Predicting Proportionality: The Case for Algorithmic Sentencing

Bibliography

• Bagaric, Mirko, and Gabrielle Wolf. “Sentencing by Computer: Enhancing Sentencing Transparency and Predictability, and (Possibly) Bridging the Gap between Sentencing Knowledge and Practice.” George Mason Law Review 25, no. 4 (Forthcoming). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3011166.
   Google Scholar
• Berk, Richard, Hoda Heidari, Shahin Jabbari, Michael Kearns, and Aaron Roth. “Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art.” Sociological Methods and Research. July 2, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0049124118782533.
   Google Scholar
• Bertrand, Marianne, and Sendhil Mullainathan. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” American Economic Review 94, no. 4 (2004): 991–1013. doi: 10.1257/0002828042002561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chanenson, Steven L., and Jordan M. Hyatt. “The Use of Risk Assessment at Sentencing: Implications for Research and Policy.” Working Paper Series 193. Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, Villanova, PA. December 2016. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1201&context=wps.
   Google Scholar
• Citron, Danielle Keats. “Technological Due Process.” Washington University Law Review 85, no. 6 (2008): 1249–1313.
   Google Scholar
• Dana, Jason, Robyn Dawes, and Nathaniel Peterson. “Belief in the Unstructured Pnterview: The Persistence of an Illusion.” Judgment and Decision Making 8, no. 5 (2013): 512–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dancy, Jonathan. Ethics Without Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Doob, Anthony N., and Norman W. Park. “Computerized Sentencing Information for Judges: An Aid to the Sentencing Process.” Criminal Law Quarterly 30 (1987): 54–72.
   Google Scholar
• Englich, Birte. “Heuristic Strategies and Persistent Biases in Sentencing Decisions.” In Social Psychology of Punishment of Crime, edited by Margit E. Oswald, Steffen Bieneck, and Jorg Hupfeld-Heinemann, 295–314. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Frase, Richard. “Limiting Retributivism.” In The Future of Imprisonment in the 21st Century, edited by Michael Tonry, 83–119. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, and Siegfried Ludwig Sporer. “Unconscious Influences in Sentencing Decisions: A Research Review of Psychological Sources of Disparity.” Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 42, no. 1 (March 2010): 19–36. doi: 10.1080/00450610903391440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grove, William M., and Paul E. Meehl. “Comparative Efficiency of Informal (Subjective, Impressionistic) and Formal (Mechanical, Algorithmic) Prediction Procedures: The Clinical-Statistical Controversy.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2, no. 2 (1996): 293–323. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannah-Moffat, Kelly. “Actuarial Sentencing: An ‘Unsettled’ Proposition.” Justice Quarterly 30, no. 2 (2013): 270–96. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.682603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harcourt, Bernard. Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in An Actuarial Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Hinton, Elizabeth. From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Hunt, Kim, and Michael Connelly. “Advisory Guidelines in the Post-Blakely Era.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 17, no. 4 (2005): 233–42. doi: 10.1525/fsr.2005.17.4.233
   Google Scholar
• Huq, Aziz. “Racial Equity in Algorithmic Criminal Justice.” Duke Law Journal 68 (Forthcoming). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3144831.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinberg, Jon, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Jure Leskovec, Jens Ludwig, and Sendhil Mullainathan. “Human Decisions and Machine Predictions.” NBER Working Paper No. 23180. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, February 2017. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23180.
   Google Scholar
• Lance, Mark, and Margaret Little. “From Particularism to Defeasibility in Ethics.” In Challenging Moral Particularism, edited by Mark Lance, Matjaž Potrc, and Vojko Strahovnik, 63–84. New York: Routledge, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Laqueur, Hannah, and Ryan Copus. “Synthetic Crowdsourcing: A Machine-learning Approach to Inconsistency in Adjudication.” Working paper, December 2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2694326.
   Google Scholar
• Leibovitch, Adi. “Punishing on a Curve.” Northwestern University Law Review 111, no. 5 (2017): 1205–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, Margaret Olivia. “Moral Generalities Revisited.” In Moral Particularism, edited by Hooker Brad, and Margaret Olivia Little, 276–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, Norval. The Future of Imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., Sheri Lynn Johnson, Andrew J. Wistrich, and Chris Guthrie. “Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges?” Notre Dame Law Review 84, no. 3 (2009): 1195–1246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reitz, Kevin R. “Comparing Sentencing Guidelines: Do US Systems Have Anything Worthwhile to Offer England and Wales?” In Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring the English Model, edited by Andrew Ashworth, and Julian V. Roberts, 182–201. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, Julian V. “Structuring Sentencing in Canada, England and Wales: A Tale of Two Jurisdictions.” Criminal Law Forum 23, no. 4 (2012): 319–45. doi: 10.1007/s10609-012-9186-0
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, Julian V., and Oren Gazal-Ayal. “Statutory Sentencing Reform in Israel: Exploring the Sentencing Law of 2012.” Israel Law Review 46, no. 3 (2013): 455–79. doi: 10.1017/S0021223713000162
   Google Scholar
• Starr, Sonja B. “Evidence-based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination.” Stanford Law Review 66, no. 4 (April 2014): 803–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tata, Cyrus. “The Application of Judicial Intelligence and ‘Rules’ to Systems Supporting Discretionary Judicial Decision-making.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 6, no. 2–4 (1998): 203–30. doi: 10.1023/A:1008274209036
   Google Scholar
• Tata, Cyrus. “The Struggle for Sentencing Reform: Will the English Sentencing Guidelines Model Spread?” In Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring the English Model, edited by Andrew Ashworth, and Julian V. Roberts, 236–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Tonry, Michael. Sentencing Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Crystal. “Free at Last? Judicial Discretion and Racial Disparities in Federal Sentencing.” Journal of Legal Studies 44, no. 1 (2015): 75–111. doi: 10.1086/680989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar