SENTENCING IN CONTEXT: A MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS

Criminal sentencing is, along with arresting and prosecuting, among the most important of formal social control decisions. In this study we use hierarchical modeling to test hypotheses about contextual level influences and cross level interaction effects on local court decisions. Most of the explanatory "action," our analysis shows, is at the individual case level in criminal sentencing. We also find evidence that local contextual features–such as court organizational culture, court caseload pressure, and racial and ethnic composition–affect sentencing outcomes, either directly or in interaction with individual factors. We conclude by discussing theoretical implications of our findings, and how our study points out some dilemmas among civil rights, local autonomy and organizational realities of criminal courts.     

The effect of local policy on the sentencing patterns of state wards

A large number of studies have identified individual and offense characteristics that predict the severity of criminal justice system sanctions against juvenile delinquents. However, very few studies have examined the effect of local decision making procedures and funding practices on sentencing outcomes. As such local practices could have important effects on sentencing, the present study compared the sentencing of juvenile state wards in counties that differ markedly in local policies. The hypothesis was that the availability of state, as opposed to local, funding for institutional placement (called a “charge-back” policy) in one of the counties would result in a more severe sentencing decisions and that this county's use of board of decision makers instead of individual caseworkers would result in harsher treatment of youths differentiated by minority status, sex, or family status. This difference might be due to the board's insulation from review.     

The Best Interests of the Child and the Sentencing of Offenders with Parental Responsibilities

There is a growing body of empirical research demonstrating that sentencing and other criminal justice decisions often have a detrimental, even traumatic impact upon an offender’s dependent children. Judges must balance numerous factors when making sentencing decisions, generally encompassing the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offence, and the personal circumstances of the offender. Should the probable impact of a sentence on an offender’s dependents be a significant factor to be weighed with these other factors in the process of sentencing? More specifically, when a court is sentencing an offender with parental responsibilities, does it have a duty to inquire about the potential impact of the sanction on the offender’s dependent child or children? Must it consider the principle of the best interests of the child or a child’s right to family life as a separate legal consideration in constructing a sentence? International human rights standards suggest that it does. After reviewing existing evidence on the potential hardship of sentencing decisions for an offender’s dependent children, the authors examine the experience of six countries in interpreting and applying these standards in their domestic laws, policies, and practices. They discuss some options for sentencing reforms in the broader context of efforts to reduce high rates of imprisonment in many countries and the need to address the differential impacts of criminal sanctions for primary caregivers and their children.     

Putting race into context: Race,juvenile justice processing,and urbanization

In this article, we examine differential sentencing patterns among black, Hispanic, and white juveniles and the context in which those decisions are made. Using a bivariate probit model, we show that juveniles living in urban counties are more likely to be referred to juvenile court, and that juveniles living in a single-mother household are more likely than juveniles living with both parents to be referred to court and to receive secure placement. Race-specific models indicate that black youths are likely to receive harsh treatments in urban courts; yet white youths are not treated differently on the basis of court location. In addition, living in a single-mother household is a disadvantage for white youths when they are referred and sentenced, but family status is not a determinant for black youths.     

VARIATION IN TRIAL PENALTIES AMONG SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENSES*

We examine the differences in the sentencing of those who plead guilty and those convicted by jury trial among defendants convicted of serious violent offenses. Drawing from a focal concerns and court communities perspective on court decision making, we develop several hypotheses about jury trial penalties for serious violent offenders, and how such penalties may vary by offense characteristics, defendant characteristics, and court contexts. Our hierarchical models using Pennsylvania sentencing data from 1997 to 2000 reveal that defendants are substantially penalized if they exercise their right to a jury trial and then lose. Furthermore, this jury trial penalty is not evenly assessed, but depends on the seriousness and type of offense, defendant criminal history, and court contextual characteristics such as caseload, court community size, local violent crime rates, and the size of local black populations.     

