Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Charging (2)
- Decisionmaking (2)
- Discrimination (2)
- Empirical studies (2)
- Incarceration rates (2)
-
- Judicial discretion (2)
- Law reform (2)
- Race and law (2)
- Racial disparities (2)
- Sentencing (2)
- Sentencing disparities (2)
- United States Sentencing Guidelines (2)
- United States v. Booker (2)
- African American (1)
- African Americans (1)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly (1)
- Decision making (1)
- Generalism (1)
- Incrementalism (1)
- Institutional realism (1)
- Judicial decision-making (1)
- Judicial virtues (1)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. (1)
- Precedents (1)
- Stare decisis (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- United States Sentencing Commission (1)
- United States v. Microsoft Corp. (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Antitrust And The Judicial Virtues, Daniel A. Crane
Antitrust And The Judicial Virtues, Daniel A. Crane
Articles
Although commentators frequently debate how judges should decide antitrust cases substantively, little attention has been paid to theories of judicial virtue in antitrust decision making. This essay considers four pairings of virtues: (1) striving for substantive purity versus conceding to institutional realism; (2) incrementalism versus generalism; (3) presenting a unified face versus candidly conceding differences among judges on an appellate panel; and (4) adhering strictly to stare decisis versus freely updating precedents to reflect evolving economic learning or conditions. While recognizing the complexities that sometimes pull judges in the opposite direction, this Article gives the nod to institutional realism, incrementalism, …
On Estimating Disparity And Inferring Causation: Sur-Reply To The U.S. Sentencing Commission Staff, Sonja B. Starr, M. Marit Rehavi
On Estimating Disparity And Inferring Causation: Sur-Reply To The U.S. Sentencing Commission Staff, Sonja B. Starr, M. Marit Rehavi
Articles
In this Essay, Professors Starr and Rehavi respond to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s empirical staff’s criticisms of their recent article, which found, contrary to the Commission’s prior work, no evidence that racial disparity in sentences increased in response to United States v. Booker. As Starr and Rehavi suggest, their differences with the Commission perhaps relate to differing objectives. The Commission staff’s reply expresses a lack of interest in identifying Booker’s causal effects; in contrast, that is Starr and Rehavi’s central objective. In addition, Starr and Rehavi’s approach also accounts for disparities arising throughout the post-arrest justice process, extending beyond the …
Mandatory Sentencing And Racial Disparity, Assessing The Role Of Prosecutors And The Effects Of Booker, Sonja B. Starr, M. Marit Rehavi
Mandatory Sentencing And Racial Disparity, Assessing The Role Of Prosecutors And The Effects Of Booker, Sonja B. Starr, M. Marit Rehavi
Articles
This Article presents new empirical evidence concerning the effects of United States v. Booker, which loosened the formerly mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, on racial disparities in federal criminal cases. Two serious limitations pervade existing empirical literature on sentencing disparities. First, studies focus on sentencing in isolation, controlling for the “presumptive sentence” or similar measures that themselves result from discretionary charging, plea-bargaining, and fact-finding processes. Any disparities in these earlier processes are excluded from the resulting sentence-disparity estimates. Our research has shown that this exclusion matters: pre-sentencing decision-making can have substantial sentence-disparity consequences. Second, existing studies have used loose causal inference …