The Impact of Legal and Extralegal Factors on Judicial Decision Making

A Special Issue of Social Sciences (ISSN 2076-0760) belonging to the section "Crime and Justice".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 September 2026 | Viewed by 2082

Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Tampa, Tampa, FL 33606, USA
Interests: introduction to criminology; introduction to criminal justice; research methods; corrections; victimology; violence in America; criminological theory

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Criminal Justice & Criminology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA
Interests: program evaluation; criminal sentencing; gender and racial disparities in the criminal justice system; juvenile justice and decision making in the juvenile court
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

In this Special Issue, we invite submissions that examine the role of extralegal factors in judicial decision making, with particular attention to how demographic, contextual, and systemic influences shape court outcomes, including age, gender, race, and ethnicity. This topic is especially important as decision makers in the criminal justice system should consider legal factors, such as prior record, offense severity, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances, when making judicial decisions such as pretrial release, charging decisions, and sentencing.

We seek research that investigates how judicial actors, such as prosecutors and judges, interpret information, exercise discretion, and respond to social pressures inside and outside the courtroom. Submissions may address, but are not limited to, topics such as the following:

  • The impact of race, ethnicity, gender, age, or socioeconomic status on bail decisions, charging decisions, sentencing, or supervision outcomes;
  • Decision making shortcuts used by judges, prosecutors, or pretrial officers;
  • The influence of community characteristics, media coverage, or political climate on judicial behavior;
  • Theoretical and empirical inquiries into courtroom culture, discretion, and institutional norms;
  • Evaluations of reforms aimed at reducing disparities, such as judicial training, structured decision tools, or policy changes.

We welcome interdisciplinary contributions that draw from criminology, sociology, law, public policy, and related fields. Qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method, and comparative design studies that advance the study of extralegal influences in judicial decision making are encouraged.

Prof. Dr. Carly Hilinski-Rosick
Prof. Dr. Tina Freiburger
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-anonymized peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Social Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • pretrial detention
  • bail
  • sentencing
  • extralegal variables
  • legal variables
  • sentencing disparity

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

28 pages, 977 KB  
Article
Beyond Binary Responsibility: A Framework for Biological Justice in the Epigenetic Era
by Pragya Mishra, Colleen M. Berryessa and Fiona A. Hagenbeek
Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(6), 399; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15060399 - 19 Jun 2026
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1174
Abstract
Behavioral epigenetics links experiences of adversity, stress, and care to molecular variation associated with health and behavior and can reshape understandings of embodiment across the life course. As such findings enter legal and policy debates, they raise pressing questions about how judges assess [...] Read more.
Behavioral epigenetics links experiences of adversity, stress, and care to molecular variation associated with health and behavior and can reshape understandings of embodiment across the life course. As such findings enter legal and policy debates, they raise pressing questions about how judges assess responsibility, weigh extralegal factors in sentencing, and govern the use of emerging scientific evidence. This article develops a framework of biological justice to guide the translation of epigenetic evidence into judicial decision-making without reintroducing biological determinism or naturalizing structural inequality. Integrating insights from epigenetics, sociology of science, bioethics, and criminal law, we clarify the inferential limits of current research and examine risks of biologizing inequality, predictive governance, and eugenic logics. We argue that epigenetic evidence should be restricted to contextual, defendant-protective, and rehabilitation-oriented uses in sentencing and post-conviction proceedings, while predictive and coercive applications should be explicitly excluded. Overall, this framework emphasizes structural framing, community oversight, and equity to prevent molecular accounts of adversity from reinforcing existing hierarchies. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop