addressed the issues pertaining to unequal access to the law, they
remain problematic areas. The right to counsel has been viewed as one
of the most essential features of equal access to the law for indigent
defendants. According to Houlden and Balkin (1985), the famous Gideon
v. Wainwright case of 1963 and the broader Argersineer v. Hamlin case,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4
eight years later, established that poor people facing any prison term,
even in a misdemeanor charge, have the right to defense counsel at
government expense. Barak (1980) rather eloquently made a case for the
right to counsel when he stated that
defense counsel was also regarded as necessary to an equitable administration of justice under the notion that the criminal courtroom exists as the neutral/democratic battleground for the state's quest for truth and the accused's need for jus tice. For the battle to be fair and democratic, it was essen tial that the accused be defended by someone who knew and understood the law. (p. 109)
While Barak was concerned about the right of any accused person
to have legal counsel in the courtroom, Silverstein (1965) focused his
attention on the plight of the indigent defendant, and he asserts that
the American Bar Association believes that the legal pro fession of the United States has no more important or press ing task than to see to it that adequate provision is made everywhere to insure that competent counsel are provided for indigent defendants in serious criminal cases as required by the constitution and recent decisions of the Supreme Court and to that end urge state and local bar associations to treat this as a matter of first importance. (p. 2)
The Supreme Court's mandates and the exhortations of the American
Bar Association notwithstanding, many critics maintain that the indi
gent defendant is not competently represented in courtrooms throughout
the country. Thus, the twin issues of the right to counsel and the
right to competent counsel are separate but intricately related. A
scathing indictment against the criminal justice system is made by
Barak (1980), who claims that
within the criminal justice system, the public or private defense lawyers for the poor are typically members of the legal profession who: 1) rank lowest in education, status, power, and skill; 2) do not fulfill the constitutional role of adversary, but instead serve as servants of the state, protecting the class interests of bourgeois legal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5
Institutions; 3) have already assumed the guilt of indigent clients; and 4) contribute to the appearance of due process of law while serving the real needs of the state. (p. 114)
If Barak's claims are true then, one would expect to find robust
differences in outcomes between the indigent defenders and nonpoor
defendants. In this regard, however, research shows that there is more
uniformity than differences in the outcome of cases when pretrial status
was controlled (Wheeler & Wheeler, 1980). Houlden and Balkin (1985)
support the notion of few performance differences when such factors as
the type of offense, prior record, or the bail status of the accused
are controlled. Regarding differential outcomes, Houlden and Balkin
(1985) observe that
Joyce Sterling notes, however, that studies finding differ ences between public and private counsel tend not to control for other factors (e.g., the type of offense involved, the prior record, or the bail status of the accused) which may be associated with differences in outcomes. Her (Joyce Sterling) results reveal few performance differences, ceteris paribus, between defender and retained counsel. (p. 176)
Equitable or fair outcomes for poor clients is an important issue
because studies indicate that approximately 50% to 65% of criminal
defendants are represented by government-provided lawyers through two
primary systems: (1) the assigned counsel system, and (2) the public
defender system. The percentage of defendants who receive a court-
appointed lawyer is slightly higher in urban areas than in rural ones
(Neubauer, 1979).
In addition to the right to competent counsel, there is a growing
concern about the financial cost of providing defense counsel for the
poor. A 1984 National Criminal Defense Systems Study indicates the
enormous financial burden of providing counsel to indigent defendants:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Between 1976 and 1982 the cost of providing indigent defense in U.S. State Courts more than tripled, rising sharply from approximately 200 million to 600 million dollars. Much of this dramatic increase in state and local government support for indigent defendants can be attributed to the expanding legal mandate for indigent defense. (p. 84)
The escalation of costs associated with providing legal counsel for
the indigent defendant is also a problem in Kalamazoo County. According
to the Kalamazoo Circuit Court Administrative Staff Report (1988), the
per case cost for the defense of the criminal indigent has risen 37%
since 1981, or an average annual increase of 6.16%.
The escalation of the cost of providing counsel for the poor around
the country has generated much discussion regarding: (a) the absence of
specific definitional and eligibility guidelines to determine indigency,
and (b) the absence of a system of reimbursement whereby an indigent is
responsible for repaying the government for at least part of the cost of
his/her defense. Both of these issues are confounded by other legal and
extra-legal factors.
In the past, the determination of eligibility for the appointment
of a court attorney was based on the defendant's disclosure of his/her
financial status and his/her ability to retain counsel. Further,
according to Silverstein (1965), the determination for indigency for a
defendant was based on his/her ability to make bail; "Inability to make
bail is a rock bottom measure of indigency: in most counties some
persons who make bail still have to have a counsel provided for them"
(p. 7). The most important aspects of Silverstein's statement (1965)
are the revelation about making bail being a major factor in determining
indigency, and the point about counsel being provided even if a defend
ant can make bail.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. According to Neubauer (1979), in Michigan, in the case People v.
Gillespie in 1972, the court stated that just because a defendant is
able to post bond is not sufficient proof that the defendant is finan
cially able to employ his/her own counsel. In fact, if a defendant does
not meet the financial eligibility guidelines set forth by a particular
jurisdiction, the jurisdiction risks a decision by an appeals court that
the defendant was denied a basic right to assistance of counsel. In the
early 1970s a system was proposed wherein any defendant would have a
court-provided attorney upon request. This proposal was considered more
practical than indigency screening (Spangenberg, Wilson, Lee & Smith,
1986) .
With the continued escalation of costs, there are discussions about
the need, nationwide, to incorporate a system whereby defendants will be
held responsible for reimbursement to the government for the cost of
their defenses (e.g., court cost, attorney fees, etc.). Presently, in
Kalamazoo County, indigent defendants (first time or repeat defendants)
are not directed to reimburse the court if they are sentenced to any
form of incarceration (jail or probation) for any length of time. How
ever, indigent defendants found guilty and sentenced to probation, for
example, are directed to pay back the cost of the defense. This latter
aspect is consistent with what appears to be a nationwide movement to
develop cost recovery systems (Spangenberg et al., 1986). Given the
concerns about costs, repayment, and the effectiveness and efficiency
of counsel for the poor, a major study is called for which addresses
the following questions:
1. Are there discernible differences in the quality of legal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. representation provided to indigent and nonindigent defendants in
criminal cases?
2. Does the financial status of a criminal (i.e., indigent
versus nonindigent) influence the outcome of a criminal case?
3. How should eligibility for appointment of free counsel be
determined?
4. Are there important differences in social demographic
characteristics (i.e., age, gender, race, income) of indigent and
nonindigent defendants?
5. Are there any important differences in the legal char
acteristics (offense, prior record, bail, and plea bargaining) of
indigent and nonindigent defendants?
6. Is there a difference in sentencing outcomes, while con
trolling for legal variables: type of offense, prior record, bail
and plea bargaining?
7. Which of the various systems (i.e., the assigned counsel or
the public defense system) of providing free lawyers operates more
effectively for its clients?
8. Is the right to counsel enjoyed as consistently and widely
in the United States as the needs of justice require? In other words,
does the effectiveness and efficiency of free counsel differ from one
locale to another?
9. What are the attitudes toward the present system as exhi
bited or held by the accused indigent?
10. Is there a difference in sentencing outcomes, controlling
for legal factors, between indigent and nonindigent defendants?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Since this study investigates only a single jurisdiction, Kalamazoo
County, its scope is not broad enough to address empirically all of the
above questions; however, they will be discussed in the following
literature chapter. Empirically, this exploratory study will seek
answers to three central questions:
1. What are the relationships between social variables and legal
variables (i.e., race and type of crime, age and type of crime, gender
and type of crime) as well as the relationship between the various
important legal variables themselves (i.e., type of crime and type of
bond, prior record and type of bond)?
2. What factors are related to different sentences in Kalamazoo
County Circuit Court during the period studied?
3. What are the relationships between social characteristics and
sentencing outcomes?
Summary
In summary, this study examines the effects of social and legal
variables on the processing and sentencing outcomes of defendants in
the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court. This dissertation consists of
five chapters. The first chapter focuses on the statement of the prob
lem. The second chapter examines theoretical and empirical studies with
respect to the basic issues pertaining to sentencing outcomes, and the
research questions. The third chapter is concerned with methodology
and research design, which includes: the dependent and independent
variables, data collection and statistical techniques, and some of the
limitations of the study. The fourth chapter presents the findings of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the research as they relate to the three exploratory questions. The
final chapter provides a summary of the findings, and an interpretation
and discussion of them as they relate to the theoretical assertions
in the literature chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Regarding the criminal justice system, a review of the literature
indicates that examinations of the impact of legal and extra-legal
variables on processing and sentencing outcomes have taken many diverse
theoretical and empirical paths. Both legal and extra-legal variables,
(e.g., types of bond, prior records, gender, race, etc.) have been
examined as factors affecting fair and equitable treatment of defendants
at the sentencing phase. However, there appears to be a chasm between
theoretical perceptions and empirical studies regarding differential
sentencing outcomes and processing of defendants based on legal and
extra-legal variables.
Empiricists appear to be divided into two opposing camps. One camp
supports the thesis that there are differential sentencing outcomes and
processing of defendants based on extra-legal variables. The second
camp supports the position that differential sentencing patterns based
on social characteristics of defendants are statistically nonsignificant
when important legal variables are controlled. Thus, extra-legal varia
bles alone are not the reason for differential sentencing outcomes and
processing of defendants. Both the empirical and theoretical works are
examined in the next section.
Legal Defense of Indigent Defendants
The literature in this area is largely descriptive, focusing on a
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12
number of issues related to indigency and nonindigency and the crim
inal justice system. One of the consistent themes is the acknowledge
ment of the tremendously large number of defendants who cannot afford an
attorney for their defense (Cantor, 1939; Jacob, 1978; Lefcourt, 1974;
Neubauer, 1979).
According to Neubauer (1979)
most defendants cannot afford to hire a lawyer. A survey conducted by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association estimated that nationwide 65 percent of felony defendants were legally indigent (too poor to pay a private attorney). The percentage is slightly higher in urban areas than rural areas (p. 192).
Another issue consistently discussed in the literature is the
soaring cost involved in providing defense counsel for the poor.
Several works indicate that the cost has risen from approximately 96
million dollars in the United States, in 1971, to over 600 million
dollars spent in 1982 (Jacob, 1978; Kalamazoo Circuit Court Report,
1987; Oaks & Lehman, 1968; Spangenberg et al., 1986). The dramatic
increase in cost is attributed to the expanding legal mandate for
indigent defense (Spangenberg et al., 1986).
Numerous works focus on the historical development of the defense
system for indigent defendants (Barak, 1980; Herman et al., 1977; Katz,
1982; Wilcox & Bloustein, 1968). The early defense systems for the poor
were viewed as being of a capricious nature. Herman et al. (1977)
stated that, "At first, methods for providing lawyers for poor people
accused of crimes were either nonexistent or informal and idiosyncratic"
(p. 1). Barak (1980) supports Herman et al. (1977) when he states:
As late as 1936, assignment was compulsory in only seven states; assignment was upon request in thirty states; and assignment was left to the court's discretion in nine states.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13
Fees, if they were provided at all, were inadequate (with the exception of the places where capital cases were compensated). (p. 68)
All of the cited works support the necessity for providing lawyers
for the poor in a systematic manner to insure due process and equity
under the law for all American citizens, regardless of their socio
economic status. Of course, according to Houlden & Balkin (1985), the
issues of due process and equity under the law for all Americans had
been addressed at different points in history by the U.S. Supreme Court
decisions, beginning with the famous 1932 case of Powell v. Alabama and
ending with the broader Argersinger v. Hamlin in 1971. They also stated
that
these decisions (Powell v. Alabama, Gideon v. Wainwright, Argersinger v. Hamlin) have forced jurisdictions to broaden the right to counsel during adjudication and establish some systematic organization for providing representation for indigent defendants. Other Supreme Court rulings have ex tended the right of counsel for indigent in arraignment and sentencing hearings. (p. 176)
Discussions of the evolution of the defense system for indigent
defendants invariably focus on the types and effectiveness of various
approaches used in providing lawyers for the poor (Barak, 1980; Beaney,
1955; Silverstein, 1965; Smith, 1970). The three most common approaches
for providing representation for indigent defendants are: (1) the
assigned counsel system, (2) the public defender system, and (3) the
voluntary defender system. The first system, the assigned counsel
system, according to Smith (1970),
developed when most of America had a homogeneous population living in small communities in rural areas. The early success of the assigned counsel system was dependent on the relatively few criminal trials, hence, the infrequency of appointments relieved attorneys from frequent, uncompensated court appear ances. (p. 79)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14
Further, according to Wilcox and Bloustein (1968), the failure of the
assigned counsel system is based more on locale instead of the system
itself:
We suggest that an important reason why the system of assign ed counsel has not been improved is that most of the adverse criticism focuses on its failures in metropolitan areas. The accepted view is that it works well in rural areas. This statement has, in fact, come to be taken as a truism. (p. 596)
Legal representation for the indigent defendant is provided by a
judge who appoints counsel for the defense on a rotating basis. How
ever, with the urbanization of America, the assigned counsel system was
seen as an inadequate method of providing counsel for the poor because
the age and qualification of the attorneys were questioned, and the
stage at which the attorney was appointed was also questioned (Barak,
1980; Beaney, 1955; Smith, 1970). Under the assigned system, accused
murderers were most likely, in most cases, to receive better repre
sentation under this system than other indigent defendants. Accord
ing to Beaney (1955),
first, in murder cases, indigent defendants have commonly received adequate defense counsel, for the notoriety, the opportunity for personal publicity as well as public services and the fascination of defending the life of an accused have combined to make many able and experienced attorneys available for the defense in such cases (whether this has proved true, however, in certain communities where social tension exists, is doubtful). (p. 213)
The public defender system, the second type, emerged in the 1890s
because of perceived inadequacies of the assigned counsel system. Re
presentation for indigent defendants is usually provided by a full-time
attorney employed by the state. In large urban areas, there are public
defender offices comprised of several salaried attorneys to represent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15
indigent defendants. The public defender is seen as a public official,
professional and skilled in the criminal law (Smith, 1970). Accord
ing to Silverstein (1965), the public defender system is superior
to assigned counsel:
A defender system provides experienced, competent counsel. . . A defender system assumes continuity and consistency in the defense of the poor, whereas an assigned counsel system results in great variations from one case to another. . . . A defender system is more economical to operate in metropolitan areas. . . . Institution of a defender system eliminates the likelihood of the undesirable practices sometimes found in assigned counsel system, whereby the attorney attempts to get a fee from the defendant or his family, and if he receives none or only a small amount, he does little work for the defendant. . . . In a defender system, the defender and the prosecution have a continuing relationship, thus assuring better cooperation between them than is possible between an assigned counsel and a prosecutor. (pp. 45-48)
The better cooperation between the defender and the prosecutor
alluded to in the above quote by Silverstein (1965) is viewed negatively
by Beaney (1955), Smith (1970), Lefcourt (1974), Wheeler and Wheeler
(1980), and others who view the cooperative relations as not being in
the best interest of the indigent defendant. This concern is succinctly
summarized in a statement by Lefcourt (1974):
Less blatant than these techniques (monetary bail and plea bargaining) is the cooperation among officials- - the judge, the prosecuting attorney, and the poor person's defense lawyers-- who use the legal techniques to isolate the prejudged defendants. Common class and racial bonds unite court officials and set apart defendant, more or less, according to the particular crime he or she is alleged to have committed. (pp. 256-257)
The third approach, the voluntary defender system, is a private
nonprofit, nongovernmental controlled agency that provides counsel for
the poor (Smith, 1970). The voluntary defender system is similar to
public defender system with some noticeable differences. According to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16
Smith (1970),
the privately controlled aspect of the system meets the objections to the public defender system of political mani pulation and control by the courts and prosecutor. By being free of political control, the voluntary system is just as free of possible political corruption; however, it may be just as free of political responsibility. The danger (which may only be imaginary) always exists that being free from politi cal control, the system might lead to irresponsibility in dealing with indigent defendants. (p. 32)
Generally, the public defender system is seen as more economical
and efficient in providing representation to the indigent defendant
(Barak, 1980; Smith, 1970). However, a study by Silverstein (1965)
indicates that it is difficult to compare the various systems, except
to say the public defender system costs less in larger counties and
the assigned counsel system costs less in small counties. In terms of
outcome for defendants, however, Herman et al. (1977) posit the idea,
that, whether the defendant is indigent or nonindigent, lawyers have
little bearing on the outcome of cases regardless of the system.
