Two notable new sentencing-related papers in the new issue of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

I received an email today from the Society for Empirical Legal Studies providing the contents of the newest isse of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.  This link to the September 2024 issue was also provided, and I was pleased to see therein two sentencing-related papers (which are open access as of this writing):

"The impact of legal representation in Israeli traffic courts: Addressing selection bias and generalizability problems" by Rabeea Assy & Tomer Carmel

Abstract: This study investigates the impact of legal representation on the process and outcomes of legal proceedings, focusing on Israeli traffic courts dealing with simple traffic offenses.  It finds that legal representation significantly increased defendants' prospects of obtaining plea bargains and of avoiding demerits points.  However, legally represented defendants were also exposed to higher fines compared to self-represented defendants.  Since points are typically the primary concern for defendants, we contend that legal representation improved case outcomes, overall.  Considering the simplicity of the process, the minimal legal expertise required, and the low stakes involved, the representation effect was unexpectedly robust.  This effect may potentially be even stronger in more complex cases and where the stakes are higher.  Unlike previous observational studies, this study reduces the risks associated with selection bias and produces findings that are more credible and potentially generalizable to other contexts.

"The influence of the race of defendant and the race of victim on capital charging and sentencing in California" by Catherine M. Grosso, Jeffrey Fagan & Michael Laurence

Abstract: The California Racial Justice Act of 2020 recognized racial and ethnic discrimination as a basis for relief in capital cases, expressly permitting several types of statistical evidence to be introduced.  This statewide study of the influence of race and ethnicity on the application of capital punishment contributes to this evidence.  We draw on data from over 27,000 murder and manslaughter convictions in California state courts between 1978 and 2002.  Using multiple methods, we found significant racial and ethnic disparities in charging and sentencing decisions. Controlling for defendant culpability and specific statutory aggravators, we show that Black and Latinx defendants and all defendants convicted of killing at least one white victim are substantially more likely to be sentenced to death.  We further examined the role that race and ethnicity have in decision-making at various points in the criminal justice system.  We found that prosecutors were significantly more likely to seek death against defendants who kill white victims, and that juries were significantly more likely to sentence those defendants to death.  The magnitude of the race of the defendant and race of the victim effects is substantially higher than in prior studies in other states and in single-jurisdiction research.  The results show an entrenched pattern of racial disparities in charging and sentencing that privileges white victim cases, as well as patterns of racial disparities in who is charged and sentenced to death in California courts that are the natural result of California's capacious statutory definition of death eligibility, which permits virtually unlimited discretion for charging and sentencing decisions.  This pattern of racial preferences illustrates the social costs of California's failure to follow the Supreme Court's directive in Furman v Georgia to narrow the application of capital punishment over 50 years ago.