IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v19y2022i3p677-715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Charging sex traffickers under federal law: What dispositions should we expect when applying theories on prosecutorial decision‐making?

Author

Listed:
  • Shana M. Judge
  • Jenna L. Dole

Abstract

Previous research on prosecutorial decision‐making has detailed prosecutors' considerable discretionary power along with their desire to avoid uncertain outcomes. However, few studies have applied this decision‐making framework to criminal case outcomes. We addressed this gap by analyzing prosecutors' charging decisions and charge dispositions through the lens of a unique crime: sex trafficking. In the study, we examined whether the type of statute under which federal prosecutors may choose to charge defendants in sex trafficking‐related cases is associated with the disposition of those charges. We used datasets from the Federal Justice Statistics Program for years 1994‐2014 in multilevel logistic regession models that adjusted for factors relevant to prosecutorial decision‐making. We then compared the dispositions of charges filed in sex trafficking‐related cases and asked: Are charges filed under higher‐penalty statutes significantly associated with dispositions that are more favorable to the prosecution? Or is the association present for lower‐penalty statutes instead? Results from our first model, using a dataset with all available charges and dispositions for a 21‐year period, show that when a charge is filed under a higher‐penalty statute, the adjusted odds that its disposition is more favorable to the prosecution are about 60% higher than the odds for charges filed under lower‐penalty statutes. Results from a subset of charge data linked to demographic characteristics show that the adjusted odds of obtaining a favorable charge disposition are 65% lower when the defendant is female. These associations suggest that higher‐penalty statutes in sex trafficking‐related cases, with their concomitant higher burdens of proof, do not necessarily implicate greater uncertainty in outcomes. Prosecutors have been using their discretion to charge under the more punitive statutes for many years and these cases have relatively high probabilities of favorable outcomes. This discretion may nevertheless be curbed by defendant characteristics beyond the prosecutor's control, including gender.

Suggested Citation

  • Shana M. Judge & Jenna L. Dole, 2022. "Charging sex traffickers under federal law: What dispositions should we expect when applying theories on prosecutorial decision‐making?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 677-715, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:677-715
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12326
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12326?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Robertson & Shima Baradaran Baughman & Megan S. Wright, 2019. "Race and Class: A Randomized Experiment with Prosecutors," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 807-847, December.
    2. Boylan, Richard T & Long, Cheryl X, 2005. "Salaries, Plea Rates, and the Career Objectives of Federal Prosecutors," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(2), pages 627-651, October.
    3. Yun-chien Chang & William Hubbard, 2021. "New Empirical Tests for Classic Litigation Selection Models: Evidence from a Low Settlement Environment," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 348-394.
    4. Jonah B. Gelbach, 2018. "The Reduced Form of Litigation Models and the Plaintiff's Win Rate," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(1), pages 125-157.
    5. Franklin, Travis W., 2010. "The intersection of defendants' race, gender, and age in prosecutorial decision making," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 185-192, March.
    6. Aurélie Ouss & John Rappaport, 2020. "Is Police Behavior Getting Worse? Data Selection and the Measurement of Policing Harms," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 153-198.
    7. Crystal S. Yang, 2015. "Free at Last? Judicial Discretion and Racial Disparities in Federal Sentencing," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 75-111.
    8. Mustard, David B, 2001. "Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 285-314, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simone Bertoli & Morgane Laouenan & Jérôme Valette, 2022. "Border Apprehensions and Federal Sentencing of Hispanic Citizens in the United States," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03818735, HAL.
    2. Brendon McConnell & Imran Rasul, 2021. "Contagious Animosity in the Field: Evidence from the Federal Criminal Justice System," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(3), pages 739-785.
    3. Chad M. Topaz & Shaoyang Ning & Maria-Veronica Ciocanel & Shawn Bushway, 2023. "Federal criminal sentencing: race-based disparate impact and differential treatment in judicial districts," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Libman Alexander & Schultz André & Graeber Thomas, 2016. "Tax Return as a Political Statement," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 377-445, July.
    5. Benito Arruñada, 2023. "La protección administrativa de las relaciones financieras," Fedea Economy Notes 2023-11, FEDEA.
    6. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2012. "The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(2), pages 1017-1055.
    7. Abhay Aneja & Nirupama Kulkarni & S. K. Ritadhi, 2021. "Consumption Tax Reform and the Real Economy: Evidence From India's Adoption of a Value‐Added Tax," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 569-602, September.
    8. Eduardo Gandelman & Nestor Gandelman & Julie Rothschild, 2008. "Diferencias entre los sexos en los procedimientos judiciales: Pruebas de campo de causas de vivienda en Uruguay," Research Department Publications 3251, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    9. Vadim Volkov, 2016. "Legal and Extralegal Origins of Sentencing Disparities: Evidence from Russia's Criminal Courts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 637-665, December.
    10. Bindler, Anna Louisa & Hjalmarsson, Randi & Machin, Stephen Jonathan & Rubio, Melissa, 2023. "Murphy's Law or luck of the Irish? Disparate treatment of the Irish in 19th century courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121339, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean Claude Ray, 2020. "Do sentencing guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity? Evidence from framed field experiment," Working Papers of BETA 2020-28, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    12. Richard T. Boylan, 2012. "The Effect of Punishment Severity on Plea Bargaining," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(3), pages 565-591.
    13. Ryon, Stephanie Bontrager & Chiricos, Ted & Siennick, Sonja E. & Barrick, Kelle & Bales, William, 2017. "Sentencing in light of collateral consequences: Does age matter?," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-11.
    14. Samantha Bielen & Peter Grajzl, 2021. "Prosecution or Persecution? Extraneous Events and Prosecutorial Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 765-800, December.
    15. Mariagiovanna Baccara & Allan Collard-Wexler & Leonardo Felli & Leeat Yariv, 2010. "Gender and Racial Biases: Evidence from Child Adoption," CESifo Working Paper Series 2921, CESifo.
    16. Eren, Ozkan & Mocan, Naci, 2020. "Judge Peer Effects in the Courthouse," IZA Discussion Papers 13937, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Lochner, L., 1999. "Education, Work, and Crime: Theory and Evidence," RCER Working Papers 465, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    18. Shawn D. Bushway & Emily G. Owens & Anne Morrison Piehl, 2012. "Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion: Quasi‐Experimental Evidence from Human Calculation Errors," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 291-319, June.
    19. Vickers, Chris, 2016. "Socioeconomic status and judicial disparities in England and Wales, 1870–1910," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 32-53.
    20. Marc T. Law & Cheryl X. Long, 2011. "Revolving door laws and state public utility commissioners," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 405-424, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:677-715. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.