In spite of the various approaches to providing counsel to an in
creasing number of defendants, there remains a perception among
defendants that privately retained lawyers are better advocates for
their clients. According to a study conducted by Casper (1972), only
20% of defendants represented by public defenders believed that their
lawyers were on their side. On the other hand, 100% of the defendants
believed that privately retained attorneys were on their side, and 70%
of respondents believed that legal assistants were on their side. In
another study conducted by Herman et al. (1977), 85% of a sample
indicated that they would have preferred to be represented by a retained
lawyer. In their study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17
defendants gave two main reasons for their preference for retained lawyers. First, in their view retained lawyers get better outcomes. A person with a retained lawyer has "a better chance to win." One defendant said that he had "never known a public defender getting a person off like a private lawyer can." The second reason given was that retained lawyers put more time and effort into their cases. They work harder, try harder, and are more thorough, we were told. (p. 44)
Legal Defense of Indigent Defendants and Outcome
Although Herman et al. (1977) alluded to differential outcomes
between indigent and nonindigent defendant cases based on poverty re
lated variables, they concluded that multivariate analytical proce
dures demonstrate negligible differences in outcomes related to type
of attorney. Regarding differences, Smith (1970) contends that
the difference in sentences decreases as the similarity between the cases increases. Thus, when major demographic characteristics as offense, prior record, and proceedings are held consistent across defense attorney categories, there are only marginal differences in the actual dispositions. We can find little evidence in the data to support the critics who argue that the public defender is grossly less effective for clients than a private attorney. (p. 94)
In regards to race, Spohn, Gruhl and Welch (1987) conclude that social
scientists have not been able to prove that black men are more likely
to be incarcerated than white men or treated more harshly by the crim
inal justice system. Wilbanks' (1987) extensive review of the empiri
cal literature indicates, as does Smith (1970), that when variables,
such as offense and prior record of the defendants are controlled, the
small relationship between race and sentence was reduced to statisti
cal nonsignificance. A study by Taylor (1972) supports the conten
tion of nonsignificant differences in outcome when the issue of type
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18
of defense is considered, and other factors, like the ability to make
bail, are considered more important than the type of attorney.
Extra-Legal Variables and Outcome
There has been considerable attention devoted to how the issue of
indigency is compounded when extra-legal variables, such as race, age,
or gender, enter the picture. Also, some processual aspects (plea
bargaining, dismissing charges, etc.) of the criminal justice system
have been examined for their role in respect to sentencing outcomes.
Throughout the literature, there are assertions that the criminal
justice system, like other American institutions, is inherently biased
against the poor (Carlin et al., 1967; Chambliss & Seidman, 1971; Her
man et al., 1977; Lizotte, 1978; Orcutt, 1983). The differential
treatment is assumed to be systematic and complete (Carlin et al.,
1967; Chambliss & Seidman, 1971; Quinney, 1977). Accordingly, these
major theoretical assumptions posit that indigent defendants are treated
differently by the system and receive more severe sentences than non
indigent defendants (Farley, 1988; Herman et al., 1977; Petersilia et
al., 1977; Silverstein, 1965).
Herman et al. (1977) analyzed outcome data for Los Angeles, New
York, and Washington D.C., and found that, in two of the three cities
studied, there were differential outcomes related to indigency status.
Although the differences in outcomes were minimal, Herman et al. (1977)
noted that
when it came to sentencing, however, convicted defendants who hired attorneys were less likely to wind up with a pri son sentence. And those whose attorneys were publicly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19
compensated: 58 percent of all convicted public defender clients and 61 percent of convicted clients of court appoint ed lawyers got a prison sentence, compared with only 47 per cent of convicted clients of private counsel. (p. 54)
A study by Smith (1970) indicates that public defender clients have
a slightly higher conviction rate but differences are relatively
insignificant when the cases are controlled for such differences as
prior record. Regarding outcome differences, a greater proportion of
the public defender's cases receives prison or jail sentence.
Farley (1988) proposes that indigent defendants are most likely
to be minority members, and are also most likely to experience un
equal treatment in the sentencing phase. Farley (1988), in citing
several studies in his book that support the unequal treatment thesis,
notes that
a study by Grams and Rhode of sentencing patterns in Minnea polis is especially striking in this regard. This study found that among 3,390 convicted felons between 1973 and 1975, blacks and Indians were twice as likely as whites to receive straight jail sentences as opposed to some form of reduced sentence, even after control for such factors as types of crime, criminal record, and even education and occupation. (p. 279)
Farley (1988) concludes that minorities with public defenders received
less effective representation than did whites with public defenders.
Jacob (1978) makes the observation that discrimination against blacks
in the courtroom is more contingent on the locale. Where blacks con
stitute a sizeable proportion of the population and have some political
clout, discrimination is least apparent. On the other hand, quite the
opposite is true when blacks are few in number and exercise little or no
political power. When controlling for nonracial characteristics, race
emerges as a factor in instances where the judges use discretion in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20
their sentencing decisions. According to Quinney (1974)
sentencing statistics and studies indicate that criminal court judges differ in their use of discretion in sentencing. Other studies have shown that sentences differ according to such characteristics of the defendants as race. Even when non-racial characteristics are controlled in analysis, blacks are found to receive longer prison sentences than whites. (p. 231)
Herman et al. (1977) conclude that, while indigency status is
important, the type of lawyer is not as important because
many observers attribute undue importance to how lawyers perform and underestimate how much other poverty-associated factors--primarily defendants bail status and prior record --are responsible for the outcome of cases. (p. 156)
Also important are the processual aspects of the criminal justice
system, especially plea bargaining as important factors directly af
fecting the outcome of cases. The impact is often a negative one for
indigent defendants. According to Barak (1980), plea bargaining has
become the rule, instead of the exception, because the criminal justice
system is no longer an adversarial system but a bureaucratic structure
set up to induce guilty pleas. According to Chambliss and Seidman
(1971), Lefcourt (1974), and Quinney (1974), between 70% to 95% of crim
inal defendants never make it to trial. Public defense lawyers are more
likely to get rid of their cases by plea bargaining (Herman et al.,
1977). While this may be true, the plea bargaining system results in
harsher sentences for the indigent defendant. In this regard, Silver
stein (1965) warns that
an aspect of the guilty plea process that requires special consideration is the sentence meted out. Whatever the likelihood of a guilty plea by defendants with assigned counsel, it is quite clear from the docket study that such defendants who do plead guilty are much more likely to be sentenced to prison than are defendants represented by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21
retained counsel. (p. 25)
Lefcourt (1974), using New York City data, further corroborates the
place of plea bargaining and the plight of the poor and minorities when
he noted that
it may surprise most people that there are almost no criminal trials in the United States: but since seventy percent (over ninety percent in some states) of all defendants who plead guilty, the need for most trials is eliminated. In 1966, there were 9,895 felonies recorded in New York City; 9,501 of those ended in convictions by a plea of guilty. The pressures on lower class, poor, or nonwhite defendants to plead guilty has received little attention, perhaps because those who are arrested and detained illegally are generally thought to be guilty anyway. (p. 257)
Conversely, there is a substantial amount of literature that indi
cates the criminal justice system is not a two-track system. There are
many proponents (Houlden & Balkin, 1985; McNamara, 1979, 1980; Smith,
1970; Wheeler & Wheeler, 1980; Wilbanks, 1987) of the idea that there
is no basis for the contention that indigent defendants are treated
unfairly by the criminal justice system. After reviewing numerous
studies, Wilbanks (1987) for example, concludes that the criminal
justice system is not systematically racist. This is a challenge to
conclusions drawn by Farley (1988) as well as Burns (1974). Wilbanks
(1987) asserted that
the notion of "systematic" actions (discrimination) by the criminal justice system may be inaccurate. The decisions made across the system are made independently, and it appears from the California data that blacks receive more favorable treat ment at the front end of the system and less favorable treat ment at the back end of the system. (p. 157)
Two major studies by Smith (1970) and Herman et al. (1977) indicate
that there are some recognizable socio-cultural patterns as they relate
to indigency status. The indigent clients were more likely to be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22
younger than nonindigent clients. Public defenders handled a
disproportionate share of black and Mexican-American clients. Most
of the clients were males. Female clients were more likely to retain
private counsel than males.
A study by Weischeit and Mahan (1988) found that female defendants
were somewhat younger than women in the general population. They were
most likely to be black, unemployed, and unmarried. Further, the female
defendants were most often unmarried and less likely to have dependents.
The effects of plea bargaining, according to Smith (1970), Downie
(1971), and Herman et al. (1977), on indigent defendants as opposed to
nonindigent defendants are negligible and might work to the advantage of
all clients. In sum, the theoretical views on plea bargaining, espe
cially the notion that there are no differences between the outcomes of
indigent and nonindigent defendants have garnered the most empirical
support.
Indigency Status and Bail
The ability to make bail is considered the most important criterion
determining indigency status (Silverstein, 1965). Many view the bail
system as being biased in favor of affluent and white defendants (Burns,
1974; Cantor, 1939; Herman et al., 1977; Jacob, 1978; Lefcourt, 1974;
Smith, 1970). Cantor (1939), in recognition of the inequities of the
system, states that
one of the features of temporary release by bond is its unfair operation with regard to the poor defendant. He has no financial means of his own nor can he afford a bond fee. The innocent poor, therefore, remain in jail. (p. 78)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23
Bail is designed to help guarantee the appearance of the defendant in
court (Burns, 1974; Lefcourt, 1974). Burns (1974) views the money
bail system as an example of the institutionalized subordination of
the nonwhite. According to Lefcourt (1974), bail is utilized for other
biased purposes:
The Eighth Amendment guarantees against excessive bail and the Supreme Court has ruled that the only function of the bail is to help guarantee the appearance of the defendant in court. But bail is most often used against a defendant to "teach him a lesson" or to "protect the community." A poor or non-white defendant languishes in jail weeks, months and even years before trial. (p. 257)
Wilbanks (1987), looking at the same issue contends that while
there is certainly no clear pattern of blacks being released less often than whites for similar offenses. The best argument that can be made is that blacks are discriminated against indirectly, through socio-economic status, in all jurisdictions and directly in some. (p. 87)
Jacob (1978) states that many jurisdictions have initiated major reforms
of the bail status that should have an impact on the "inherent" unfair
ness of imprisoning some defendants before their conviction simply be
cause they are poorer than others. However, major studies (Herman et
al., 1977; Smith, 1970) indicate that clients who are able to afford
private lawyers are able to make bail. Smith's (1970) study indicated
that clients with public defenders are more likely to remain in jail
than clients with private attorneys, 55% and 17.4% respectively. Herman
et al. (1977) show a consistent pattern in Washington D.C., Los Angeles,
and New York City of public defender clients being unable to make bail.
More importantly, the ability to make bail is viewed by many in the
literature as directly impacting on the outcome of defender cases (Oaks
& Lehman, 1968; Taylor, 1972). Oaks and Lehman (1968), maintaining that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24
being detained in jail influences sentencing decision, assert that
he [indigent defendant] may suffer at trial because one crucial presumption of innocence may not have the same vitality for a defendant who is in custody as for a defendant whom the jury sees arrive in the court in the company of his family and friends. Finally, in the event of conviction, the defendant who has been able to continue working and to keep family and community contacts during the period before trial may be a better risk for probation than one whose life has been disrupted by a long stay in jail. (p. 95)
Moreover, Taylor (1972), in support of Oaks and Lehman (1968), contends
that
the sentence of defendants in custody are more likely to be more severe than those released on bail or on their own recognizance; and the fact that defendants with retained counsel are more often released on bail explains his more favorable outcome. (p. 21)
Herman et al. (1977) offer some figures to illustrate the connection
between the inability of making bail and severity of sentence. They
point to the fact that
people represented by legal aid were less likely to be released while their cases were pending, and pretrial detention was strongly related to chances of receiving a prison sentence. (The imprisonment rate was 67 percent for those detained, 30 percent for those who made bail, and 16 percent for those released on their own recogni zance). (p. 103)
Summary
Some of the literature presented in this chapter suggests that
the difference between indigent and nonindigent defendants is either
negligible or nonexistent regarding sentencing outcomes and other pro-
cessual aspects in the criminal justice system, especially when such
legal variables as prior record and types of crimes are controlled.
On the other hand, there are those scholars who are unable to dismiss
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25
the importance of legal and extra-legal variables as major determi
nants of sentencing outcomes.
Since most of the studies and their conclusions, regardless of
position, have been based on an examination of court systems in large
metropolitan communities, it seems that there is a need to investigate
some of these issues using a different geographical setting: a small
urban community like Kalamazoo County. This study investigates the
impact of legal and extra-legal variables on sentencing outcomes, using
data from Kalamazoo County Circuit Court. The following chapter will
provide a discussion of the research design and methods utilized in the
collection of the data.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III
METHODS
Introduction
This chapter provides an explanation of the selection of the popu
lation, a description of the sample, the research design, as well as
a description of the statistics used to examine the research data and
questions.
The study relied on files from the Kalamazoo, Michigan County
Circuit Court which handles the major civil and all criminal cases that
come under the state law. Usually the circuit court deals only with
adults; however, when a juvenile defendant commits a serious offense,
the defendant may be bound over to the circuit court for processing as
an adult. Major crimes are known as felonies, and as such, are
processed in the circuit courts.
Michigan's circuit court judges are nominated and elected on a non
partisan ballot for a six-year term: They must live in the district in
which they preside. In Kalamazoo County there are five Circuit Court
Judges, one prosecuting attorney and 25 assistant prosecutors. There is
a prosecuting attorney in each of Michigan's counties with assistants
who represent the state and prosecute those brought into the court for
violations of the criminal code.
Kalamazoo County is located in southwestern Michigan, equi-distance
from the nation's third and seventh largest population centers: Chicago
and Detroit. The county is comprised of four cities, 15 townships, 5
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27
villages, and has a population of 218,000; approximately 64% reside in
Kalamazoo, Portage, and Kalamazoo Townships. A majority of the
residents are classified as urban.
Unlike the cities of Chicago and Detroit, Kalamazoo County is not
famous as a national crime capital. For example, in 1989, according to
the Uniform Crime Reports (1990), the number of murder and non-negligent
manslaughter crimes known to the police in Detroit were 624 as compared
to only 12 in Kalamazoo County. The comparative rates for Detroit and
Kalamazoo County remain consistent across other categories of crime
known to the police.
Population and Sample
The sample population is comprised of criminal defendants randomly
selected from the case files of the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court and
who were processed in the Kalamazoo Circuit Court from May, 1987 through
May, 1988. Prior to 1987, the race of the defendant was not systematic
ally a part of the record. Thus, data about race were available for
only a part of the study period. Of the 1240 criminal defendant files
available, 336 files were randomly selected for inclusion in the study;
301 or 90% proved to be fully useful. Most of the 35 excluded files
were duplicate defendant files or the missing information made the file
unusable. From the files, the data were compiled manually and
systematically on the structured instrument by the researcher and
undergraduate assistants.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28
Source of Data
A defendant is processed through the criminal justice system in a
series of stages that are carried out in a variety of patterns. Most
of the activities of the criminal justice system are designed to deter
mine the legal innocence or guilt of the defendant (Neubauer, 1979).
The process begins with a defendant or suspect being arrested and a
decision to prosecute follows.
This study extracted data from the defendant's file at the stage
that he/she was bound over from the district to the circuit court for
an arraignment on a major crime. A variety of forms were utilized to
extract personal defendant information. The form titled "Felony Case
Status" (Appendix B) was utilized to gather information regarding
whether a defendant is being represented by an appointed or retained
attorney and type of bond posted.
A defendant is arraigned in circuit court. The form titled "Ar
raignment Report and Order Limiting Time Motions" (Appendix C) was
utilized to extract information at this juncture of defendant pro
cessing. The type of attorney, type of charge, plea, bail, repeat
defendant supplement and pre-trial motions are information utilized
from the form.
Plea bargaining is an important processual stage in the criminal
justice system. Although this study does not directly address the plea
bargaining process, it does examine the relationship between type of
plea and other legal and extra-legal variables.
Several forms were utilized to extract information regarding the
final disposition of a defendant. The primary dependent variable of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29
this study is sentencing outcome and two of the forms utilized to
gather sentencing data were the "Order of Probation Form" (no longer
available) and the "Judgment of Sentence Commitment to Jail Department
Form" (Appendix D). The order of probation form includes information
regarding a defendant's sentence to probation and the conditions of
probation (e.g., length and financial conditions).
The "Judgment of Sentence Commitment to Jail Department Form"
contains information regarding a defendant being sentenced to prison
after conviction of a crime. The sentence may range from a few
months to life in prison. A defendant may be sentenced to the
State Prison of Southern Michigan located at Jackson (the largest
walled prison in the world which houses approximately 6,000 prison
ers), or to one of the state prisons located at Marquette and Ionia.
Another form titled "Petition and Order for Court-Appointed At
torney" (Appendix E) was utilized to gather social-economic data about
defendants filing for indigency status to have the court appoint them
an attorney. Social-economic variables on this form included employ
ment status, average gross pay, general assistance pay, assets and
financial obligations. These data are available only for those apply
ing for a public defender or court-appointed attorney.
The Kalamazoo County Circuit Court has an administrator who is
responsible for the staff who complete the forms in a defendant's file.
Clerks of the court complete the defendant files and assisted the re
searchers when there were questions about the paperwork contained in
the files.
The instrument developed for the study was based on the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. aforementioned forms and files. It had 90 variables including
information on defendant's social, economic, and legal characteristics
(Appendix A). There were two pre-tests conducted to evaluate the
instrument. Revisions of the instrument were made as deemed necessary
in order to collect the data accurately.
Variables
Dependent Variable: Sentencing Outcome
Sentencing outcome is operationalized in this study to include
probation, fines, jail, prison, and length of sentence. Several
questions were utilized to measure this variable (Appendix A ) .