Sentencing policy and disparity: Guidelines and the influence of legal and democratic subcultures

This study analyzed the effects of sentencing policy on sentencing outcomes and the determinants of sentencing decisions. The authors used hierarchical modeling to examine the impact of sentencing reform on legal and individual- and county-level extralegal factors in addition to the sentencing outcomes themselves. The research was framed within the legal and democratic subculture perspective developed by Richardson and Vines (1970) for understanding lower court decision making. The results indicated that sentencing policy acts as a filter, through which cues from each subculture are synthesized, and helps to shape the effects of both legal and extralegal variables on sentencing outcomes.     

Trial Penalties in Federal Sentencing: Extra‐Guidelines Factors and District Variation

The guarantee of the right to a jury trial lies at the heart of the principles that underlie the American criminal justice system's commitment to due process of law. We investigate the differential sentencing of those who plead guilty and those convicted by trial in U.S. District Courts. We first investigate how much of any federal plea/trial sentencing differences are accounted for by substantial assistance to law enforcement, acceptance of responsibility, obstruction of justice, and other Guideline departures. Second, we investigate how such differences vary according to offense and defendant characteristics, as well as court caseloads and trial rates. We use federal sentencing data for fiscal years 2000–02, along with aggregate data on federal district court caseload features. We find that meaningful trial penalties exist after accounting for Guidelines‐based rationales for differentially sentencing those convicted by guilty plea versus trial. Higher district court caseload pressure is associated with greater trial penalties, while higher district trial rates are associated with lesser trial penalties. In addition, trial penalties are lower for those with more substantial criminal histories, and black men. Trial penalties proportionately increase, however, as Guideline minimum sentencing recommendations increase. We also supplement our analysis with interview and survey data from federal district court participants, which provide insights into the plea reward/trial penalty process, and also suggest important dimensions of federal court trial penalties that we cannot measure.     

Revising Images of Public Punitiveness: Sentencing by Lay and Professional English Magistrates

England grants unusually broad responsibility for sentencing of criminal offenders to voluntary part-time lay magistrates who, like their legally trained professional colleagues, sentence a wide range of offenders. Using simulated cases, archival analyses, and observational techniques, this article compares the sentencing decisions of the lay and professional magistrates in London. The study reveals no evidence of the lay preference for more severe sentencing that is typically shown in public opinion polls. The extent to which legal training, court experience, panel decisionmaking and role within the court system can explain the relative leniency of the lay magistrates are considered Consistent with results from other studies, these findings suggests that when laypersons assign sentences to particular offenders rather than express generalized satisfaction or dissatisfaction with current sentencing practices, laypersons are no more punitive than professional judges.     

Does a therapeutic court context matter?: The likelihood of imprisonment for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders sentenced in problem-solving courts

A key aspect of the focal concerns perspective of sentencing is that time and information restrictions within the courtroom create the conditions under which perceptual shorthands may impact sentencing determinations. These shorthands are based stereotypes related to offender characteristics including minority group statuses (i.e. ethnicity, race, Indigenous status) (Steffensmeier et al., 1998). To date, sentencing scholars drawing on the focal concerns perspective have only considered the impact of minority group statuses on sentencing in the mainstream courts (Mitchell, 2005; Spohn, 2000). Utilizing multiple regression techniques the current paper explores the impact of Indigenous status on the decision to imprison in the problem solving courts of South Australia. Unlike the mainstream courts, sentencing determinations within the therapeutic problem-solving court environment involve a more extensive examination of offenders and their cases and by extension, perceptual shorthands should be less influential. Evidence supporting this argument is provided by the current research. Results show a direct relationship between Indigenous status and the likelihood of imprisonment, with leniency being extended to Indigenous offenders.     

Outcomes of civil protective orders: results from one state

This study compares final sentencing decisions ordered by judges to federal and state sentencing guidelines for protective order violations. The authors reviewed violations that were pled before the largest district court in Utah and found that in the majority of cases, defendants were not sentenced in accordance with federal and state guidelines. Although state guidelines mandate defendants who violate a protective order to attend a batterer intervention program, less than one fourth of defendants were sentenced to attend such programs. Fewer than half of the defendants were arrested and incarcerated, as opposed to the 100% mandated by state sentencing guidelines. Federal guidelines mandate that all defendants be ordered to surrender firearms, but only six defendants were given that order. This study shows that the judicial system could be more aggressive in improving the safety of victims of intimate partner violence by using the full extent of the sentencing guidelines.     

