“You Know Baseball? 3 Strikes”: Understanding Racial Disparity with Mixed Methods for Probation Review Hearings

Abstract

Prior literature on judicial decision-making post-sentencing is relatively scarce, yet with the growth of problem-solving courts and offenders placed on probation, judges are responsible for overseeing compliance of offenders beyond traditional decision-making points. More recently, scholars have called for more nuanced methods of examining judicial decision-making, disparity, and attribution than traditional quantitative methods. This study examines the factors that influence judicial sanctioning of probationers for non-compliance in a domestic violence court. The following research questions are examined: Which factors predict whether a probationer is sanctioned for non-compliance? What are the discourses utilized to frame these violations? Are there differences in discourses utilized based upon a probationer’s race? This study combines participant observation of probation review hearings with agency records for a mixed-methods examination of which factors influence the decision to sanction non-compliant probationers, and whether differences emerge based on race. The sample included 350 cases of probation review hearings with 100 cases selected for critical discourse analysis. Results demonstrated that drug use, missed treatment sessions, gender, race, and family status influenced sanctioning decisions. Qualitative results demonstrated that judges evaluate probationers based upon contextual information, which at times relies on racial discourses of drug use and responsibility.

Keywords

• probation
• racial disparity
• mixed methods
• focal concerns
• critical discourse