Probation is a sentence designed to punish a defendant by main
taining control over the defendant. Defendants on probation are per
mitted to live in the community under some type of supervision: it
is often reserved for defendants who are viewed as not likely to com
mit another offense or be a danger to the public.
Fines are penalties imposed on defendants in which they pay cash
to the court for restitution. Fines are more commonly imposed in fel
ony cases like embezzlement and income tax evasion. Fines, frequently
used in combination with other types of punishment (e.g., probation and
fines), are not often levied in felony cases.
The two major types of incarceration sentences are jail and prison
Jail means a defendant is incarcerated in a local community facility.
Michigan law limits jail sentences to one year or less. Prison is
viewed as a more severe type of incarceration sentence and a defendant
is placed in a state correctional facility for varying lengths of time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31
The length of sentence was utilized to measure types of
incarceration. The number of months were recorded to measure length
of sentence.
The primary study question is: What factors are related to dif
ferent sentences in Kalamazoo County Circuit Court during the period
studied?
Independent Variables: Legal and Extra-Legal
Legal Variables: Type of Crime. Prior Offense. Bond. Plea
The type of crime was examined in two questions indicating primary
charge and secondary charge. The primary charge was utilized in this
study because it was deemed the most serious offense. The primary
charge as well as the secondary charge were categorized by utilizing the
Uniform Crime Reports (1990) as a guide. The primary charges were
placed in categories of violent personal, violent property, non-violent
property, larceny in a building and controlled substance. In some cases
these categories were collapsed to violent crimes, non-violent crimes
and drug crimes for analytical purposes.
Defendants charged with violent crimes, for example, were accused
of murder, assault or rape. Violent property crimes pertain to armed or
unarmed robbery. Burglary, theft of motor vehicle, embezzlement and
arson are considered non-violent property crimes. Larceny in a building
refers to shoplifting offenses and drug offenses were charged against
defendants who were attempting to deliver or sell drugs.
An aspect of the second research question includes: Does the type
of offense influence sentencing outcomes and is it more likely that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32
serious defendants will receive harsher sentences? The literature shows
that type of crime impacts on sentencing outcome. For example, the
less serious the offense the more likely the defendant will receive
a more lenient sentence (e.g., probation).
Prior offense was ascertained from the filing of a repeat defendant
supplement form. The supplement measured recidivism as a dichotomous
variable: "Yes" for the filing of a repeat defendant supplement and
"no" for the non-filing of the repeat defendant supplement. In
Michigan, and as a policy of the Kalamazoo County Prosecutor, a repeat
defendant supplement is automatically filed for a defendant with a prior
record. Even if the supplement is dropped as part of the plea, the
record will indicate it was filed and dropped.
The literature indicates that prior record has an effect on sen
tencing outcomes. Another research question pertains to: Do prior
contacts with the judicial system lead to harsher sentences (e.g., jail
and prison)?
Bond and type of plea are utilized in this study as both indepen
dent and dependent variables. As independent variables, during the
processing of the defendant, the defendant's release bond or plea may
affect sentencing outcomes. Some studies suggest that defendants not
released on bond are more likely to receive harsher sentences because
the presumption of innocence is removed (Herman et al., 1977; Oaks &
Lehman, 1968; Taylor, 1972). It has been postulated that the "reward"
for a plea of guilty is a lighter sentence because it saves the court
time since there is no trial. The literature suggests a multiplicity
of relationships exist between these variables that may impact
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33
defendants' processing and outcomes.
As dependent variables, the study examines how other legal vari
ables (e.g., type of crime, prior offense) and social characteristic
variables (e.g., race, age, gender) impact on bond and type of plea.
For example, who is most likely to get a particular type of bend and
what type of bonds are most common for violent and non-violent de
fendants? Who is most likely to plead guilty and is a defendant with
out prior records less likely to plead guilty?
There are three basic bond options: (1) personal recognizance,
(2) 10%/surety, or (3) cash. Bond, which may be denied by court policy,
was examined in three different ways in this study. First, bond is
examined, if other than personal recognizance or denied, by whether
it was posted. Second, bond is examined by type of bond categories
indicated by personal recognizance, surety recognizance, cash, cash
or surety or 10%, cash or surety no 10% and denied bond.
Personal recognizance, and 10% and surety recognizance bonds are
alternative to cash bonds. Defendants viewed as having strong ties to
the community, less likely to flee, and who committed less serious
offenses are more likely to be given personal recognizance or surety
recognizance.
The most common type of bail is cash bonds. The category of cash
bond indicates that a defendant has to post the total amount of cash
requested by the court. Cash or surety or 10% bond allows a defendant
several ways to post the bond. Surety implies that a defendant must
have some type of collateral acceptable to the court to satisfy bond
conditions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34
Cash, or surety, and no 10% bond indicates that a defendant must
come up with total cash or collateral set by the court for bond.
Some defendants are denied bond and must await trial in jail.
Third, bond is examined by cost (from $50 to $50,000). The cost
of bond is collapsed into categories for ease of analysis.
Plea is examined in two questions pertaining to how a defendant
plead on the first count and on the second count if applicable. The
categories of plea in this study are mute, not guilty, guilty, and nolo
contendere. When defendants enter a plea of mute, that indicates there
is no plea by the defendants, the court automatically enters a not
guilty plea. A plea of guilty or not guilty is a direct admission or
denial filed by a defendant, responding to charges brought by the court.
Nolo contendere is a plea that the defendant will not contest a charge
brought by the court but does not admit the charge.
Social Variables: Race. Age. Gender. Employment Status. Marital Status
The issues raised in Kalamazoo County over the last fiscal year
included the findings of a Michigan Task Force which purported that the
Michigan judicial system is "infected" with racism, sexism and ethnic
discrimination in both subtle and overt ways (Mosby, 1990). The find
ings by the task force of overt and subtle racism, sexism and ethnic
discrimination are not considered systematic across all courts and court
personnel.
Race of the defendant was measured by questions indicating whether
the defendant is white or non-white. Virtually all of the non-whites
were black. Race was missing from approximately 50% of the cases
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
studied because of an earlier policy of not recording the defendant's
race on his or her record. Theoretically, this policy was implemented
to safeguard against discrimination based on race.
The age of the defendant was measured in terms of the year report
ed on the form at the time of processing. Age was collapsed in the
study to make more meaningful analyses and comparisons.
Gender was determined by extracting the information from the court
form. As in previous studies, most of the defendants were male. There
were only three cases where gender was not reported.
Employment status was measured by several questions. The employ
ment status of a defendant was requested when he/she filed for a court-
appointed attorney. The questions asked whether the defendant was em
ployed, name of the employer, address of the employer, length of em
ployment, actual gross pay, average gross pay, actual net pay, and
average net pay.
Marital status was answered in terms of whether the defendant was
married, divorced, separated or single. Like employment status, marital
status was requested when a defendant filed for a court-appointed at
torney. Marital status was collapsed in the study in order to analyze
the data in more meaningful terms.
The social variables were utilized to describe the defendant
population and to examine the relationship between social variables,
legal variables and sentencing outcomes. Various cross-tabulations of
data were utilized to examine these relationships and their influence on
the processing and sentencing of the defendant.
The literature suggests there may be a relationship between
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36
sentencing outcomes for defendants based on their ability or inability
to retain an attorney (Herman et al., 1977; Smith, 1970). There is
an assumption that retained attorneys can effect better outcomes
for their clients. Further, that the retained attorneys can effect
better outcomes regardless of important legal variables like type of
crime and prior offense is a part of that assumption. The information
to examine this relationship was extracted from a form filed by de
fendants claiming indigency status and requesting a court-appointed
attorney.
Statistical Procedures
This study utilized descriptive statistics to examine the research
questions, particularly cross - tabulated relationship of variables and
the chi-square (or X^) test. Cross-tabulation analysis is a procedure
whereby frequency distributions are cross - tabulated with each other.
With dichotomous variables, this allows the investigator to examine all
possible combinations of observed responses. This is based on a com
parison between the observed cell frequencies of a cross - tabulation of
a joint contingency table with the frequencies that would be expected
if the null hypothesis of a relationship were in fact true. The key
to the calculation of the chi-square statistic is to obtain these ex
pected frequencies. If two variables are statistically independent
within categories of the independent variable, in a contingency table,
there are identical proportions of the dependent variable. Similarly,
within each category of the dependent variable the same proportion of
the independent responses occurs (Bohrnstedt & Knoke, 1982).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37
The low numbers of responses were due to problems inherent in do
ing secondary data analysis. Inadequate record keeping resulted in most
of the missing data for the several variables. Table 1 shows the amount
of data missing in regards to the important variables in this study.
The missing data limited extensive cross-tabulation that would have been
useful in making a more definitive statement about the relationships
between variables. The indigency form filed by a defendant seeking a
court-appointed attorney had a large number of variables with missing
data. Some of the information from this form was not reliable which
prevented extensive cross-tabulation of the data. Unfortunately, be
cause of this dilemma, the analysis of the impact of type of attorney
on the processing and sentencing outcomes of defendants was not carried
out by the researcher pertaining to the indigency/non-indigency status
of defendants.
Table 1
Missing Data*
Variables Frequency Total Sample % Missing
Legal
Plea-Second Count 294 301 2.3
Plea-First Count 296 301 1.7
Disposition of Case 296 301 1.7
Extra-Legal
Average Gross Pay 129 270** 52.2
Race 150 301 50.1
Actual Gross Pay 158 270 41.5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38
Table 1--Continued
Variables Frequency Total Sample % Missing
Other Income 174 270 35.6
General Assistance 191 270 29.3
Length of Employment 198 270 26.7
Employment Status 207 270 23.3
Marital Status 264 270 2.2
Assets 253 270 6.3
Resident 265 270 1.9
Age 297 301 1.3
Gender 298 301 1.0
*Only those variables with missing data are contained in this table.
**The 270 figure is used to designate those defendants, not the total sample of 302, who petitioned for a court-appointed attorney and they were the only defendants asked to provide information on their income, employment, marital status, etc.
Summary
An exploratory study of Kalamazoo County Circuit Court was imple
mented to examine the impact of legal and extra-legal variables on
sentencing outcomes. Further, the study examined the relationships
between legal and extra-legal variables and their impact on the pro
cessing of criminal defendants.
The independent and dependent variables were operationalized and
examined through various questions on the survey instrument. Both
univariate and multi-variate analytical techniques were utilized to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. examine the relationship of independent variables to the dependent
variables in an effort to answer the research questions posed at
the end of Chapter I.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
This chapter has two main sections: section one provides a brief
description of the 301 criminal defendants who comprised the sample for
this investigation, and section two assesses the extent to which the
data are able to answer the three important research questions raised
in Chapter II.
Description of Sample
Prior to this investigation, the race of the defendant was not
recorded in the defendant's file because of the policy mentioned in
Chapter III. This situation created a problem for any investigator
who wanted to control for race in an analysis of the court data. How
ever, just prior to the start of this investigation, some changes had
been made in the record keeping policy and the race of the defendant
was allowed to be recorded. Of the 301 files randomly drawn, only 151
indicated the race of the defendant. In this instance, 84 (55.6%) of
the defendants were white and 67 (44.4%) were black. Hence, of the
301 subjects in the sample, we were able to identify only 22.2% as
black and 27.9% as white; race was unknown in 49.9% of the total cases
because it was not noted on the form in the defendant's file.
Fortunately, the files were more complete with respect to the
sex and age of the defendants: 84% were males and 16% were females,
and almost 85% were between 17-34 years-of-age, with a mean age of
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26.6 years. The majority of the defendants were single (71%) and 18%
were married. When employment status was indicated, 50% of the sam
ple was employed. Of the 78 that recorded length of employment,
approximately 62% were employed for less than one year and 90% were
employed for less than five years.
There were 276 defendants (91.7%) who petitioned for a court ap
pointed attorney. The type of legal representation received by the
defendants in our sample was not dissimilar to the pattern found in
the larger society where an overwhelming majority of the defendants
were represented by a court-appointed attorney as opposed to a pri
vate attorney, 88.7% to 11.3%, respectively.
Approximately 52% of the defendants received some type of incar
ceration sentence, which included jail only, jail and probation, or
prison. Those who were placed on probation and allowed to remain in
the community represented 21.3% of the total sample (Table 2). Of
those incarcerated (156), 62.2% were given sentences which ranged
between one to 12 months; 23.1% received a prison term of one to
three years, and 14.7% were sentenced to more than three years in
a prison setting (Table 3).
Concerning the various criminal charges, 42% of the defendants
were charged with violent crimes, 44.5% with nonviolent crimes, and
12.8% were charged with drug related crimes. Of the defendants in
this study, most (61.1%) did not have a record of prior offense as
represented by the repeat defendant supplement. On the other hand,
38.9% of the defendants did have a record of a prior offense (Table 4).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2
Sentence of Adjudicated Defendants
Sentence Frequency Percent
Fine and Probation 2 .7
Probation 64 21.3
Jail and Probation 75 24.9
Jail 22 7.3
Prison 59 19.6
Other 19 6.3
NA 59 19.6
No Response 1 .3
Total 301 100.0
Table 3
Minimum Jail or Prison Sentence in Months
Months Frequency Percent
1-6 64 41.0
7-12 33 21.2
13-24 17 10.9
25-36 19 12.2
37-300 23 14.7
Total 156 100.0%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43
Table 4
Repeat Defendant Supplement: Prior Record
Frequency Percent
Yes 117 38.9
No 184 61.1
Total 301 100.0
Of the 301 subjects in this study, the file record revealed that
57.8% posted bond and 37.9% did not; 13 or 4.3% of the accused were
denied bond (Table 5). Table 6 shows the type of bonds set for the
accused in this study. Personal recognizance and cash or surety or
10% are the most frequently used type of bonds set by the court, 34.6%
to 45.3%, respectively.
Table 5
Bond Posted
Frequency Percent
Yes 174 57.8
No 114 37.9
Denied Bond 13 4.3
Total 301 100.0
In sum, the subjects in this study were: largely single males
with a court-appointed attorney, most were not repeat defendants, a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44
Table 6
Type of Bond Set
Frequency Percent
Personal Recognizance 104 34.6
Surety Recognizance 3 .8
Cash 17 5.7
Cash or Surety or 10% 136 45.3
Cash or Surety no 10% 28 9.3
Denied Bond 13 4.3
Total 301 100.0
little over half were able to post bond, and nearly half were sentenced
to serve a period of incarceration.
Answers to the Research Questions
This section assesses the extent to which the data collected from
the court files are able to answer the three main questions taken as
the central focus of this dissertation. Below, each question is re
stated, followed by a discussion of the findings from the court data.
Question 1: What are the relationships between socialvariables
and legal variables, (i.e., race and type of crime, age and type of
crime, gender and type of crime) as well as the relationship between
the various important legal variables (i.e., type of crime and type of
bond, prior record and type of bond)?
This question was designed to examine the various relationships
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45
between social and legal variables and determine whether the findings
are consistent with past studies.
Race and Type of Crime
According to Table 7, a larger percentage of black than white de
fenders were charged with violent personal offenses, 29.2% to 21.4%,
respectively. However, a slightly larger percentage of white than
black (31% versus 23.1%) defendants were charged with nonviolent proper
ty offenses. Further, more white defendants than black defendants were
charged with drug related offenses, 14.3% and 10.8%, respectively.
For the two races, their involvement in violent property crimes were
Table 7
Type of Crime by Race
Race Black White Type of Crime # % # %
Violent Personal 19 29.2 18 21.4
Violent Property 13 20.0 17 20.2
Nonviolent Property 15 23.1 26 31.0
Larceny in Building 11 16.9 11 13.1
Controlled Substance 7 10.8 12 14.3
Total 65 100.0 84 100.0
X2 - 4.977
virtually the same. The computed indicated non-significant dif
ferences in the type of crime committed by black and white defendants.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46
Race and Prior Record. Plea and Type of Bond
Unfortunately, the prior record file did not provide information
on the prior offenses committed by the accused, which effectively pre
vented the investigator from being able to control for race and any
particular prior offense (i.e., violent or non-violent). However,
the data in Table 8 reveal that black defendants were more likely than
white defendants to have had prior contact with the circuit court.
Approximately 55% of black defendants and 27% of white defendants were
recidivists. The Xf reveals that the relationship between race and
prior record was statistically significant.
Table 8
Prior Record by Race
Race Black White Prior Record # % # %
Yes 37 55.2 23 27.4
No 30 44.8 61 72.6
Total 67 100.0 84 100.0
Xf- 12.066
Concerning type of bond, Table 9 shows that white defendants were
more likely than black defendants to be required to post a personal or
surety recognizance bond, 48.8% to 23.9%, respectively; and black
defendants were more likely to be required to post bonds that included
cash. For example, 11.9% of black defendants were required to post a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47
cash, surety or no 10% bond as compared to only 4.8% of white defendants
(Table 9). Further, 58.2% of black defendants were required to post a
cash, surety or 10% bond as compared to 39.3% of whites. In sum, the
(11.831) reveals a statistically significant relationship between black
and white defendants and type of bond at the .05 confidence level.