Courtroom Context and Sentencing

This study provides an evaluation of the major policy shift in sentencing practices over the past half-century – namely the shift from indeterminate to determinant sentencing policies and the use of sentencing guidelines. The theoretical literature on courtroom organization and focal concerns informs this evaluation of determinate sentencing practices in Florida. Drawing from prior theoretical and empirical research, hierarchical linear and generalized linear models are estimated to assess courtroom effects on individual level sentencing outcomes. The findings document that location matters when sentenced in Florida. Specifically, the likelihood of being sentenced to prison and the length of sentence varies across counties, even after controlling for individual case and offender characteristics and a variety of contextual characteristics. Additionally, the influence of legal and extra-legal factors on prison in/out and sentence length decisions varies significantly across counties. Several court characteristics, including court size, caseload pressure and trial rate assert direct influence on a county’s likelihood of prison in/out and mean sentence length decisions.

     

Sentencing Female Drug Offenders: Reexamining Racial and Ethnic Disparities

This study analyzes the relationship between race/ethnicity and sentencing outcomes for female drug offenders in Florida. Grounded in the focal concerns perspective, the research examines whether, in the specific case of drug offenders, minority women are treated more harshly than White women. Interaction models are estimated to determine the influence of drug offense type on racial and ethnic sentencing disparities. Differences in sentencing outcomes are also examined following significant policy changes in the state. In general, the findings suggest that minority female drug offenders are disadvantaged at both the incarceration and sentence length decisions. It also appears that perceptions of dangerousness associated with female offenders' race/ethnicity and offense are incorporated into sentencing authorities' patterned responses. That is, the level of disparity between Black, Hispanic, and White females is conditioned by type of drug offense in the interaction models. The changes in sentencing policy also impact the role of race and ethnicity in sentencing decisions. By analyzing drug offenders exclusively, the current study clarifies the role of race in sentencing decisions for females. In contrast to prior research that examined all offense categories together, the current study suggests that for drug offenses, minority females may, in fact, be deemed more dangerous and culpable than White female drug offenders.     

Crime,public opinion and trial courts: An analysis of sentencing policy

Much recent research on public opinion and trial courts demonstrates a link between local attitudes and sentencing in highly visible criminal cases. However, such crimes are not typical of most trial court work. Our research examines relationships between public opinion, crime rates, and sentencing in routine cases, including armed and unarmed robbery, burglary, larceny, and possession of narcotics. The research includes over 6000 cases and measures public opinion in all twenty of Florida's trial court circuits. Except for possession of narcotics, no significant correlations were discovered between public opinion and sentencing, but high crime rates generally produced lenient sentences. The research questions the impact of public opinion on most litigation and suggests that judicial elites usually act without concern for local public opinion.     

THE EFFECT OF GENDER ON THE DECISION TO INCARCERATE BEFORE AND AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES*

The present study explores the relationships between gender and imprisonment decisions in Minnesota before and after the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Results from a series of logistic regression models indicate that gender alone did not have a significant impact on the likelihood of imprisonment, but women with dependent children were significantly less likely to be imprisoned before sentencing guidelines and in the years subsequent to their implementation. The findings suggest that despite the introduction of sentencing reforms, court officials tend to return to issues of substantive justice, and they appear unable to shed their individual or organizational ideas of fairness in sentencing.     

The Impact of Race on the Pretrial Decision

This study examined the effect of race on the pretrial release decision for drug offenders. Although this decision point has not been examined as extensively as the final sentencing decision, it is a critical discretion point which impacts defendants’ future sentencing outcomes. The results found that race had a significant impact on judges’ decisions to release a defendant on recognizance, with black defendants less likely to receive this release status. Race was not significant, however, in the decision of bail amount or in the likelihood to post bail. These results are consistent with the focal concerns perspective which suggests that black defendants are viewed by courts as more dangerous and blameworthy and thereby, less likely to be released on their own recognizance.     

Proportionality in Sentencing and the Restorative Justice Paradigm: ‘Just Deserts’ for Victims and Defendants Alike?

