Systematic assignment to judges alone can produce racial disparities without any bias.

Evidence

The criminal justice process is lengthy, and it is multilayered. There are a number of key actors—prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, among others—of which judges are just one. The ultimate decisions made by judges embody the decisions made by these other actors before the case has arrived in front of the judge. This realization poses a challenge to the investigation of judicial bias because it is important to filter out various confounding factors to pinpoint the sources of any potential bias, if it exists, and to design effective public policy to eliminate the bias. Thus, an overarching examination of judicial bias would investigate the actions/decisions of each actor in the judicial system separately, while accounting for the fact that one actor’s decision may impact the decision of another actor, and that these decisions may be interdependent. For example, judges’ decisions may reveal racial bias even when judges themselves are racially unbiased, if it is the case that prosecutors show bias. Alternatively, racially unbiased prosecutors may adjust their behavior in how they handle cases based on the race of the defendant if they recognize that judges are racially biased. Thus, analyses of judicial decision-making need to be statistically sophisticated to account for observable and unobservable factors that determine the judicial decisions under investigation. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 729 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

One complication in these analyses is the potential of systematic “sorting” of defendants to judges. For example, assume that there are two types of judges in the same courthouse: Type-L and Type-H. Type-L judges are lenient—they convict defendants at lower rates and assign shorter prison terms. Type-H judges are harsh by nature—they convict defendants at higher rates and assign longer sentences. Now assume that most minority defendants are channeled to judges of Type-H, and that most White defendants are put in front of Type-L judges. Even if judges were not racially biased, the end result of this sorting would be that minority defendants would end up with higher conviction probabilities and longer sentences in comparison to White defendants. One obvious method to overcome the confounding that is generated by this type of sorting is to employ data from jurisdictions that use random assignment of cases to judges. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 737 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Racial disparities in sentencing can arise without any judicial bias or discrimination; Racial disparities in incarceration can stem from arrest-rate differences alone, without any judicial bias. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 726; Institutional practices can produce racial disparities without any racist intent — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 398 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Racial disparities in sentencing can arise without any judicial bias or discrimination #corroborates (0.97)
• Judges’ case outcomes can show racial bias even when judges themselves are unbiased #corroborates (0.95) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 729
• Racial sentencing disparities can arise from case sorting even with unbiased judges #exemplifies (0.93) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 737