Table 9
Type of Bond by Race
Race Black White Type of Bond # % # %
Personal Recognizance 16 23.9 40 47.6
Surety Recognizance 0 0.0 1 1.2
Cash 3 4.5 4 4.8
Cash/Surety/or 10% 39 58.2 33 39.3
Cash/Surety/or No 10% 8 11.9 4 4.8
Denied Bond 1 1.5 2 2.4
Total 67 100.0 84 100.0
Xf - 11.831
Age and Type of Crime. Plea
Most of the defendants charged with crimes in Kalamazoo County
Circuit Court were 29 years old or younger. As age of the defendant
increased it was more likely that the defendant would also be a reci
divist. Defendants, aged 29 years old or younger, committed approx
imately 62% of violent personal offenses, 90% of violent property
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48
offenses, 74% of nonviolent property offenses, 61% of larceny offenses,
and 68% of drug offenses.
The percent of defendants in the under 20 age category was very
similar to those defendants in the 30-39 age category with respect to
non-violent property offenses, 23.6% and 22.2%, respectively. However,
those in the 30-39 age category were more represented for violent
personal crimes, larceny in a building and controlled substance than
defendants in the under 20 category: 23.1% versus 10.8%; 30.6% versus
16.3%; and 29.7% versus 13.5%, respectively. Not surprising, 41.7% of
those in the under 20 age category were charged with violent property
crimes compared to only 18.3% of those in the 30-39 age category. There
were only a few defendants in the 40 and over categories: five defend
ants in the 50-59 category and only two in the 60 and over category
(Table 10). The Xf was statistically significant.
In sum, for those in this study, the general relationship between
type of crime and age appears to be that involvement in criminal acti
vity declines markedly with age. However, there were more defendants in
the 30-39 age group vis-4-vis the under-20-age group for controlled sub
stance, which was somewhat of a surprise; just the opposite was ex
pected.
Young defendants were more likely to plea guilty than older de
fenders and defendants in general were more likely to plea guilty to
the first charge. Additionally, white defendants were more likely than
black defendants to plea guilty to the first count charge. Black de
fendants were more likely to plea not guilty.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vO 100 100 Total Total # % 37 60 100 % 1.7 -over 0 0.0 49 100 0 0.0 65 100 60- # % 1.2 1 1.2 81 100 0.0 1 6.1 59 50- 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 4 # % 4.1 5 1.7 2 0.7 292 0.0 -49 40- 4 8.2 0 0.0 6 9.2 # Table 10 % 21.9 12 22.2 1 1.2 1 23.1 -39 30- Type of Crime byAge # 11 29.7 1 2.7 15 30.6 % 44.9 29 20- # 22 7 10.8 33 50.8 15 # % 25 41.7 29 48.3 5 8.3 0 Under 20 Substance 5 13.5 20 54.1 Building 8 16.3 Property 19 23.6 41 50.6 18 Property Personal Xz = 213.636 Total 64 21.9 145 49.7 64 Controlled Larceny in Non-Violent Crime Type of Violent Violent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50
Ape and Type of Bond
Defendants in the 29-years-of-age or younger categories were more
likely to be given personal recognizance bonds than older defendants.
For example, 74.8% of the defendants 29 years of age or younger were
given personal recognizance bonds, and 100% of them were given surety
recognizance bonds were 29 years-of-age or younger (Table 11). The
data show a consistent pattern for defendants 30 years-of-age and older.
As the age of the defendant increased, the less likely the defendant was
to be released on his/her own personal recognizance. For example, 29.1%
of the defendants 20 or younger were released on their own personal re
cognizance as compared to 45.7% of defendants in the 20-29 age category
and 15.5% of the 30-39 age category. Further, when younger defendants
were required to post cash bonds, the bonds were less than bonds for
older defendants. However, defendants between the ages of 20 and 29
were more likely to be made to post bonds $10,000 and over. The
computed Xf was not significant.
Gender and Type of Crime
In Kalamazoo Circuit Court, more male defendants were charged
with violent crimes than female defendants, 46.4% to 18.7%, respect
ively. Approximately 77% of crimes committed by females were non
violent offenses inclusive of larceny in a building (Table 12).
The computed X^ was statistically significant.
Employment Status and Type of Crime
The types of crime committed by employed and unemployed defendants
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 100 100 Total Total 2 100 # % 297 136 100 103 100 % 0.6 0.7 0.0 over 0 0.02 11 0 0.0 28 1 0 0.0 17 100 0 60- # % 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.9 1 1.0 -59 50- 0 # % -49 40 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 44- rr Table 11 % 0.0 22.6 13 4.4 5 27.3 0 0.0 0 28.6 3 10.7 0 23.6 4 2.9 2 47.1 15.5 6 5.8 3 39 Type of Bond by Age 30- 3 8 0 # 32 1 % 45.4 46.4 45.7 16 100.0 -29 20 5 # 13 47 146 49.2 67 0.0 2 29.1 0 # % Under 20 or or no 10% 4 14.3 or or 10% 26 19.1 71 52.2 Recognizance Recognizance 30 X2 = 181.213 Denied BondTotal 3 27.3 64 21.5 Cash or Surety Surety Cash or Surety Cash 1 5.9 8L 47. 8 Personal Type of Bond
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52
Table 12
Type of Crime by Gender
iGender Male Female Type of Crime # % # %
Violent Personal 59 23.6 6 14.0
Violent Property 57 22.8 2 4.7
Nonviolent Property 63 25.2 20 46.5
Larceny in Building 36 14.4 13 30.2
Controlled Substance 35 14.0 2 4.6
Total 250 100.0 43 100.0
X2 - 26.313
were similar across all offense categories except for the violent pro
perty and non-violent property categories. Employed defendants were
more likely than unemployed defendants to commit non-violent property
crimes, 34.3% to 23.8%, respectively. On the other hand, unemployed
defendants were more likely than employed defendants to commit violent
property crimes, 26.7% versus 14.7% (Table 13). The was not signi
ficant .
Employment Status and Type of Bond
The type of bond that employed and unemployed defendants were re
quired to post were very similar across all bond categories. However,
there was a slight difference in terms of defendants being denied bond.
In this instance, unemployed defendants were more likely than employed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53
Table 13
Type of Crime by Employment Status
Employment Status Employed Unemployed Type of Crime # % # %
Violent Personal 20 19.6 18 17.8
Violent Property 15 14.7 27 26.7
Nonviolent Property 35 34.3 24 23.8
Larceny in Building 18 17.6 22 21.8
Controlled Substance 14 13.7 10 9.9
Total 102 100.0 101 100.0
X? - 6.647
defendants to be denied bond (5.8% versus 2.9%). The Xf (4.105)
indicated that the differences were not statistically significant
(Table 14).
Marital Status and Type of Crime
A majority of defendants (75.8%) in this study were single. Ap
proximately 18% of the defendants were married and separated, and 5.9%
were divorced. Collapsing categories, married and separated defendants
were more likely than single and divorced defendants to commit violent
personal crimes (26.3% versus 22.5%). Single and divorced defendants
were more likely than married and separated defendants to commit violent
property crimes, 26.4% to 7.9%, respectively (Table 15). The X^ in
dicated the differences were not statistically significant.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54
Table 14
Type of Bond by Employment Status
Employment Status Employed Unemployed Type of Bond # % # %
Personal Recognizance 36 34.6 34 33.0
Surety Recognizance 2 1.9 0 0.0
Cash 5 4.8 5 4.9
Cash/Surety/or 10% 51 49.0 47 45.6
Cash/Surety/or No 10% 7 6.7 11 10.7
Denied Bond 3 2.9 6 5.8
Total 104 100.0 103 100.0
X? - 4.105
Table 15
Type of Crime by Marital Status
Marital Status Married Separated Divorced Single Type of Crime # % # % # % # %
Violent Personal 9 30.0 1 12.5 7 58.3 33 19.9
Violent Property 2 6.7 1 12.5 2 16.7 45 27.1
Non-Violent Property 10 33.3 4 50.0 0 0.0 44 26.5
Larceny in Building 4 13.3 1 12.5 3 25.0 25 15.1
Controlled Substance 5 16.7 1 12.5 0 0.0 19 11.4
Total 30 100.0 8 100.0 12 100.0 166 100.0
X2 - 32.597
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55
Marital Status and Type of Bond
There appears to be some differences between a defendant's marital
status and type of bond. Collapsing the categories of married defend
ants with separated defendants indicate some differences with the col
lapsed categories of divorced and single defendants. Married and sep
arated defendants were more likely than divorced and single defendants
to be released on their own recognizance (32.5% versus 29.1%). On the
other hand, married and separated defendants were more likely than
divorced and single defendants to be denied bond (7.5% versus 3.9%).
The Xf of 19.079, however, indicated that the differences were not
statistically significant (Table 16).
Type of Crime and Bond Posted
Violent defendants (56.1%) and defendants who commit larceny in a
building (51%) were least likely to post bond. On the other hand, drug
defendants (84.2%) were most likely to post bond. However, among those
defendants who commit larceny in a building, approximately 50% posted
bond and 50% did not do so (Table 17). The differences were not sta
tistically significant.
Bonds involving cash (Table 18) were almost the same for those
accused of violent personal, violent property and larceny in a building
crimes, 67.7% versus 65.5% versus 69.4%, respectively. Nonviolent
property defendants (49.4%) and drug defendants (50%) were least likely
to be made to post cash bonds. Violent persona1 defendants (29.2%) and
drug defendants (44.7%) were more likely to be given personal or surety
recognizance bond than defendants (24.5%) who committed larceny in a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56
building.
Table 16
Type of Bond by Marital Status
Marital Status Married Separated Divorced Single Type of Bond #% # % # % # %
Personal Recognizance 11 34.4 2 25.0 3 23.1 49 29.5
Surety Recognizance 2 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Cash 1 3.1 0 0.0 2 15.4 10 6.0
Cash/Surety or 10% 15 46.9 4 50.0 6 46.2 82 49.4
Cash/Surety or no 10% 1 3.1 1 12.5 2 15.4 18 10.8
Denied Bond 2 6.3 1 12.5 0 0.0 7 4.2
Total 32 100.0 8 100.0 13 100.0 166 100.0
X? - 19.079
Further, defendants who committed larceny in a building were more likely
to be denied bond than any other type of defendant category. The Xf
(36.268) indicated the differences were not significant.
Across all categories of crime, when bonds were set at $10,000 and
over, only 26.5% of larceny defendants were required to post that amount
of bond. Approximately 50% of all of the other defendants were made to
post bonds exceeding $10,000 (Table 19). The Xf indicated the differ
ences were not significant.
Prior Record and Bond
Defendants (60.7%) with a prior record were less likely to post
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ln % 42.2 # % 82.1 174 57.8 6 17.9 127 32 r f % 52.0 24 48.0 # % 32.1 26 Type of Crime Table 17 27 # Posted Bondby Type of Crime % 47.5 28 # % 100.0 60 100.0 84 100.0 50 100.0 38 100.0 301 100.0
r 67 -u . t Violent Violent Non-Violent Larceny in Controlled Total X2 = 22.174 No 38 56.7 Posted Personal Property Property Building Substance Total Bond Yes 29 43.3 32 52.5 57 67.9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 00 Ln 9.2 4.1 5.1 35.3 100.0 Total Total # % 104 5.3 12 42.1 135 45.7 42.1 16 16 Substance Controlled # % 8.2 1 2.6 15 100.0 38 100.0 295 7 14.3 2 5.3 27 4 49 in Buildingin Larceny # % Crime 8.4 4.8 Type of Table 18 7 83 100.0 Property # % Nonviolent Type of Bondby Type of Crime 10.0 100.0 1 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.6 2 0.6 60 Property # % Violent 7.7 6 56.9 29 48.3 30 36.2 23 46.9 100.0 5 2 3.1 4 6.6 4 0 0.0 37 Personal # % Violent Total 65 Cash/Surety or No 10% Denied Bond 2 3.1X2 = 36.268 1 1.7 4 4.8 3 6.1 2 or or 10% Surety Cash/Surety Personal Cash Recognizance 19 29.2 19 31.1 38 45.8 12 24.5 Recognizance Bond Type of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59
bond than defendants (69.6%) without a prior record. The relationships
Table 19
Cost of Bond by Type of Crime
Type of Crime
Cost Violent Violent Nonviolent Larceny Controlled of Bond Personal Property Property in Building Substance # %#% # %# % # %
Under $1000 4 6.1 3 5.0 4 4.8 5 10.2 2 5.3
$1000- $3500 20 30.3 19 31.7 29 34.9 20 40.8 14 36.8
$4000- $7500 8 12.1 9 15.0 8 9.6 11 22.4 4 10.5
$10,000- Over 34 51.5 29 48.3 42 50.6 13 26.5 18 47.4
Total 66 100.0 60 100.0 83 100.0 49 100.0 38 100.0
X? - 61.598
between prior record and types of bond are revealed Table 20. Twenty-
five percent of defendants with prior records were given personal re
cognizance bond while 75% of defendants without prior records were given
personal or surety recognizance bonds. More repeat defendants were de
nied bond as opposed to first-time defendants, 61.5% to 38.5%, respect
ively. Hence, the findings suggest that there is a strong relationship
between prior record and type of bond. The findings were statistically
significant at the .05 level of confidence.
An examination of the relationship between prior record and cost
of bond, however, indicated that first-time defendants were more
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60
ly to be required to post more costly bonds than repeat defendants.
Table 20
Type of Bond by Prior Record
Prior Record
Yes No Total Type of Bond # % # % # %
Personal 26 25.0 78 75.0 104 100 Recognizance 22.2 42.6
Surety 0 0.0 2 100.0 1 100 Recognizance 0.0 1.1
Cash 10 58.8 7 41.2 17 100
Cash or Surety 56 41.2 80 58.8 136 100 or 10% 47.9 43.7
Cash or Surety 17 60.7 11 39.3 28 100 or No 10% 14.5 6.0
Denied Bond 8 61.5 5 38.5 13 100 6.8 2.7
Total 117 100.0 183 100.0 300 100
Xf - 21.251
Note: The top figure in the percentage column for each cross - tabulation is the row percentage and the bottom figure is the column percentage.
Approximately 47% of first-time defendants were made to post bonds ex
ceeding $10,000 as opposed to approximately 38.5% of repeat defendants
(Table 21). The Xf (8.122) indicated the differences were not sta
tistically significant.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plea and Count by Type of Crime
Approximately half of the defendants (50.4%) plead guilty to the
Table 21
Cost of Bond by Prior Record
Prior Yes No Cost of Bond # % # %
Under $1000 11 9.4 8 4.7
$1000-3500 38 32.5 65 38.0
$4000-7500 23 19.6 18 10.5
$10,000-Over 45 38.5 80 46.8
Total 117 100.0 171 100.0
X? - 8.122
first count. Only 11.7% of the defendants plead not guilty and a plea
of nolo contendre was entered for 14.1% of defendants.
Collapsing the categories of mute with not guilty and guilty with
nolo contendre, the findings indicated that violent property defendants
(70.0%) and larceny defendants (79.6%) were more likely to plead guilty
as charged on the first count. Violent personal defendants (44%) and
drug defendants (54.3%) were least likely to enter a plea of guilty as
charged (Table 22). The (58.766) indicated a significant difference
between type of plea and type of crime.
There appears to be a minimal difference between a defendant's plea
based on prior record. Approximately 53% of defendants with a prior
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62
record plead guilty as charged while approximately 49% of first-time
defendants plead guilty.
Question 1: Summary of findings and their relationships.
Table 22
Type of Plea by Type of Crime
Type of Crime
Type of Violent Violent Nonviolent Larceny Controlled Plea Personal Property Property in Building Substance # % # % # % # % # %
Mute 19 28.8 11 18.3 23 28.8 8 16.3 8 22.9 (29 44.0) (28 30.0) (27 33.8) (10 20.4) (19 54.3)
Not 10 15.2 7 11.7 4 5.0 2 4.1 11 31.4 Guilty (37 56.1) (42 70.0) (53 66.3) (39 79.6) (16 45.7)
Guilty 18 27.3 38 63.3 46 57.5 30 61.2 14 40.0
Nolo Contendre 19 28.8 4 6.7 7 8.8 9 18.4 2 5.7
Total 66 100.0 60 100.0 80 100.0 49 100.0 35 100.0
X? ■= 58.766
The parentheses show the collapsed categories figures.
1. There were minimal differences in the type of crimes committed
across racial categories. However, more blacks were involved in violent
personal crimes and whites were more involved in non-violent crimes.
2. White defendants were more likely than black defendants to be
released on their own personal recognizance. Whereas, black defendants
were more likely than white defendants to be required to post cash or
surety types of bond.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63
2a. The relationship between race and type of bond was not
statistically significant when type of crime was introduced in the
analyses (Tables 23 and 24).
3. Age emerged as an important factor in all types of crimes.
Young defendants were disproportionately represented across all crime
categories.
4. The relationships between types of bond and age were not
statistically.
5. There was a statistically significant relationship between
gender and type of crime. Males committed more violent crimes than
females and females committed more non-violent offenses.
6. The relationship between employment status and type of crime
or type of bond was not statistically significant.
7. The relationship between marital status and type of crime was
statistically significant.
8. Larcenists and violent defendants were more likely to be de
tained before adjudication.
9. The relationship between type of crime and type of bond was
not statistically significant.
10. The relationship between cost of bond and type of crime was
statistically significant. Larcenists were less likely to be made to
post bonds exceeding $10,000.
11. Prior record was strongly related to type of bond.
An overwhelming majority of defendants without prior record were given
personal recognizance bond. Surprisingly, first-time defendants were
required to post more costly bonds.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a* 0.0 100.0 100.0 Bond Denied 0 0.0 1 # % % 50.0 0 0.0 33.3 10% Surety or No 1 16.7 0 2 rr Cash, % 9.1 21.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 10% Surety, or 3 6 18.2 0 0.0 7 8 24.2 3 9 27.3 # Cash, % Table 23 0.0 33.3 Cash 3 100.0 33 100.0 6 100.0 1 0 0.0 0 # 7.1 1 42.9 35.7 Type of Crime by Type of Bond: Controlling For Race (Black) Personal 0 0.0 0 0.0 # % 14 100.0 Recognizance Substance Property 6 Property 1 Personal 5 Controlled Total X2 - 29.702 Larceny 2 14.3 2 66.7 Non-Violent Crime Type of Violent Violent i i i i i ) I I j
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ON U i % 0.0 50.0 Bond 0 0.0 TT Denied % 0.0 1 50.0 0.0 66.7 0 No No 10% , Surety or , 3 100.0 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 33.3 1 0 2 # Cash, % 10.3 24.1 27.6 24.1 0 100.0 Surety, Surety, • 10% • or 7 29 # Table 24 Cash, Cash, % 25.0 25.0 8 25.0 7 Cash 4 100.0 1 # 25.7 25.7 1 Type of Crime by Type of Bond: Controlling For Race (White) 9 6 17.1 1 # % Personal Recognizance Substance 8 22.9 0 0.0 3 Property Property Personal 9 TotalX2 = 1 7 .4 8 1 35 100.0 Controlled Larceny 3 8.6 1 25.0 4 13.8 Non-Violent Crime Type of Violent Violent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66
12. Most violent property defendants and larceny defendants were
more likely than other defendants to plead guilty.
Question 2: What factors are related to different sentences in
Kalamazoo County Circuit Court during the period studied?
This question was designed to examine the impact of legal variables
themselves-- type of offense, prior record and plea--had on sentencing
outcomes.
Type of Sentence by Type of Offense
An inspection of the data in Table 25 suggests that there are
several patterns or relationships between type of crime and level of
punishment, i.e., sentencing outcomes. The data show that 80% of the
defendants convicted of a violent personal crime received either a jail
or prison sentence; 75% of those who committed a violent property
offense received that punishment, but only 54.1% of the non-violent
property defendants suffered that same fate.
The table shows that 87% of defendants convicted of a larceny in a
building received either a jail or prison sentence. Although the dif
ference might not be significant, the data in this study show that a
higher percentage of building larcenists were incarcerated than those
convicted of a violent personal crime.
The same picture held true when we inspected the data in the con
trolled substance category. By comparison, only 52% of those in that
category received a sentence of incarceration vis-A-vis 87% for those
in the larceny category. Of the drug defendants, 36% were sentenced to
a jail term while 16% were handed a prison term.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67
Table 25
Type of Sentence by Type of Offense
Type of Offense
Violent Violent Nonviolent Larceny Controlled Type of Personal Property Property in Building Substance Sentence #% # % # % # % # %
Fine/ Probation 10 20.0 11 25.0 28 46.0 5 13.0 12 48.0
Jail 23 46.0 19 43.0 21 34.0 24 63.0 9 36.0
Prison 17 34.0 14 32.0 12 20.0 9 24.0 4 16.0
Total 50 100.0 44 100.0 61 100.0 38 100.0 25 100.0
X? - 45.647
A jail or prison sentence was associated more with larceny in a
building than any other offense, followed by violent personal crime,
violent property crime, nonviolent crime and controlled substance
crimes, in that order.
Those convicted of a controlled substance crime can anticipate a
fine/probation, especially when compared to those convicted of larceny
in a building. As a matter of fact, the building larcenists were more
likely to get a jail term rather than a fine and/or probation, which is
interesting because the violent personal defendant faired better than
those in the larceny category. For those convicted of violent personal
crime, however, they can expect to spend some time in jail or prison
(only 20% in this category received a fine or probation). The X^
(45.647) indicate that the relationship between type of sentence and
type of crime is statistically significant at the .05 confidence level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68
A prison sentence was used less frequently, regardless of the type
of crime, than any other form of punishment: most defendants received
either a fine/probation type of sentence or a jail term.
Length of Sentence by Type of Offense
Regardless of the crime, between 60-73% of the defendants received
a jail term ranging from 1 to 12 months in duration. Of those with a
jail sentence, a longer jail term (7-12 months) was placed on those
convicted of committing either a violent personal crime or violent
property crime, or controlled substance crime, in that order. As
anticipated, a larger percent of those convicted of a violent personal
crime or a violent property crime received harsher (37-300 months)
prison sentences (Table 26). The Xf was statistically significant.
Type of Sentence by Prior Record
Defendants with a prior record were more likely to receive incar
ceration types of sentences than defendants without prior records,
95.1 % to 55.4%, respectively. Repeat defendants were more likely to
be sentenced to prison than first-time defendants, 49.4% to 23.4%, re
spectively. The Xf (65.613) showed a significant relationship between
sentence and prior record (Table 27).
Type of Sentencing and Plea
Results indicate that 49.5% of the defendants plead guilty to the
first count. Only 11.3% of defendants plead not guilty (Table 28). Be
cause "mute" and "not guilty" were essentially the same plea, as was a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. O v VO % 9.4 13.4 23.7 39 70 42.6 # % 28.6 42.9 1 7.1 15 6 4 M- rr % 6.1 1 7.1 22 12.1 2 14.3 18 10.9 12.1 100.0 14 100.0 164 100.0 2 4 4 33 16 48.5 # Type of Crime 56.0 Table 26 %#% Length of Sentenceby Type of Crime 20.0 4 9.8 22.9 7 17.1 7 21.2 100.0 41 100.0 3 8.6 5 12.2 8 4 11.4 2 4.9 # % 9.8 9.8 19.5 7 31.7 100.0 35 13 41 Personal Property Property Building Substance Total Violent Violent Non-Violent Larceny in Controlled 37 - 37 - 300 8 13 - 13 24 - 4 X2 = 201.67 7 - 7 12 - 25 - 36 4 1 - 1 6 - 12 29.2 13 37.1Total 23 ______Months # t i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70
plea of "guilty" and "nolo contendre," it was possible to collapse those
categories. The collapsed results were less dramatic in that 35.6% of
the defendants entered a not guilty plea, while 64.4% of the pleas were
in the guilty category.
Table 27
Sentence by Prior Record
Prior Record Yes No Sentenced # % # %
Fine/Probation 1 1.2 1 .7
Probation 3 3.6 61 43.9
Jail and Probation 23 27.2 52 37.5
Jail 15 18.1 7 5.0
Prison 41 49.4 18 12.9
Total 83 100.0 139 100.0
X2 - 65.613
Of those sentenced to serve a jail or prison term, defendants who
entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendre received fewer long prison
terms (25-300 months) when compared to those who entered either a plea
of "not-guilty," or stood "mute." Most of the pleas were associated
with six months or less in jail, or from 25-300 months in prison: there
was virtually no middle range sentencing. Again, the collapsed "mute"
and "not guilty" figures showed that defendants making those pleas were
more likely than defendants who plead guilty and nolo contendre to re
ceive sentences between 37-300 months, 21.4% versus 11.0%, respectively
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71
(Table 29). The computed X? was not statistically significant.
Table 28
Plea: First Count
Type Frequency Percent
Mute 71 24.1
Not Guilty 34 (105) 11.5 (35.6)
Guilty 149 50.5
Nolo Contendre 41 (190) 13.9 (64.4)
Total 295 100.0
The parenthesis show the collapsed categories figure.
Table 29
Length of Sentence by Plea
Plea Length Mute/Not Guilty Guilty/Nolo Contendre of Sentence # % #%
1-6 Months 18 42.9 54 42.5
7-12 Months 9 21.4 31 24.5
13-24 Months 1 2.4 14 11.0
25-36 Months 5 11.9 14 11.0
37-300 Months 9 21.4 14 11.0
Total 42 100.0 127 100.0
X£ - 5.308
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72
Posted Bond and Sentencing
The data in Table 30 suggested a strong relationship between the
type of sentence and whether a defendant posted bond. The data clearly
showed that of those defendants who did not post bond, only a negligible
percent (5.1%) received a fine/probation sentence. This figure stands
in stark contrast to the 49.6% for those who did post bond. That 94.9%
of those who posted bond received either a jail/or prison sentence,
versus only 50.4% for those who did not is another way of looking at
this relationship. The (74.838) indicated the differences were sta
tistically significant.
Table 30
Sentence by Posted Bond
Posted Bond
Sentence Yes No # % # %
Fine/Probation 61 49.6 5 5.1
Jail 51 41.5 46 46.5
Prison 11 8.9 48 48.4
Total 123 100.0 99 100.0
Xf - 74.838
Question 2: Summary of Findings and Relationships
1. There was a surprising result in regards to the relationships
between type of crime and type of sentence. Defendants who committed
larceny in a building were more likely to receive severer sentences
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73
when compared to those received by the violent personal defendants,
violent property defendants, and drug defendants. The computed Xf was
statistically significant.
2. Violent personal defendants and violent property defendants
were sentenced to more lengthy confinements than other type of de
fendants except larceny in a building. In this connection, the data
suggest that the type of crime is indeed an important factor. The
computed Xj; was statistically significant.
3. The data suggest that there was a strong relationship between a
prior record and sentencing outcomes, as noted elsewhere. The data in
Table 30 show that the repeat defendant was more likely to get an incar
ceration sentence than draw a fine of probation. By comparison, the
fate of defendants with no priors were far more favorable.
3a. As noted in #2 and #3, both type of crime and prior record
were important variables affecting sentencing outcomes (type and length
of sentence). The results showing that larcenists received more severe
types of sentences was not statistically significant when controlling
for prior record. The pattern of sentencing was similar across all
crime categories. In fact, the recidivists convicted of violent per
sonal and violent property crimes received harsher types of sentences.
The larcenists with a prior record received harsher penalties than
defendants convicted of non-violent property and drug offenses (Table
31). However, first-time violent and larcenist defendants were more
likely to receive harsher types of sentences. Again, the differences
were not statistically significant (Table 32).
3b. Violent personal defendants and violent property defendants
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33.3 16.6 2 1 Controlled Substance # % 37.5 4 25.0 1 16.6 Larceny in Building # % 52.9 6 1 5.9 17 100.0 16 100.0 6 100.0 Property # % Non-Violent Table 31 0.0 1 5.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 11.8 100.0 0 0 0.0 1 5.9 0 0.0 10 58.8 9 Property # % Violent 0.0 60.0 9 0 Personal # % Violent Type of Sentence by Type of Crime: Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record Probation 3 20.0 5 29.4 5 29.4 6 37.5 2 33.3 Probation 0 0.0 X2 X2 = 18.529 Prison Total 15 100.0 17 Sentence Jail 3 20.0 2 Probation Fine and Jail and Type of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100.0 0 0.0 17 Substance Controlled # % 9.1 Building Larceny in # % 39.3 6 54.5 6 35.3 57.1 1 9.1 10 58.8 28 100.0 11 100.0 16 Property # % Non-Violent Table 32 38.5 11 100.0 1 3.8 0 0.0 1 26 10 Property # % Violent 25.0 4 15.4 1 3.6 3 27.3 1 5.9 7 2 7.1 8 28.6 11 42.3 Personal # % Violent Type of Sentence by Type of Crime: Controlling for on "No" Prior Record Probation 11 39.3 Prison X2 = 23.929 Total 28 100.0 Probation Jail Sentence Jail and Type of i I t i t
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76
were sentenced to more lengthy sentences than other defendants. The
relationship between type of crime and length of sentence was
statistically significant. Examining type of crime by length of
sentence, while controlling for prior record, indicated that the
relationship was statistically significant. The recidivists who were
convicted of violent property (47.1%), non-violent property (46.7%),
and violent personal (43.7%) crimes received the more lengthy type of
sentences (Table 33).
On the other hand, those first-time defendants who were convicted
of violent personal (25.0-%) and non-violent crimes (11.8%) received
more lengthy sentences of more than two years when controlling for
prior record (Table 34).
4. The relationship between type of sentence and type of plea was
not statistically significant.
5. Defendants who did not make bond were likely to receive either
a prison or jail term, while those who did post bond were very likely to
get a fine/probation type of sentence. Only a negligible percent of the
defendants who did post bond spent any time in prison: their fate was
with a fine, probation or jail, that order.
Question 3: What were the relationships between social character
istic and sentencing outcomes?
Some studies indicate different sentencing patterns for criminal
defendants based on social characteristics, i.e., race, gender, age,
employment status and marital status.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. % 2 0 .0 4 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 5 1 2 # % 1 8 .71 2 .5 1 0 2 0 .0 0 .0 2 7 4 3 .8 1 2 0 .0 # 6 .7 2 12.5 % 2 6 .7 1 3 .3 2 1 2 .5 3 2 0 .0 3 2 4 5 33.3 1 15 1 0 0 .0 16 100.0 rr Table 33 % 1 7 .6 2 3 .5 2 1 1 .8 4 15 1 0 0 .0 3 1 .2 5 2 9 .5 1 2 .5 3 1 2 .5 2 5 .0 3 1 7 .6 2 5 4 16 1 0 0 .0 #%# Length of Sentence by Type of Crime: Controlling for onPrior "Yes" Record 37-300 1 3 -2 4 2 25-36 7-1 2 X2 = 159.677 Total 1 -6 3 1 8 .8 Sentence Personal Property Property Building Substance Length of Violent Violent Non-Violent Larceny in Controlled Months
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. - v j 00 0.0 % 12.5 25.0 5 62.5 # % 5 50.0 # 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 2 20.0 0 % 1 5.9 1 10.0 1 5 29.4 2 20.0 2 17 100.0 10 100.0 8 100.0 11 64.7 # Table 34 % 11.8 0 100.0 0 0.0 17 %# 30.0 4 23.5 35.0 9 52.9 100.0 3 15.0 2 11.8 0 7 # Length of Sentence by Type of Crime: Controlling for on "No" Prior Record 25-3637-300 2 10.0 1-6 7-1213-24 6 Total 2 10.0X2 = 70.337 2 20 Sentence Personal Property Property Building Substance Length of Violent Violent Non-Violent Larceny in Controlled Months :1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79
Sentencing Patterns bv Race
In addition to the type of crime and prior record, a defendant's
race, gender, age, and employment status were among those social
factorsthought to be useful in an explanation of sentencing outcomes.
Consequently, this section is devoted to ferreting out the extent to
which our data can shed some light on the relationship, if any, between
the type of sentence defendants received and their various social
characteristics. Parenthetically, we wish to remind the reader that
because the race of the defendant was not recorded in the files in every
instance, we were unable to use the total random sample in our analysis
in this section.
The percentages indicate 38.1% of white defendants received a pro
bation sentence as opposed to only 20.9% of black defendants (a 17.8%
difference). For those receiving some type of incarceration sentence
(jail or prison), more blacks (79.1%) were handed a jail or prison term
than white defendants (61.9%). The jail/probation sentence was the only
category with a negligible difference between black and white
defendants; the percent receiving this sentence was virtually the same
for both black and white defendants (Table 35). The computed Xf,
however, revealed no significant difference in the sentencing pattern of
black and white defendants.
Type of Sentence and Type of Crime bv Race
Examining the relationship between type of crime and sentence,
controlling for race, indicated that black defendants were more likely
than white defendants to be sentenced to incarceration for committing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80
violent personal offenses, 75% to 63.6%. While 66.7% of black defend
ants convicted of drug related offenses were sentenced to incarceration
type of punishment, only 25.0% of white defendants were sentenced to
jail or prison (Table 36). Though the computed chi-square for the
relationships shown in Tables 37 and 38 below were not statistically
significant, a brief descriptive discussion is provided to highlight
a few of the figures in those tables.
