Making Gideon Count? Public Defender Resources and Felony Case Outcomes for Black, White, and Latinx Individuals

IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Race and Justice Pub Date : 2021-04-07 DOI:10.1177/21533687211006456
Aaron Gottlieb
{"title":"Making Gideon Count? Public Defender Resources and Felony Case Outcomes for Black, White, and Latinx Individuals","authors":"Aaron Gottlieb","doi":"10.1177/21533687211006456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although Gideon v. Wainright has provided indigent defendants potentially facing prison time the right to counsel, commentators and scholars have documented that the public defense system is vastly underfunded and currently in crisis. However, research has rarely examined how public defender resources impact case outcomes, and the research that does exist has yet, to my knowledge, examine how these resources impact racial disparities in case outcomes. By merging data from the Census of Public Defender Offices to data from the State Court Processing Statistics, I begin to fill this gap. Results from multivariate regression analyses with state-year fixed effects provide mixed evidence. Regardless of race, higher public defender and support staff caseloads tend to be associated with worse case outcomes. In the case of pretrial detention, I find that high public defender and support staff caseloads exacerbate Black-White disparities. With respect to sentence length, I find evidence that high public defender caseloads exacerbate Latinx-White disparities and some evidence that they mitigate Black-White disparities. In sum, these results provide strong support for the view that the public defender funding crisis harms indigent defendants regardless of race and mixed evidence regarding its impact on racial disparities in the criminal justice system.","PeriodicalId":45275,"journal":{"name":"Race and Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/21533687211006456","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Race and Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21533687211006456","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Although Gideon v. Wainright has provided indigent defendants potentially facing prison time the right to counsel, commentators and scholars have documented that the public defense system is vastly underfunded and currently in crisis. However, research has rarely examined how public defender resources impact case outcomes, and the research that does exist has yet, to my knowledge, examine how these resources impact racial disparities in case outcomes. By merging data from the Census of Public Defender Offices to data from the State Court Processing Statistics, I begin to fill this gap. Results from multivariate regression analyses with state-year fixed effects provide mixed evidence. Regardless of race, higher public defender and support staff caseloads tend to be associated with worse case outcomes. In the case of pretrial detention, I find that high public defender and support staff caseloads exacerbate Black-White disparities. With respect to sentence length, I find evidence that high public defender caseloads exacerbate Latinx-White disparities and some evidence that they mitigate Black-White disparities. In sum, these results provide strong support for the view that the public defender funding crisis harms indigent defendants regardless of race and mixed evidence regarding its impact on racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
让吉迪恩计数?黑人、白人和拉丁裔个人的公设辩护人资源和重罪案件结果
尽管Gideon诉Wainright案为可能面临牢狱之灾的贫困被告提供了获得律师的权利,但评论员和学者们已经证明,公共辩护系统资金严重不足,目前正处于危机之中。然而,研究很少考察公设辩护人资源如何影响案件结果,据我所知,现有的研究还没有考察这些资源如何影响案例结果中的种族差异。通过将公设辩护人办公室人口普查的数据与州法院处理统计数据合并,我开始填补这一空白。具有状态年固定效应的多元回归分析结果提供了混合证据。无论种族如何,公设辩护人和支持人员的案件量越大,案件结果越差。在审前拘留的情况下,我发现公设辩护人和辅助人员的大量案件加剧了黑人和白人之间的差距。关于刑期,我发现有证据表明,公设辩护人的大量案件加剧了拉丁裔和白人的差异,也有证据表明他们减轻了黑人和白人的差距。总之,这些结果有力地支持了这样一种观点,即公设辩护人的资金危机无论种族如何都会伤害贫困被告,并且关于其对刑事司法系统中种族差异的影响,证据混杂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Race and Justice
Race and Justice Multiple-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
19.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: Race and Justice: An International Journal serves as a quarterly forum for the best scholarship on race, ethnicity, and justice. Of particular interest to the journal are policy-oriented papers that examine how race/ethnicity intersects with justice system outcomes across the globe. The journal is also open to research that aims to test or expand theoretical perspectives exploring the intersection of race/ethnicity, class, gender, and justice. The journal is open to scholarship from all disciplinary origins and methodological approaches (qualitative and/or quantitative).Topics of interest to Race and Justice include, but are not limited to, research that focuses on: Legislative enactments, Policing Race and Justice, Courts, Sentencing, Corrections (community-based, institutional, reentry concerns), Juvenile Justice, Drugs, Death penalty, Public opinion research, Hate crime, Colonialism, Victimology, Indigenous justice systems.
期刊最新文献
The Social and Spatial Mismatch of Women Returning From Jail Contexts: An Intersectional Mixed-Methods Analysis Systemic Racism in Police Killings: New Evidence from the Mapping Police Violence Database, 2013-2021. Issue 14(3) Introduction Animal Enjoinments and the Social Control of Animal Offenders: Geographic Hot–Cold Spot Evidence of Racial and Income Bias in the Enforcement of Animal Protection Regulations Criminal Behaviors Among Minorities: A Social Resistance Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1