Same Crime, Different Time: Disparities in Judicial Outcomes for DWI Offenders

• In Event: Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice Decision-Making: Sentencing, Courts, and Policy Design

Abstract

We study disparities in criminal case outcomes among individuals charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), a setting that offers a rare opportunity to compare similarly situated defendants because legal guilt is defined by an objective measure: breath alcohol content (BrAC). Using administrative data from Harris County, Texas, we focus on first-time offenders with no aggravating circumstances and BrAC above the statutory threshold, allowing us to hold constant all legally relevant factors. Despite this comparability, we document substantial differences in outcomes across defendants.

DWI cases in our setting are resolved along three primary tracks—dismissal, probation, and incarceration—which differ in severity, financial burden, and long-term consequences. We find that race, gender, legal representation, and socioeconomic status strongly predict sorting across these outcomes. For example, white defendants are significantly more likely than Black and Hispanic defendants to receive dismissals, while defendants with private attorneys or from higher-income neighborhoods are substantially less likely to be incarcerated. These disparities are cumulative: individuals who are advantaged along multiple dimensions (e.g., white, female, privately represented, and from higher-income neighborhoods) are dramatically more likely to avoid conviction than disadvantaged counterparts with similar BrAC levels .

We show that these gaps are unlikely to be explained by unobserved differences in offense severity or driving behavior. Instead, the evidence points to two complementary mechanisms. First, systemic disadvantage shapes defendants’ choices among available sanctions. Alternatives to incarceration—such as probation or diversion—often require financial resources, stable employment, and time commitments, making them less accessible to disadvantaged defendants. Second, judicial and prosecutorial behavior varies across courtrooms, and the benefits of more lenient environments disproportionately accrue to advantaged defendants.

Finally, we find no evidence that harsher sanctions improve public safety: if anything, incarceration appears to increase recidivism while dismissal reduces it. Taken together, our results show that even in a setting with a clear and objective standard of legal guilt, extralegal characteristics strongly influence criminal justice outcomes, raising concerns about both equity and efficiency in the administration of punishment.

Author

• Emily Leslie, Brigham Young University
  Presenting Author