Table 35
Race and Type of Sentence
Black White Sentence # % # %
Probation 9 20.5 24 38.1
Jail/Probation 15 34.1 22 34.9
Jail 6 13.6 6 9.5
Prison 14 31.8 11 17.5
Total 44 100.0 63 100.0
X? - 5.296
Tvne of Sentence and Primary Charge bv Race: Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record
Type of crime and a prior record were factors in sentencing. Both
black and white defendants who commit violent personal offenses, violent
property offenses or larceny in building offenses and who have a prior
record were more likely to be sentenced to prison or jail. However,
while 100% of the black repeat defendants were sentenced to jail or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. oo 9.5 38.1
100.0 6 Total 24 43 # %
100.0 3 Controlled Substance # %
0.0 1 33.3 9 20.9 30.0 0 0.0 11 17.5 40.0 1 12.5 22 34.9 57.1 1 33.3 15 34.9
100.0 3 2 20.0 1 12.5 1 14.3 1 33.3 13 30.2 2 28.6 0 - 0.0 6 14.0
Larceny in Building # %
0.0 0.0 22.7 31.8 4 45.5 1 10.0 6 75.0 30.0 30.0 0 100.0DEFENDANTS 7 DEFENDANTS
Table 36 WHITE BLACK 5 7 0 3 4 40.0 4 22 100.0 10 100.0 8 100.0 63 100.0 10 10 Property Non-Violent # %
8.3 20.0 0 10.0 20.0 100.0 Type of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race 2 16.7 1 6 50.0 3 25.0 5 50.0 3 1 2 2 10 Property Violent # %
9.0 23.0 15.4 100.0 12 100.0 1 2 18.2 4 36.4 4 36.4 5 38.5 3 23.1 11 13 100.0 Personal Violent # %
Total Total Probation Probation Prison x£- 16.399 (Black Defendants) x£ - 16.324 (White Defendants) Jail Probation Jail and Prison 3 Probation Jail and Jail 2 Type of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. S3 oo
22.2 22.2 44.5 40.0 40.0 100.0 100.0 8 2 11.1 4 Total 18 10 25 10 # %
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 20.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
00.0 1 100.0 4 Substance # % Controlled
0.0 0 0.0 0 20.0 0 40.0 0 0.0 40.0 20.0 0 20.0 0
100.0 0 2 1
% Building Larceny in #
Table 37 WHITE DEFENDANTS BLACK DEFENDANTS 7 7 100.0 5 100.0 1 100.0 1 1 14.3 1 4 4 57.1 2 0 0.0 2 2 28.6 0 6 6 100.0 5 0 0 0.0 0 Property # % Non-Violent
0.0 0.0 57.1 3 50.0 100.0 100.0 4 0 2 28.6 0 0.0 1 4 Property # % Violent
0.0 0 0.0 100.0 100.0 7 1 7 0 0.0 2 50.0 0 2 28.6 3 42.9 1 14.3 3 50.0 3 60.0 0 Personal # % Violent Type of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race: Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record
Total Total Probation Probation Prison 0 0.0 2 50.0 Si - 19.215 (Black Defendants) Si - 14.978 (White Defendants) Probation Prison Jail 1 100.0 Jail and Probation 0 0.0 0 Jail 2 28.6 Jail and Sentence
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. % 4.5 5.6 40.0 48.9 16.6 100.0 1 3 18 ft 0.0 3 6.6 % 14.3 85.7 22 33.3 33.3 5 27.8 33.3 9 50.0 100.0 45 100.0 7 0 1 6 1 1 ft 0.0 1 % 20.0 20.0 Defendants) 5 100.0 3 60.0 0
ft 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 % 53.3 1 75.0 025.0 0.0 1 50.0 DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS - 12.086 (White Table 38 £ WHITE BLACK 1 6.7 1 0 8 3 15 100.0 ft % 50.0 6 40.0 3 37.5 1 23.3 0 0.0 4 ft « « 10.0 0 0.0 100.0 8 100.0 1 1 16.7 4 40.0 3 50.0 2 66.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 10 Personal Property Property Building Substance # Violent Violent Non-Violent Larceny in Controlled Total Type of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race: Controlling for "No" on Prior Record
Total Total 6 100.0 3 100.0 4 100.0 2 100.0 3 100.0 18 Probation 4 40.0 Probation 2 33.3 0 0.0 1 Prison x£ - 20.452 (Black Defendants) Probation Jail 1 10.0 1 12.5 Prison Jail and Probation Jail Jail and Sentence
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84
prison for committing non-violent property offenses, 71.4% of white
defendants received a similar disposition: only two defendants received
probation as a sentence and they were white. Focusing on severity
ofsentence (prison versus jail), slightly more white defendants than
black defendants were sentenced to prison, 44.5% to 40%, respectively
(Table 37).
Type of Sentence and Type of Crime bv Race: Controlling for "No" on Prior Record
Some interesting results emerged when we focused on sentencing by
primary charge by no prior record and race. Across all offense cate
gories black defendants were just about as likely as white defendants to
receive probation, 50% to 48.9%, respectively. However, black
defendants were more likely than white defendants to receive prison
sentences, 16.6% to 16.7%, respectively (Table 38).
The percentages indicate that blacks were more likely than whites
to be sentenced to lengthy incarceration terms (25 to 300 months), 28.3%
to 18.0%, respectively (Table 39). Again, the computed shows that
the relationship was not statistically significant. Race was examined
in terms of length of sentence, primary charge and prior record below
and in a descriptive summary. The relationships described in Tables 40
and 41 were not statistically significant.
Length of Sentence and Type of Crime bv Race: Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record
Regarding the corollary question asked about differences in the
severity of punishment between black and white defendants, the length of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sentence was used as a measure of the severity of punishment (1-300
months of incarceration), as shown in Tables 40 and 41. An analysis
of the figures in the two tables, however, must be executed very
Table 39
Length of Sentence by Race
Race Black White Length of Sentence # % # %
1-6 Months 12 37.5 23 58.9
7-12 Months 6 18.8 6 15.4
13-24 Months 5 15.6 3 7.7
25-36 MonC.is 3 9.4 3 7.7
37-300 Months 6 18.8 4 10.3
Total 32 100.0 39 100.0
X2 - 21.302
cautiously and any interpretation must be taken as tentative because of
the small numbers. Using length of sentence for those with a prior
record, Table 40 shows the level of punishment for black and white
defendants who have committed crimes in five categories, ranging from
violent personal offenses to controlled substance violations. Total
ing across the five offense categories revealed that 42.3% of the
black defendants (versus 37.5% for whites) received a 1-6 month jail
term; 19.2% (versus 25.0% for whites) received a 7-12 month jail
sentence; 15.4% (versus 6.2% for whites) got a 13-24 month prison
sentence; 15.4% (versus 12.4% for whites) were handed a 25-36 month
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 00 ON % 6.2 18.9 12.4 37.5 15.4 19.2 42.3 100.0 4 25.0 4 16 26 100.0 11 # 0.0 5 100.0 1 0 %#« 20.0 0 0.0 4 15.4 5 100.0 0 100.0
4 80.0 0 0.0 # % % 0.0 0 0.0 16.7 1 25.0 0 0.0 33.3 33.3 2 50.0 1 100.0 6 16.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 7.7 16.7 1 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 50.0 DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS Table 40 WHITE BLACK 1 2 1 1 1 3 0 %# 0.0 1 16.7 1 25.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 1 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 6 100.0 4 100.0 2 50.0 1 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1 2 28.6 2 28.6 2 28.6 # % 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 12.5 0 12.5 37.5 100.0 4 100.0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.0 1 # Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race: Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record Total Total 8 100.0 7 100.0 6 100.0 37-300 13-24 x£ - 64.63714 (Black Defendants) x£ - 35.275 (White Defendants) 25-36 1-6 7-12 37-300 1 25-36 0 0.0 (Months) 1-6 3 37.5 1 14.2 13-24 7-12 3 Length of Sentence Violent Personal Violent Property Non-Violent Property Larceny in Building Controlled Substance Total
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. m « 3.6 3.6 3.6 10.7 78.5 100.0 100.0 1 1 1 11.1 1 11.1 9 1 11.1 2 22.2 28 # 0.0 0.0 % 50.0 50.0 4 44.5 100.0 100.0 22 100.0 1 0 0.0 3 1 0 1 # % 75.0 1 50.0 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 % % # 90.9 3 100.0 4 100.0 DEFENDANTS 100.0 DEFENDANTS Table 41 WHITE BLACK 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0 0.0 11 10 # % 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 # « 0.0 0 0.0 33.3 1 20.0 1 20.0 2 66.7 3 60.0 5 22.7 1 33.3 0 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 # Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race: Controlling for "No" on Prior Record Total 3 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 2 100.0 2 37-300 25-36 0 0.0 1-6 37-300 7-12 13-2425-36 1 33.3 (Months) 1-6 1 Sentence Personal Property Property Building Substance Length of Violent Violent Non-Violent Larceny in Controlled Total I j i j j x£- 28.500 (Black Defendants) x£ - 30.849 (White Defendants) i i Total 5 100.0 7 100.0 ! ! 13-24 0 0.0 0 0.0 ! ! 7-12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88
prison term; and 7.7% (versus 18.9% for whites) drew a 37-300 month
prison sentence.
The figures suggest that a higher percentage of both black and
white defendants receive a 1-6 month jail term than any other level
of incarceration or punishment. More whites, however, received a 7-12
month jail term than blacks who received this same type of punishment.
The opposite is true for those who received either a 13-24 month or 25-
36 month prison term; more blacks than whites in these two instances.
However, the pattern was reversed for the most severe form of punishment
(37-300 month prison term). In this instance, more whites than blacks
received this level of punishment.
Computing the percentages within each race category (across the
five offense categories) revealed the following: 61.5% of the black
defendants (versus 62.5% for whites) received a sentence of one year or
less; 30.8% got a 1-2 year prison term (versus 18.6% for whites); and
7.7% of blacks (versus 18.8% for whites) were saddled with a 37-300
month prison term. In this instance, the percentage was about the same
for both black and white defendants. In the less severe punishment
category (1 year or less), far more blacks than whites were hit with a
1-2 year stay; but the percent of white defendants who were given a 3-25
year stay was substantially higher than for blacks, 18.8% versus 7.7%,
respectively.
Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race: Controlling for "No" on Prior Record
White defendants without a prior record were more likely than black
defendants to receive a sentence of one year or less, 89.2% to 66.7%,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89
respectively. Further, 92.8% of white defendants across all offense
categories were sentenced to a term of 24 months or less while only
77.8% of black defendants received a similar length of sentence
(Table 41).
Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race (Males Only): Controlling for "Yes/No" on Prior Record
Focusing on the sentencing patterns of male defendants in this
study indicated that white male, first-time defendants across all
offense categories were more likely than black male defendants to
receive sentences of 24 months or less, 91.8% to 71.4%, respectively
(Table 42). However, the sentence differences between repeat defendants
based on race, were minimal. The sentencing patterns between black and
white repeat defendants across all offense categories were 75% and 71%,
respectively (Table 43). The computed Xf was not significant for the
relationship indicated in Tables 42 and 43.
Sentence by Age
Using collapsed age categories, the findings indicated that de
fenders over the age of 29 were more likely to be sentenced to an in
carceration type of sentence. For example, while 52.4% of defendants
under 20 and 69.3% of defendants between 20 and 29 years of age were
given jail or prison sentences, 81.2% of defendants between ages of 30
and 39 were likely to receive the same types of sentences. Further,
88.9% of defendants between the ages of 40 and 49 were sentenced to jail
or prison. Though these findings are interesting, the computed
showed that the relationship between age and sentencing was not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. o % 4.2 4.2 4.2 12.6 75.0 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 100.0 100.0 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 18 # 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % 50.0 1 50.0 3 42.8 100.0 24 100.0 100.0 1 2 # 0.0 1 0.0 1 33.3 0 100.0 1 100.0 I 1 1 100.0 0 0.0
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 % % # % 87.5 2 67.7 DEFENDANTS 100.0 0 DEFENDANTS Table 42 WHITE BLACK 1 12.5 0 0.0 0 7 1 0 # % 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 8 100.0 3 7 2 28.60 0 0.0 5 71.4 0 0 0 0.0 # % 0.0 0.0 60.0 50.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 1 20.0 0 3 0 2 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 # - 28.000 (Black Defendants) - 30.889 (White Defendants) ^ Total 5 100.0 Total Length of Sentence and Type of Crime by Race (Hales Only): Controlling for "No" on Prior Record 37-300 25-36 13-24 7-12 1-6 37-300 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 13-24 25-36 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 (Months) 1-6 1 7-12 Sentence Personal Property Property Building Substance Length of Violent Violent Non-Violent Larceny in Controlled Total
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. % 14.3 21.4 16.7 16.7 37.5 100.0 2 4 Total 24 100.0 # 0.0 0.0 % 100.0 14 0 0.0 2 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 0 0.0 9 Substance Controlled Defendants)
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 8.3 %# 20.0 20.0 0 0.0 2 14.3 40.0 1 100.0 5 35.7 67.7 100.0 (White 1 1 0 3 0
Larceny in # Building 28.000 - £ % 25.0 2 16.6 50.0 2 DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS Table 43 WHITE BLACK 1 25.0 1 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 20.8 Property Non-Violent Property #%# Violent % 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 12.5 0 0.0 1 12.5 2 28.6 1 16.7 0 0.0 0 1 100.0 3 100.0 4 100.0 5 100.0 1 0 0.0 1 33.3 1 25.0 1 100.00 1 33.3 0 0.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 3 1 1 3 37.5 1 14.2 Personal # Violent (Black Defendants)
Length of Sentence andType of Crime by Race (Hales Only): Controlling for "Yes" on Prior Record Total Total 8 100.0 7 100.0 6 100.0 37-300 1-67-12 0 0.0 1 33.3 37-300 (Months) 13-24 7-12 3 37.5 2 28.6 25-36 0 0.0 2 28.6 1 16.7 1 33.3 1-6 Sentence Length of I 1 1 X2 - 55.516 1 ' 25-36 j j 13-24 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92
dP ON ON Ov p*v VO O H o 00 CO ON vO O id CM CO CM O u rH O H CM m rH 00 00 f t vo CM m rH CM
JM
dP o o O O o O ON m o o O o ’ o O i O O o 1-1 rH m ft o o CO o o CO
o rH in CO i-H O dP on o rH cn rH o ’ rH CO rH O a) i rH bO O < o «—1 CO rH ON 'd- f t -O a) •s C o CO vO CM O H a) dP 4J O n o 00 rH o ON o C ro rH rH CM o a) i rH co O co o ON o m < f 00 ft CM rH
00 ON O n 00 vO o dP on rH 00 00 00 rH o CM CM CM CO o i rH O CM CM CO CO o vO ft co CO rH CO rH rH
O dP o vo VO r—1 r * o CM o r ^ 00 vo O U <1- CM rH o a> rH P c o o CM CO CM p ft CM rH
£ £ 0) o O a *r4 r - •H 4J +J VO id cd CM O P £ P O OO o ’ tw u * r l U in 0 CM 4J CM £ \ £ N o 0) 0) P rH rH W < p £ O •rH •iH •H H *»H U cd cd M o CM H fa CM *-> fa H t<\
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93
statistically significant (Table 44).
Sentence by Gender
There were significant differences in the sentencing patterns of
male and female defendants. Female defendants (45.7%) were more likely
than male defendants (26.1%) to receive probation as a sentence. Fur
ther, male defendants (29.3%) were more likely than female defendants
(11.4%) to receive a sentence of incarceration in prison. The computer
X^ shows that the relationship between sentence and gender is statist
ically significant (Table 45).
Table 45
Sentence by Gender
Male Female Sentence # % # %
Fine/Probation 1 0.5 1 2.9
Probation 48 26.1 16 45.7
Jail/Probation 66 35.9 8 22.9
Jail 15 8.2 6 17.1
Prison 54 29.3 4 11.4
Total 184 100.0 35 100.0
X? - 18.397
Sentence by Employment Status
Employment status does appear to have an effect on type of sen
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94
tence. An employed defendant was more likely to be sentenced to
probation and/or fine as opposed to an unemployed defendant, 34.2%
to 22.0%, respectively. There was minimal differences between a
defendant's employment status and a sentence of prison, 24.0% for
employed defendants and 24.7% for unemployed defendants (Table 46).
The Xf (5.264) was not statistically significant.
Table 46
Sentence by Employment Status
Employment Status Employed Unemployed Sentence # % # %
Probation & Fine 27 34.2 17 22.0
Jail and Probation 27 34.2 28 36.4
Jail 6 7.6 13 16.9
Prison 19 24.0 19 24.7
Total 79 100.0 77 100.0
Xf - 5.264
Sentence by Marital Status
Collapsing categories indicate that there were minimal differences
between the sentencing patterns of defendants based on their marital
status. The computed X^ supports the descriptive analysis of a non
significant relationship (Table 47).
Question 3: Summary of Findings and Their Relationships
1. The computed Chi-squares examining the various relationships
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95
between race and sentencing outcomes were statistically nonsignificant.
Table 47
Type of Sentence by Marital Status
Marital Status Married Divorced Separated Single Type of Sentence # % # % # % # %
Fine and Probation 6 21.4 2 16.7 1 16.7 29 24.2
Jail and Probation 11 39.3 6 50.0 3 50.0 44 36.6
Jail 1 3.6 1 8.3 0 0.0 11 9.2
Prison 10 35.7 3 25.0 2 33.3 36 30.0
Total 28 100.0 12 100.0 6 100.0 120 100.0
t L - 5.434
2. The computed Xf examining the relationships of age and
sentencing is not statistically significant.
3. Female defendants received less severe penalties than male de
fenders. The computed Y?_ examining the relationship of sentencing by
gender was statistically significant. The effect of gender on sentenc
ing outcomes can be explained by the fact that males committed the most
serious crimes and were more likely to have a prior record than female
defendants.
4. The computed examining the relationships of employment sta
tus and sentencing was not statistically significant.
5. The marital status of defendants and sentencing outcomes appear
to be independent of each other. The computed Xf was not statistically
significant.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96
The summaries of findings and their relationships will be discussed
in the following chapter, along with a brief summary of the study,
limitations and some recommendations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
An examination of the (a) relationship between social variables
and legal variables, and the (b) relationship between several legal
variables themselves yielded some predictable as well as unpredictable
results. With respect to the relationship between social and legal
variables, no significant differences were found by race when all cate
gories of crimes were considered. Although some of the percentages
suggested some differences might exist (for example, black defendants
were more likely than white defendants to be charged with violent
personal offenses, or whites were more likely to be charged with drug
offenses), when prior records and type of crimes were controlled, the
differences were negligible between black and white defendants. That
white vis-A-vis black defendants were more likely to be charged with a
drug offense was somewhat surprising to this investigator. It was
thought that the reverse would have held, and an explanation for this
finding is not an easy one because the media depicts blacks, especially
young blacks, as disproportionately involved in drug offenses.
Defendants, who were 29-years-of-age or younger committed a
majority of the offenses across all categories of crime (i.e., personal
violent crimes, nonpersonal violent crimes, non-violent property crimes
larceny in a building, and substance abuse).
Not surprisingly, male defendants were more likely than female
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98
defendants to be charged with violent crimes: most- of the offenses
committed by women were non-violent property offenses, including lar
ceny in a building.
Neither the employment status nor the marital status of the de
fendants proved to be significant variables in explaining processing
and sentencing outcomes of criminal defendants, especially when con
trolling for type of crime. In all instances, differences between
various categories of defendants were indeed minimal, including the
relationship between type of bond set for defendants and marital and
employment status. However, when we considered the relationships
between the extra-legal variables, the legal variables, and the bond
ing issues (i.e., race and type of bond, prior record and type of bond,
type of crime and type of bond), some interesting and statistically
significant findings were uncovered. Defendants most likely to be
released on their own recognizance were first-time defendants. What is
most interesting, in this connection, is that those first-time defend
ants who were not released on their own recognizance were required to
post bonds that were costlier than those required of the recidivists.
Even more surprising to this investigator, however, was the finding that
the defendants who committed larceny in a building were more likely to
be made to post cash types of bonds than defendants who committed the
more serious type of drug-related crimes. This rather curious treat
ment was also revealed when we examined violent personal offenses and
drug offenses. In this instance, violent personal defendants and drug
defendants were more likely to be released on a personal recognizance
bond than defendants who committed a larceny in a building.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99
Defendants who committed a larceny in a building were treated
more harshly than those who committed a more serious offense (e.g.,
a violent personal crime, etc.). One would think that just the oppo
site would have held: that those defendants who committed a violent
crime against a person would be more unlikely to be released on their
own recognizance. While an examination of the percentage differences
revealed these patterns, the relationship between "type of bond" and
"type of crime” was not statistically significant. This pattern re
quires further investigation.
Regarding the types of plea, most of the defendants in this study
went before the court with a plea of guilty: violent property defend
ants and larcenists were the ones who used that plea the most.
With respect to "type of crime" and "type of sentence," the rela
tionship proved to be a significant one. Earlier, we discussed how
defendants who were accused of larceny in a building were required to
post a cash bond more so than those accused of the more serious crimes.
Upon conviction, defendants who commit larceny are also more likely than
violent personal defendants, violent property defendants, and drug de
fendants to be sentenced to a period of incarceration. Again, those in
this defendant category are treated harshly by the criminal justice sys
tem in Kalamazoo County. However, only violent defendants were made to
spend more time in jail or prison than those who committed a larceny in
a building.
As expected, defendants with a prior record were more likely to be
sentenced to some type of incarceration, and they were sentenced to
prison more often than first-time defendants. The prior record variable
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100
also had an interesting impact on the larcenist group that appeared
to be treated unfavorably when compared to other defendants. In this
instance, when we controlled for priors, those larcenists with a prior
record did not receive a harsher sentence than those recidivists who
committed a personal or violent property crime. As a matter of fact,
recidivists who committed violent property, violent personal and non
violent property crimes received a lengthier sentence than other types
of defendants. Thus, prior record is an important variable in
explaining differential sentencing outcomes among criminal defendants.
Again, when controlling for prior records, we found a significant
relationship between type of bond and type of sentence. Defendants who
did not post bond had a strong likelihood of receiving a prison term
upon conviction. This was not the case for those who posted bond.
Similarly, defendants who pleaded "not guilty" and pursued a trial re
ceived a longer period of confinement than those defendants who pleaded
guilty. Prior record, type of bond, and type of plea are important var
iables in determining processing and sentencing outcomes in the Circuit
Court.
An examination of the relationships between social variables and
sentencing outcomes did not uncover any significant findings regarding
the effects of race, marital status, and employment status. Only gender
and sentencing proved to be significant in this study.
The descriptive data suggest that black defendants were treated
more harshly at the sentencing stage, while white defendants were likely
to receive probation and less likely to be sentenced to prison. The
significance of race disappeared, however, when type of crime and prior
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101
record were controlled: the differences were minimal and non
significant. Again, prior record--not race--is an important variable
in explaining the disposition received by those convicted of a crim
inal offense.
As noted above, the relationship between gender and sentencing was
significant. The data suggested that females were treated more len
iently by the Circuit Court than males. For example, females were more
likely to receive a sentence of probation, while males were more likely
to receive a sentence of incarceration. That women received more fav
orable treatment from the court is not surprising, especially when con
trolling for prior records, because the men in our study were more hea
vily involved than women in aggressive, violent types of crimes, and
they were more likely to be repeat defendants.
The relationships were not significant concerning age and sentenc
ing, employment status and sentencing, and marital status and sentenc
ing. However, the descriptive findings suggests that: (a) older
defendants were more likely to be repeaters and sentenced to an incar
ceration type of punishment, (b) unemployed defendants were more likely
than the employed defendants to receive a harsher penalty when convicted
by the court, and (c) whether a defendant was married, divorced, separ
ated, or single did not have any bearing on the sentencing outcomes.
Findings and Related Literature: A Discussion
Extant empirical works which examined the impact of legal and
extra-legal variables on the processing and sentencing of defendants
have introduced inconsistent, contradictory, and inconclusive findings
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102
into the literature. Some theoretical scholars have maintained that
extra-legal variables are more important or as important as legal var
iables in the processing and sentencing of criminal defendants. There
are others who contend that legal variables--not extra-legal variables--
are more important in understanding this issue.
For the most part, our findings tend to support those theorists
who view the legal variables as having more salience in explaining the
differential sentencing outcomes among those convicted of a crime.
Regarding type of bonds, past research indicates that indigent and
minority defendants were treated unfairly by the criminal justice sys
tem. In our study, the descriptive statistics suggested blacks are
less likely than whites to be released on their own personal recogni
zance and more likely to be required to post a cash bond. At first
glance, this finding would appear to support those who view extra-legal
variables as important; however, the importance of race vanishes when
type of crime is introduced as an intervening variable. The relation
ship between race and bond is not significant in our study. Hence,
type of crime, not race, is more important in bond setting by the Cir
cuit Court: this supports those who view legal variables as important.
Regarding the bond variable, those defendants who did not post bond
vis-A-vis those who did were likely to be sentenced to jail or prison.
Oaks and Lehman (1968) suggest that those defendants who are unable to
post bond pending trial tend to receive the more severe sentence. They
relate this more nearly to the indigency status of the defendants. How
ever, the relationship between bond and sentencing outcome is based on
prior record and type of crime, not on indigency status of the
defendant.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103
At any rate, our study provides at least some partial support for
the importance of bond as a legal variable in sentencing.
Prior record also appeared to have had the most significant effect
on the processing and sentencing of defendants in the Circuit Court.
Not unlike in other studies, recidivists were more likely than first
time defendants to be required to post more cash types of bonds: they
were also more likely to be sentenced to jail or prison.
Our findings regarding type of plea, however, did not support the
importance of legal variables in sentencing outcomes. Our study found
that regardless of the type of plea, i.e., not guilty, guilty, nolo
contendere, or mute, the sentencing patterns were virtually the same
for each type of plea. This casts some doubt on the notion that the
"reward" for a guilty plea is a lighter sentence, because it saves the
court time and money since there is no trial.
Our study also tends to cast some doubt on those who contend that
extra-legal variables (e.g., race, age, marital status, sex, and em
ployment status of the defendant) are more predictive of sentencing
outcomes (Jacob, 1978; Weischeit & Mahan, 1988). This is not to say
that extra-legal variables are unimportant, just that our study did
not find any statistically significant relationships, with one ex
ception: that being the gender variable. In this case, female de
fendants were treated more leniently than male defendants.
In sum, it might be mentioned again that the descriptive statis
tics often hinted at some importance regarding race, age, employment
status, and marital status, however, since there were no statistically
significant differences, it would be very misleading to draw firm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104
conclusions.
Limitations of the Study
Data taken from small urban areas such as Kalamazoo County make
it impossible to generalize findings to large urban areas like Cook
County (Illinois) or Wayne County (Michigan). Further, this study
was unable to say anything about the impact of legal and extra-legal
variables at the arresting stage. This, too, limits the generali-
zability of the findings because the initial handling of a defendant
may be an important aspect of the criminal justice process.
A rather serious limitation of this study is the enormous amount
of missing data, especially concerning the indigency screening form.
The missing data effectively prevented the investigator from evaluat
ing more fully the three research questions in this study.
Initially, an evaluation of the importance of indigency and non
indigency status on sentencing had been one of the primary aims of
this study. We also wanted to examine the competency of the attorneys
regarding their training, length of service, etc. However, these goals
were abandoned because of the nature of the data gathered from the
court records.
Recommendations
The researcher proposes that another study be conducted which takes
into account the shortcomings discussed in the limitations section.
That the investigator design the study in a manner that would allow
for the collection of data from the arrest stage through the sentencing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105
stage is strongly recommended. Moreover, the design should call for
a longitudinal study so that trends can be examined as they relate to
the legal and extra-legal variables and their impact on sentencing
outcomes.
More work is needed in the area of statistical analysis. Multi
variate statistical techniques should be used to examine the various
theoretical assumptions about the differential treatment of defendants
in the criminal justice system. There is a need to measure the rela
tive weight or influence of various independent variables on the de
pendent variables.
Finally, there is much to be accomplished in this area of research
because, according to Herman et al. (1977)
if the law's processes are perceived as unjust or arbitrary, they are unlikely to command the respect of present or po tential violators; if they are seen as capricious, irrational, and unpredictable, their deterrent impact may also be under mined. (p. 167)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix A
Indigent Study Instrument
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107
April - 1538
IN'D'CSN'T STLTY
ID Number
Date of Arrest
Court: 1= 8 2=91 2=911
Defense attorney l=Appointed 2=Retained Name: ______
District Court Arraignment Date
District Court Judge: 1= Coyle 8=0ther 2= Davis 9=No response/nissing info 3= Erickson 4 = Fricke 5= Kannon 6= James 7= Long Age- Date of Birth
8. Denser l=Maie 2 =F ema le 3“Unknown
9. 1st Charge
10. Primary Charge 1 = Viclent personal 2“Violent property 3=Nor.-violent property 4“Larceny in bui Is mg : =Ccr.troll as Substance
11. 2nd Charge ______1“Violent personal 2*vicisnt rrccsrtv 2“Nor.-violer.t property 4*Larceny in building 5“Controilec Substance 8“Unspecified supplemental 0“N’o other charges 9»Missing Info
12. Repeat offender supplement l=Yes 2*No
13. Total number of charges 1» 1 2 “ 2 3* 3 4* 4 5“ more than 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108
Total number of charges dropped 0= 0 1= 1 2= 2 3= 3 4 = 4 5= more than 4
15. Type of bond set --- All charges 1= Personal recognizance 4. Cash or surety or 10% 2= Surety recognizance 5. Cash or surety/no 10% 3= Cash 15a) Posted? 1=Yes 2=NO
16. If cash, surety or 10%, bond amount ______
17. Bond posted/amount paid ______
18. Circuit Court Judge: 1= Foley 2 - Goodwillie 3= Lamb 4= Schaefer 5a Schma 6a Mullin 7a Daines 8a Other g= No response/missing info
19. Was bond changed at Circuit Court? laYes 2*No
20. If Yes, amount of the change ______21. If no to O.R. being posted: la Criminal record ______2a EMployment ______3a Failures to appear ______4a Family History ______5a Mental Condition______^______6a No one to vouch for relationship 7a Pending charges ______0a Probation/Parole ______9a Reputation ______10a Residence length ______11a serious offense ______12a other 13a Form missing ______99a No response ______
22. Offender served time in jail after arraignment laYes 2a No
23. Plea - First count la Mute - Not guilty/entered by court 2a Not Guilty 3a Guilty 4a Nolo contendere
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24. Plea-Second Count 1= Mute - Not guilty/entered by court 2= Not Guilty 3= Guilty 4a Nolo Contendere 5= No second count
______25. Another simultaneous case l=Yes 2= No
/ / 26. Scheduled sentence date
27. Disposition 1= Pled guilty 2= Found guilty-bench 3= Found guilty - Jury 4= Dismissed 5= Mistrial 6= Pled nolo contendere 7= Other 28. Petition for court appointed attorney Is Yes 2* No 3a Not applicable
29. If yes, marital status la Married 2a Divorced 3a Separated 4a single 9a No response/missing information
30. Resident: l=City of Kalamazoo 2aCity of Portage 3aKalamazoo County 4a0ut COunty SaNon-Michigan 9a.\'o response/missing information
______31. Number of dependents: 0a 0 1-1 2 * 2 3- 3 da 4 5a more than 4 9a No response/missing information ______32. Employment status: la employed 2a unemployed 9a No response/missing information
______33. If yes, employed, employer name: la Employer Name 9a No response/missing information
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34. Employer's address: l=City of Kalamazoo 2=City of Portage 3=Kalamazoo County 4=0ut of County 5=Non-Michigan 9=No response/missing information
35. Length of employment: l=less than a year 2=1 to 5 years 3=6 to 10 years 4=11 to 15 years 5=16 to 20 years 6=Over 20 years 9=No response/missing information
36. Average pay-gross: ______0001=Amount recorded 9999=No response/missing information
37. If amount recorded, average pay-gross: l=Wee)cly 2=Monthly 3=Every tvo veeks 9=Noresponse/missing information
38. Average pay, net: ______0001=Amount recorded 9999=No response/missing information
39. If recorded, average pay net: l=Weekly 2=Monthly 3=Every tvo veeks 9=No response/missing information
40. General Assistance I=Ves 2=N'o 9=N'o response mis
41. Other income Source ______l=Yes 2=No 9=No responsr/Missing information
42. If source, than amount ______
43. Assets:______(Amount) 00001=Value of car ______00002=Home ______00003=Bank account______00004=Bonds 00005=Stocko 00006=0ther ______0 0 0 0 7 a None 99999«No response/missing information
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I l l
44. Obligations - Itemize l=Yes 2=No 9-No response/missing information
45. If petition-for court appointed attorney l=Appointed 2=Denied
46. Ordered for reimbursement of attorney fees and court costs l=Yes 2= No
47. If yes, ordered for reimbursement for attorney fees and court costs -Amount r m irt. costs ______Attorney fees 48. if sentenced: l=Fine 2=Fine and probation 3=Probation 4-Jail 5-Jail and probation 6=Prison 7=0ther
49. Offender sentenced as habitual offender l=Yes 2=No
50. Minimum sentence(months) all counts-excluding probation and fines
51. Maximum sentence(months) all counts-excluding probation and fines
52. Length of probation(months)
53. Amount of restitution to person or establishment
1-Yes 2-No 3«To be determined
54. Appellate Counselor appointed 1 - Y e s 2-No 9-No response/missing information
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B
Felony Case Status Report
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. STATE OF MICHIGAN - COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO DISTRICT COURT
FELONY CASE STATUS REPORT
DISTRICT COURT CLERK. Praoara mraa eoptat of mu form. If case >i bound oaar to Circuit C oun. u n d nil tfwaa c o o m w im c a m racorda to Circuit Court Ctsrk; if case mus d tu ro ad of m d u u ic t court, sand ail tfiroa cotxes to Circuit C oun Administrator.
CONTROL NO. t DATE Of ARRESTt
DISTRICT HO. I
DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. i DATE Or BIRTHi
oerwwuiri a d d r e s s .
CUAJtSSi FILL OEFENSC ATTORNEY: IN (If noattam rr, anwr “non*") 1 1 a p p o i n t e d THIS 1 1 RETAINED u c r iO N - DISTRICT COURT ARRAIGNMENT DATE; FOF PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OATE: ALL (If m wum luM . antar Mwan«d~) RECOROIR OR REPORTER AT EXAM: CAStS TYPE OF DISPOSITION: □ SOUND OVER TO CIRCUIT COUNT
□ F t l O 'j
|— | DISMISSED i IN DISTRICT COURT
1 1 N O L L IO J
OATE OF DISPOSITION:
JUOOI AT DISPOSITION:
FILL IN AMOUNT OF SAIL M T: THIS TYPE OP EONO POSTED: □ PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE SiCrtO N 1 1SURETY RECOGNIZANCE FON 1 1CASH CAME 1 1N O T POSTED &OUHO CIRCUIT COURT ARRAIGNMENT OATE: OVfM
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK: PM In Circuit Court C m No. on tH thraa tbiju i PR* d rig M in C a t P8a; Forward ena copy to Circuit Court AdmWwtvow andorwwFroaoMV.
C IR C U IT C O U R T CASE NO.
