Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

An inhabited institutions perspective views institutions from the bottom up, as “inhabited” by individual and organizational actors who have agency, rather than as static, top-down structures. Criminal justice structures and policies, such as those that govern courts and their sentencing decisions, are dependent on court participants. From this perspective, several conclusions emerge. First, theory and methods in the study of courts and sentencing are out of balance: theories emphasize interpretation, culture, and processes, while empirical inquiries focus largely on statistical studies of aggregates and outcomes. Second, the inhabited institutions perspective blurs the lines between the discretions of specific participants such as prosecutors and judges. Rather than attempt to parse the discretion of individual actors, we should study the interactions that jointly produce discretionary decisions. Third, we should focus on specific organizational mechanisms that produce both uniformity and variation between courts. Finally, variation between courts in sentencing practices should be understood not as a nuisance in top-down imposition of sentencing policies, but as a valuable but underappreciated source of policy feedback and learning.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationCrime and Justice
PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press
Pages483-522
Number of pages40
Edition1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Publication series

NameCrime and Justice
Number1
Volume48
ISSN (Print)0192-3234
ISSN (Electronic)2153-0416

Fingerprint

balance theory
justice
interpretation
interaction
learning

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Ulmer, J. T. (2019). Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. In Crime and Justice (1 ed., pp. 483-522). (Crime and Justice; Vol. 48, No. 1). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/701504
Ulmer, Jeffrey Todd. / Criminal courts as inhabited institutions : Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. Crime and Justice. 1. ed. University of Chicago Press, 2019. pp. 483-522 (Crime and Justice; 1).
@inbook{96c1affa6f5c498da0598f017a5b105f,
title = "Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing",
abstract = "An inhabited institutions perspective views institutions from the bottom up, as “inhabited” by individual and organizational actors who have agency, rather than as static, top-down structures. Criminal justice structures and policies, such as those that govern courts and their sentencing decisions, are dependent on court participants. From this perspective, several conclusions emerge. First, theory and methods in the study of courts and sentencing are out of balance: theories emphasize interpretation, culture, and processes, while empirical inquiries focus largely on statistical studies of aggregates and outcomes. Second, the inhabited institutions perspective blurs the lines between the discretions of specific participants such as prosecutors and judges. Rather than attempt to parse the discretion of individual actors, we should study the interactions that jointly produce discretionary decisions. Third, we should focus on specific organizational mechanisms that produce both uniformity and variation between courts. Finally, variation between courts in sentencing practices should be understood not as a nuisance in top-down imposition of sentencing policies, but as a valuable but underappreciated source of policy feedback and learning.",
author = "Ulmer, {Jeffrey Todd}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1086/701504",
language = "English (US)",
series = "Crime and Justice",
publisher = "University of Chicago Press",
number = "1",
pages = "483--522",
booktitle = "Crime and Justice",
address = "United States",
edition = "1",

}

Ulmer, JT 2019, Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. in Crime and Justice. 1 edn, Crime and Justice, no. 1, vol. 48, University of Chicago Press, pp. 483-522. https://doi.org/10.1086/701504

Criminal courts as inhabited institutions : Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. / Ulmer, Jeffrey Todd.

Crime and Justice. 1. ed. University of Chicago Press, 2019. p. 483-522 (Crime and Justice; Vol. 48, No. 1).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Criminal courts as inhabited institutions

T2 - Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing

AU - Ulmer, Jeffrey Todd

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - An inhabited institutions perspective views institutions from the bottom up, as “inhabited” by individual and organizational actors who have agency, rather than as static, top-down structures. Criminal justice structures and policies, such as those that govern courts and their sentencing decisions, are dependent on court participants. From this perspective, several conclusions emerge. First, theory and methods in the study of courts and sentencing are out of balance: theories emphasize interpretation, culture, and processes, while empirical inquiries focus largely on statistical studies of aggregates and outcomes. Second, the inhabited institutions perspective blurs the lines between the discretions of specific participants such as prosecutors and judges. Rather than attempt to parse the discretion of individual actors, we should study the interactions that jointly produce discretionary decisions. Third, we should focus on specific organizational mechanisms that produce both uniformity and variation between courts. Finally, variation between courts in sentencing practices should be understood not as a nuisance in top-down imposition of sentencing policies, but as a valuable but underappreciated source of policy feedback and learning.

AB - An inhabited institutions perspective views institutions from the bottom up, as “inhabited” by individual and organizational actors who have agency, rather than as static, top-down structures. Criminal justice structures and policies, such as those that govern courts and their sentencing decisions, are dependent on court participants. From this perspective, several conclusions emerge. First, theory and methods in the study of courts and sentencing are out of balance: theories emphasize interpretation, culture, and processes, while empirical inquiries focus largely on statistical studies of aggregates and outcomes. Second, the inhabited institutions perspective blurs the lines between the discretions of specific participants such as prosecutors and judges. Rather than attempt to parse the discretion of individual actors, we should study the interactions that jointly produce discretionary decisions. Third, we should focus on specific organizational mechanisms that produce both uniformity and variation between courts. Finally, variation between courts in sentencing practices should be understood not as a nuisance in top-down imposition of sentencing policies, but as a valuable but underappreciated source of policy feedback and learning.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061343756&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061343756&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/701504

DO - 10.1086/701504

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85061343756

T3 - Crime and Justice

SP - 483

EP - 522

BT - Crime and Justice

PB - University of Chicago Press

ER -

Ulmer JT. Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. In Crime and Justice. 1 ed. University of Chicago Press. 2019. p. 483-522. (Crime and Justice; 1). https://doi.org/10.1086/701504