Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and Prosecution

• DOI: 10.1177/0093854815628026
• Published date: 01 April 2016
• Author: Jawjeong Wu
• Date: 01 April 2016
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2016, Vol. 43, No. 4, April 2016, 437 –458.

DOI: 10.1177/0093854815628026

© 2016 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

437

RACIAL/ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION AND

PROSECUTION

A Meta-Analysis

JAWJEONG WU

SUNY Buffalo State

Unwarranted disparity taking place at the stage of prosecution has long been an interest for sentencing researchers. Research

exploring the effect of offender race on prosecutorial decisions, however, has produced conflicting and inconclusive results.

Some studies concluded that minority offenders faced more unfavorable outcomes than White offenders, whereas others

found no significant impact of race/ethnicity in the prosecution process. Still others found a minority advantage. Given these

inconsistencies, this research uses meta-analytic methodology to assess empirical findings from a body of scholarship that

examined the relationship between race/ethnicity and prosecutorial outcomes. Analyses of homogeneity and moderator vari-

ables are also conducted to explore whether there are factors accounting for variability in effect sizes across studies. The

result suggests that minority offenders face greater odds of being charged or fully prosecuted than White offenders. Moreover,

several moderators, primarily methodologically relevant, account for variability across effect sizes.

Keywords: discretion; charging; meta-analysis; prosecution; prosecutor; race/ethnicity

For the majority of criminal cases, the pretrial phase is perhaps the most crucial one, as

more than 80% of cases in state courts and around 90% in federal courts are resolved at

stages prior to trial (Motivans, 2013; Perry & Banks, 2011). Prosecutors, serving as key

courtroom players and gatekeepers, control the case flow in pretrial proceedings by select-

ing the arrestee to be charged, the type of charge against the arrestee, and the case to be

dropped or negotiated (Hartley, Maddan, & Spohn, 2007; Spohn & Holleran, 2001). The

implementation of federal and state sentencing guidelines as an effort to curb discretion

exercised at the sentencing stage has further increased prosecutorial power (Miethe, 1987;

Spohn, 2009). These examples illustrate how influential prosecutorial charging and full-

prosecution decisions are in case processing. As such, prosecution in connection with the

exercise of broad discretion during the pretrial phase must be scrutinized in the public eye;

in fact, researchers in courts and sentencing have shown a keen interest in this direction.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their valuable

comments. The author would also like to thank Scott W. Phillips for his assistance in editing and proofreading

the article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jawjeong Wu, Criminal Justice

Department, SUNY Buffalo State, CLAS C114, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14222; e-mail: wuj@buf-

falostate.edu.

628026CJBXXX10.1177/0093854815628026Wu / RACIAL/ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION AND PROSECUTIONCRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

research-article2016

438 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

There has been a considerable amount of research on criminal justice decision making in

recent decades (Devine, 2012; Free, 2005; Spohn, 2009). Researchers have invested heavily

in the investigation of the extent to which offender characteristics as extralegal factors play

a role in criminal justice decision making. The ban on the use of such extralegal factors as

race and ethnicity in prosecution and sentencing has been written into policy guidelines or

law (e.g., American Bar Association, 1993; Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission,

1981; Nebraska Court Rules of Professional Conduct, 2008; U.S. Sentencing Commission,

1987). Despite the categorical prohibition, evidence still reveals that race and ethnicity

affect not only judicial but also prosecutorial decision making (Hartley et al., 2007; Henning

& Feder, 2005; Leiber & Blowers, 2003; O. Mitchell, 2005; Spohn, 2000; Spohn &

Fornango, 2009; Wooldredge & Thistlethwaite, 2004). The effect of race and ethnicity in

the courtroom may come from explicit bias, implicit bias, or the implementation of laws

and practices with racially disparate effects.

With the rich literature examining racial/ethnic disparity and discrimination in the criminal

justice field, it is not surprising that inconsistent findings have emerged as a result of method-

ological differences across studies. Criminologists have recently started a comprehensive

approach to exploring the existence of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system by

synthesizing past research findings. The research synthesis of prior studies on racial disparity

and discrimination in courtroom decision making has been conducted qualitatively (Free,

2001, 2002, 2005) or quantitatively (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994; O. Mitchell, 2005; T. L.

Mitchell, Haw, Pfeifer, & Meissner, 2005; Pratt, 1998; Sweeney & Haney, 1992). Research

has also extended this line of investigation to police decision making (Kochel, Wilson, &

Mastrofski, 2011). These efforts have been intended to resolve conflicting results from a large

body of studies and to seek a single, elementary answer for policy implications.

Although several meta-analyses have endeavored to answer the question about minori-

ties’ unfair treatment in the criminal justice system, gaps still exist. The major gap is that

meta-analysis as the systematically quantitative review has not been used to examine pros-

ecution. The issue of whether minority offenders are more likely than White offenders to be

charged or fully prosecuted has only been systematically reviewed in a qualitative way

(Free, 2001, 2002, 2005). In light of the gap, the current study conducts a quantitative meta-

analysis to synthesize existing research findings on race, ethnicity, and criminal prosecu-

tion. The main purpose of the study is to center on the extent to which an offender’s minority

status has an effect on prosecutors’ charging decisions or full prosecution. This goal is

achieved through a mean effect size analysis. The secondary purpose is to test whether vari-

ability across the effect sizes of different studies is due to sampling error alone, and if not,

to further identify moderators that serve as the sources of variability in effect sizes. This

goal is achieved through a homogeneity analysis.

LEGAL/EXTRALEGAL FACTORS AND PROSECUTORIAL DECISIONS

Similar to judges’ decision making, prosecutors’ decision making is influenced by a

number of legal and extralegal factors (Beichner & Spohn, 2005; Hartley et al., 2007).

Research has recently extended Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer’s (1998) focal concerns

model from judicial to prosecutorial decisions to explain warranted disparities stemming

from the effects of legal factors as well as unwarranted disparities stemming from the effects

of extralegal factors in the courtroom (Beichner & Spohn, 2005; Franklin, 2010b; Hartley