TY - JOUR
T1 - Directing retribution
T2 - On the political control of lower court judges
AU - Huber, Gregory A.
AU - Gordon, Sanford C.
N1 - Funding Information:
This is one of several joint papers by the authors on criminal justice institutions and politics; the ordering of names reflects a principle of rotation. We thank David Epstein, Charles Franklin, Laura Langer, Adam Meirowitz, Ken Shotts, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (SES Grants 0317667 and 0318033). Gordon also gratefully acknowledges the support of the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University, where he was a visiting scholar during the 2005–2006 academic year.
PY - 2007/6
Y1 - 2007/6
N2 - The sentencing decisions of trial judges are constrained by statutory limits imposed by legislatures. At the same time, judges in many states face periodic review, often by the electorate. We develop a model in which the effects of these features of a judge's political landscape on judicial behavior interact. The model yields several intriguing results: First, if legislators care about the proportionality of punishment, judicial discretion increases with their punitiveness. Second, voters are limited by two factors in their ability to make inferences about judicial preferences based on observed sentences: the extent to which judges are willing to pander to retain office and the range of judicial discretion mandated by the legislature. Finally, legislators can sometimes manipulate judicial discretion to aid sufficiently like-minded voters in their efforts to replace ideologically dissimilar judges.
AB - The sentencing decisions of trial judges are constrained by statutory limits imposed by legislatures. At the same time, judges in many states face periodic review, often by the electorate. We develop a model in which the effects of these features of a judge's political landscape on judicial behavior interact. The model yields several intriguing results: First, if legislators care about the proportionality of punishment, judicial discretion increases with their punitiveness. Second, voters are limited by two factors in their ability to make inferences about judicial preferences based on observed sentences: the extent to which judges are willing to pander to retain office and the range of judicial discretion mandated by the legislature. Finally, legislators can sometimes manipulate judicial discretion to aid sufficiently like-minded voters in their efforts to replace ideologically dissimilar judges.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35648972197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=35648972197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/jleo/ewm027
DO - 10.1093/jleo/ewm027
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:35648972197
SN - 8756-6222
VL - 23
SP - 386
EP - 420
JO - Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization
JF - Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization
IS - 2
ER -