O O R M NO. 0*1 Rav. *7 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix C
Arraignment Report and Order Limiting Time for Motions
%
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. STATE OF MICHIGAN ARRAIGNMENT REPORT CASE NO. 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT AND ORDER LIMITING KALAMAZOO COUNTY TIME FOR MOTIONS JUDGE:
Coup address 227 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo Michigan 49007 (616) 383-8950 Court teiepnone no PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Plaintiff Defendant Z IN JAIL Z ON BOND
Name of Assistant Prosecutor Present Name al Defense Council Present
ARRAIGNMENT OATE DEFENSE ATTORNEY : appointed z RETAINED CHARGE.
ARRAIGNMENT ON ARRAIGNMENT ON AMENDED CONTINUATION OF Z INFORMATION Z SUPPLEMENTAL Z INFORMATION Z ARRAIGNMENT PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION DISTRICT COURT PRELIMINARY EXAM DISTRICT COURT BIND OVER OATE; WAS HELD Z YES Z NO ARRAIGNMENT TRANSCRIPT TRANSCRIPT IS IS ORDERED Z YES Z NO ORDERED C YES □ NO
FIRST COUNT SECOND COUNT ADDED COUNT COURT ACCEPTS PLEA TO: Z MUTE-NOT GUILTY Z MUTE-NOT GUILTY Z MUTE-NOT GUILTY □ COUNT 1 ENTERED BY COURT ENTERED BY COURT ENTERED BY COURT O NOT GUILTY Z NOT GUILTY Z NOT GUILTY □ COUNT II □ GUILTY Z GUILTY Z GUILTY □ ADDED COUNT □ NOLO CONTENDERE Z NOLO CONTENDERE D NOLO CONTENDERE □ OTHER
REMARKS:
BAIL S □ CONTINUED □ NOT POSTED □ POSTED CASH OR 0 RELEASED ON OWN SURETY RECOGNIZANCE SCHEDULED SENTENCE DATE
DEFENDANT MAD2 CK&y. AND/OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO POLICE □ YES □ NO a PROSECUTOR KAO CiVSl DEFENDANT COPY OF ALL ORAL AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS □ PROSECUTOR t m C Y 2 DEFENDANT COPY OF ALL ORAL AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS WITHIN 14 DAYS ORDER LIMITING TIME FOR MOTIONS ALL MOTIONS. EXCEPT MOTIONS TO KSPEACH, MUST BE WRITTEN SPECIFYING FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES AND MUST BE FILED AND PRAECIHED FOR HEARING WITHIN 21 DAYS FROM THIS OATE.
OATE CIRCUIT JUDGE .
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK • Yeflow CIRCUIT COURT ADMINISTRATOR - Whrt» PROSECUTOR ■ PlnK DEFENSE ATTORNEY • Gf*»n
Form No. 004
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix D
Judgment of Sentence Commitment to Jail
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 Original ■ Coun 111 oooy- Jail 3rd copy ■ Defender! Approved. SCAO 2nd copy • Stale Police Am copy ■ Proaaoutor STATE OF MICHIGAN CASE NO. XMMMMAXftftliftKXR JUDGMENT OF SENTENCE 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT □ COMMITMENT TO JAIL
OR) Court eddroM Court telephone no. M,‘ 390015 J 227 W. MICHIGAN AVENUE, KALAMAZOO, MI A9007 (616) 383-8837
K)( The State of Michigan Defendants name, address. and telephone no. THE PEOPLE OF n V
CTN SIO DOB
THE COURT FINDS: 1. The defendant was found guilty on. of the crime(s) as stated below: Data CON VICTE DBY CHARGE CODE(S) Count Plea' Court Jury CRIME MCL cltatlon/PACC Code
'Plea: mcert "G‘ for guilty plea: i m *NC‘ for nolo oontandors; use 'Ml' tor guilty but mentally i. 2 Defend ^ was represented by an attorney: ______ant □ was a The remaining time in jail to be served (not Including good behavior time) I s days. □ Defendant may bo released on day parole for the purpose checked below during the times specified: □ seeking work □ working at regular employment □ attendance at educational institution □ medical treatment □ other: Times: □ 6. Pay: $______$ ______$ ______$ Total: S ______Rns Casa RrMtSiueon □ 7. Be confined to jail (in addition to any other jail term imposed) until fine and costs are paid, but not to exceed. days. □ 8. Return to this court to pay the above fine and costs on or bo tore orspend ___ .days in 03)9 jail, beginning □ 9. Be placed on probation for______. months and abide by the terms of probation. (See □ l 0. Complete tha toSowtng rehabilitative services: □ Alcohol Highway Safety Education □ Treatment ( □ outpatient, □ inpatient, □ residential, □ mental health.) Specify: □ 1 1 . Other: (SEAL) oat Bar no. Under MCL 769.16a the clerk of the court shall send a copy of this order to the Michigan State Police Central Records Division to create a criminal history record. MC 21S (s/ei) JUDGMENT OF SENTENCE/COMMITMENT TO JAIL m c l 7*6.164 msa 28.10S8<1). mc r 8.427(A) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E Petition and Order for Court Appointed Attorney 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 Original ■ Court 1st copy ■ Defendant Approved. SCAO 2nd copy ■ Appointed attorney STATE OF MICHIGAN CASE NO. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PETITION AND ORDER FOR JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY ORI Court addrafio Court t«J«phon« no. Ml- □ The State of Michigan Defendant's name, addraas, end telephone no. THE PEOPLE OF n V CTN SID D O B iPETITIONl The defendant requests a court appointed attorney and submits the following information: 1. CHARGE □ Misdemeanor 2. RESIDENCE □ Live with parents □ Felony □ Rent D O w n □ Room/Board Next hearing: n Paternity 3. MARITAL STATUS Dato □ Single □ Divorced □ Dependents: Bail amount: £ □ Bond posted □ Married □ Separated Number 4 . in 6 6 m e Employer name and Length ol employment Net: S .Average pay Gross: $ ______Net: S .Average □ weakly □ monthly □ every two weeks Other Inoome stale monthly amount end eouroo (OSS, VA. rent pensions. (pause, unemployment eta) 5. ASSETS* State value of car, home, berth deposits. inmate recount?, bonde, etocha. ets. 6. OBLIGATIONS* Itemlie monthly rent Installment payments, montage payments, child support, eta 7. REPAYMENT I understand that I may bo ordered to repay the court tor all or part of my attorney and defense costs 8. VERIFICATION I declare under penalty of contempt of court that the above Information is true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. Date:. Signature: 'Use reverie side lor addhtonsd rntarmaSorVeommenss. IORDER □ 9. . is appointed to represent the petitioner. Name Bar no. □ 10. The petition is donbd because:. District Court Endorsement (teiarw cnee only) Oats Bar no Judge MC 222 (MO) PETITION AND ORDER FOR COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY MCR 6.008(8). MCL 6.6I0(D).(Q) APPOINTED ATTORNEY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adelstein, R. P. (1981). Institutional function and evolution in the criminal process. Northwestern University Law Review. 76(2), 1-99. Alexander, H. T., & Washington, M. (1971). Black judges in white America. Black Law Journal. .1(3), 245-248. Arkin, S. D. (1980). Discrimination and arbitrariness in capital punishment: An analysis on post-Furman murder cases in Dade County, Florida, 1973-1976. Stanford Law Review. .33(1), 75-101. Auerback, J.S. (1976). Unequal justice: Lawyers and social change in modern America. New York: Oxford University Press. Austin, R. L. (1981). Unconvincing rejection of the hypothesis of racial discrimination in sentencing: A commentary on Kleck. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Sociology. Barak, G. (1980). In defense of whom? Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Beaney, W. M. (1955). The right to count in American courts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Beers, S. & Barringer, R. (1970). The state and the poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Blumstein, A. & Cohen, J. (1979). Sentencing of convicted offenders: An analysis of the public's view. Law and Society Review. 14(2). 223-261. Bohrnstedt, G. & Knoke, D. (1982). Statistics for social data analysis. Itasca, IL: Peacock. Brownell, E. A. (1951). Legal aid in the United States. Rochester, NY: Lawyers Cooperative. Burns, H. (1974). Racism and American law. In R. Quinney (Ed.), Criminal justice in America: A critical understanding. Boston, MA: Little and Brown. Cantor, N. (1939). Crime and society. New York: Holt. Carlin, J. E. (1966). Lawyer's ethics. New York: Sage. Carlin, J. E., Howard, J., &Messinger, S. L. (1967). Civil justice and the poor. New York: Sage. 120 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 Casper, J. D. (1972). American criminal justice: The defendant's perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chambliss, W. J. & Seidman, R. B. (1971). Law, order and power. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Cheatham, E. E. (1963), A lawyer when needed. New York: Columbia University Press. Curran, B. A. (1984). The legal needs of the public: The final report of a national survey. Chicago, IL: American Bar Foundation. Donavan, J. C. (1967). The politics of poverty. Indianapolis, IN: Pegasus. Downie, L., Jr. (1971). Justice denied: The case for reform of the courts. New York: Praeger. Equal Justice Task Force. (1972). Inter-faith center for racial justice: Is it equal? A study of 1970 felony defendants. Detroit Recorder's Court. Detroit, MI: Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University. Erlanger, H. S. (1987). Lawyers and neighborhood legal services: Social background and the impetus for reform. Law and Society Review. 12. 253-274. Farley, R. (1988). Maioritv-minoritv relations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Farnworth, M. & Horan, P. M. (1980). Separate justice: An analysis of race differences in court processes. Social Science Research. 9, 381-399. Feeley, M. M. (1979). The process is the punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court. New York: Russell Sage. Fisher, K. P. & Ivie, C. C. (1971). Franchising justice: The office of economic opportunity legal services program and traditional legal aid. Chicago: American Bar Foundation. Galstes, G. C. & Scaturo, L. A. (1985). The U.S. criminal justice system: Unemployment and the security of punishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 22(2), 163-189. Garber, S., Klepper, S., & Nagin, D. (1983). The role of extralegal factors in determining criminal case disposition. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, S.E. Martin, & M. T. Tonry (Eds.), Research on sentencing: The search for reform (pp. 129-183). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 Garofalo, J. (1978). Radical criminology and criminal justice: Points of divergence and contact. Crime and Social Justice. 10, 17-27. Glueck, S. (1933). The social sciences and scientific method in the administration of justice. The American Academy of Political and Social Science. 167. 110. Gross, D. J. (1983). Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments: Appointed counsel has no constitutional duty to argue all non-frivolous issues on appeal. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 74(4), 1353-1371. Herman, R., Single, E., & Boston J. (1977). Counsel for the poor. Lexington, MA: Heath. Houlden, P. & Balkin, S. (1985). Gideon v. Wainwright case of 1963 and the broader Argersinger v. Hamlin case in 1971. Criminology. 78, 1. Houlden, P. & Balkin, S. (1985). Powell v. Alabama and ending with the the broader Argersinger v. Hamlin case in 1971. Criminology. 78, 1. Houlden, P. & Balkin, S. (1985). Quality and cost comparisons of private bar indigent system: Contract vs. ordered assigned counsel. Criminology. 76, 1. Hunt, A. (1985). The ideology of law: Advances and problems in recent applications of the concept of ideology to the analysis of law. Law and Society Review. 19. 232-258. Jacob, H. (1978). Justice in America: Courts, lawyers and the judicial process (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Little and Brown. Kalamazoo Circuit Court Administrative Staff Report. (1987). Court Administrator Presiding, 2 pages (graphs). Kalamazoo Circuit Court Administrative Staff Report. (1988). Court Administrator Presiding, 2 pages (graphs). Kamisar, Y. (1965). Equal justice in the gatehouses and mansions of American criminal procedures. In Y. Kamisar, F. E. Inbau, & T. Arnold (Eds.), Criminal justice in our time (pp. 161-173). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Katz, J. (1982). Poor people's lawyers in transition. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers. Krantz, S., Smith, C., Ross, D. Froyd, P., & Hoffman, J. (1976). Right to counsel in criminal cases: The mandate of Argersinger vs. Hamlin. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 Kruttschmitt, C. (1980). Social status and sentences of female offenders. Law and Society Review. Ij5(2) , 247-265. LaFree, G. D. (1985). Adversarial and non-adversarial justice: A comparison of guilty pleas and trials. Criminology. 2.3(2), 289- 309. Lefcourt, R. (1974). Law against the people. In R. Quinney (Ed.) Criminal justice in America: A critical understanding (pp. 253- 263). Boston, MA: Little and Brown. LeFort, R. (1971). Lawyers for the poor can't win: Law against the people. New York: Vintage Books. Lizotte, A. J. (1978). Extra-legal factors in Chicago's criminal courts: Testing the conflict model of criminal justice. Social Problems Journal. 2J5(5), 564-580. Longmire, D. R. (1981). A popular justice system: A radical alternative to the traditional criminal justice system. Contemporary Crises. 5(1), 15-30. Mather, L. (1974). The outsider in the courtroom: An alternative role for the defense. In H. Jacob (Ed.) The potential for reform of criminal justice (pp. 40-55). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McNamara, D. E. J. (1979/1980). Criminal justice annual edition. Guilford, CT: Dushkin. Moore, M. (1965). The right to counsel for indigents in Oregon. Oregon Law Review. 44, 255-300. Mosby, J. R. (1990, January 10). Equal justice harmed by bias in the courts [Editorial], Kalamazoo Gazette, p. A12. Neubauer, D. (1979) . America's courts and the criminal justice system. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury. Neubauer, D. (1979). People v. Gillespie in 1972. America's courts and the criminal justice system. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury. Oaks, D. H. & Lehman, W. (1968). A criminal justice system and the indigent: A study of Chicago and Cook County. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Oaks, D. H. & Lehman, W. (1970). Lawyers for the poor. In A. S. Blumberg, S. (Ed.), The scales of justice (pp. 91-104). Chicago: Aldine. Orcutt, J.D. (1983). Analyzing deviance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 Orsagh, T. (1985). The judicial response to crime and the criminal: A utilitarian perspective. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 1(4), 369-386. Petersilia, J., Greenwood, P. W. , & Lavin, M. (1977). Criminal careers of habitual felons (Grant No. 75). National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice. (NI 99-0095) . Pope, C. E. (1976). The influence of social and legal factors on sentence dispositions: A preliminary analysis of offender-based transaction statistics. Journal of Criminal Justice. 4, 203-221. Quinney, R. (Ed.). (1974). Criminal justice in America: A critical understandinE. Boston, MA: Little and Brown. Quinney, R. (1977). Class, state and crime: On the theory and practice of criminal justice. New York: David McKay. Reiman, J. H. & Headlee, S. (1979). Marxism and criminal justice policy. New York: Wiley. Rosett, A. I. & Cressey, D. R. (1976). Justice by consent: Plea barsains in the American courthouse. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Schlessman, S. L. (1974). The culture of poverty in ante bellum social thought. In A. Bellum (Ed.), Science and society. .38(2), 150-166. Schur, E. M. (1968). Law and society: A socioloEical view. New York: Random House. Scoville, S. (1914). The evolution of our criminal procedure: Reform in administration of justice. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science. Silverstein, L. (1965). Defense of the poor in criminal cases in American state courts (Vol. 1). National Report, American Bar Foundation. A field study. San Francisco, CA: American Bar Foundation. Simon, R. J. (1968). The socioloev of law. Scranton, PA: Chandler. Smith, G. (1970). A statistical analysis of public defender activities (Grant No. 20530). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. (NI-081.) NI-081. Spangenberg, R., Wilson, R., Lee, B., 6l Smith, P. (1986). Recoupments and indiEencv screenins. NLADA. Report of the national study commission on defense services (Contract No. 02138-1168). Cambridge, MA: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U. S. Department of Justice, Abt Associates. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 Spohn, C., Gruhl, J. & Welch, S. (1987). The impact of the ethnicity and center of defendants on the decision to reject or dismiss felony charges. Criminology Journal. 25(1), 275-191. Sykes, G. M. (1969). Legal needs of the poor in the city of Denver. Law and Society Review. 4, 255-277. Taylor, J. G. (1972). A comparison of counsel for felony defendants. Arlington, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis. Trebach, A. S. (1964). The rationing of justice. New Brunswick, N J : Rutgers University Press. Uniform Crime Reports. (1990). Arrest reports. U.S. Department of Justice, Session 1, Washington, DC: Bureau of Investigation. Unnever, J. D. (1982). Direct and organizational discrimination in the sentencing of drug offenders. Social Problems. 30(2), 212-225. Ventura, C. L. (1981). Indigent criminal investigation. Journal of Criminal Justice. 4(2), 551-569. Waxier, S. (1970). Practicing law for poor people. Yale Law Journal. 79, 1049-1067. Weischeit, R. & Mahan, S. (1988). Women, crime and criminal justice. Cincinnati, OH: Criminal Justice Studies, Anderson. Wheeler, G. & Wheeler, C. (1980). Reflections on legal representation of the economical disadvantage: Beyond assembly line justice. Journal of Crime and Delinquency. 26(3), 319-332. Wilbanks, W. (1987). The myth of a racist criminal justice system. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Wilcox, B. F. & Bloustein, E. J. (1968). Account of a field study in a rural area of the representation of indigents accused of crime. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The sociology of law (pp. 63-68). Scranton, PA: Chandler. Wilson, J. Q. (1985). Thinking about crime. (2nd ed.). New York: Vintage. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.