The doctrine of proportionality seeks to limit arbitrary and capricious punishment in order to ensure that offenders are punished according to their ‘just desert’. In Australian sentencing law, proportionality goes some way toward achieving this ‘balanced’ approach by requiring a court to consider various and often competing interests in formulating a sentence commensurate with offence seriousness and offender culpability. Modification of sentencing law by the introduction of victim impact statements or the requirement that sentencing courts take explicit account of the harm done to the victim and community has generated debate, however, as to the extent to which offenders may be now subject to unjustified, harsher punishments. This article proposes that in order to overcome the controversy of the modification of offender and victim rights in sentencing, sentencing courts adhere to a doctrine of proportionality that is explicitly sensitive to the needs of victims and offenders in a model of restorative justice that focuses on the consequences of crime as against the individual, rather than the state. The extent to which proportionality, as the current constitutive principle of Australian sentencing law, may be modified to better encourage a dialogue between victim and offender is discussed.     

Sentencing Guidelines and focal concerns: The effect of sentencing policy as a practical constraint on sentencing decisions

Contemporary research on criminal sentencing has analyzed sentencing under numerous sentencing policies, yet the effect of sentencing policy on outcomes and disparity is not known. A variety of sentencing guidelines systems, one of the more common sentencing policies, exists throughout the country. In addition, recent Supreme Court decisions regarding sentencing guidelines are likely to produce alterations to several state sentencing policies over the next few years. Using data from the state of Florida, the current study examines the effects of policy transformation on sentencing disparity within the focal concerns of sentencing perspective. The authors view sentencing guidelines as a practical constraint on sentencing decisions that influence other key variables. The results indicate that sentencing policy transformation has an important effect on both sentencing decisions and on the factors that shape those decisions. The findings suggest that future sentencing research and theoretical development would benefit from incorporating measures of policy differences in its analyses.     

Blind or Biased? Justitia's Susceptibility to Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom Based on Given Numerical Representations

This article presents an integrative review of recent research on anchoring effects in the courtroom as one example for the strong impact of representation norms on sentencing decisions. Anchoring effects – the assimilation of numerical judgments to a given standard – have been demonstrated in many judgmental domains. Even sentencing decisions are subject to anchoring effects. In court proceedings this gives disproportionate weight to the prosecutor, whose sentencing demand serves as an anchor. The prosecution's sentencing demand even affects defense attorneys, who assimilate their own sentencing recommendation to it. This influence seems to remain outside of defense attorneys' awareness. Expertise does not attenuate this bias. Accordingly, defendants might be better off if defense attorneys could make their final case prior to the prosecutor's case.     

Legal,Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes

States have responded to the public's outrage at rising juvenile crime by revising their transfer statutes to make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders for trial and sentencing in criminal court and possible incarceration in adult prisons. These changing trends in juvenile justice raise three questions about what actually happens to juveniles once they are in the adult criminal justice system. To what extent does trial in adult court and/or incarceration in adult prisons promote or retard community protection, juvenile offenders' accountability, and the development of competencies in juvenile offenders? This article discusses state transfer laws and the legal consequences of criminal court prosecution, and analyzes current research on deterrence effects of transfer laws, conviction and sentencing in juvenile versus criminal court, recidivism rates in juvenile versus criminal court, and conditions and programming in juvenile versus adult correctional facilities. The research findings have two important implications for juvenile justice policy: the number of juvenile cases transferred to criminal court should be minimized, and imprisonment of juveniles in adult facilities should be avoided whenever possible. These implications are discussed, and directions for future research are identified.     

Location,location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses

Research on sentencing has made clear that factors beyond case and offenders' attributes influence court decisions. Environmental and procedural characteristics also significantly affect the sentences of criminal courts. Yet, while state-level studies regularly control for such factors, most research on modern federal determinate sentencing has neglected jurisdictional attributes and variation as sources of extralegal sentence disparity. Using the organizational context and social worlds theoretical perspectives with a multilevel analytical approach, this study assessed how district and circuit of adjudication affect case-level lengths of sentences for federal drug-trafficking offenses, finding that both significantly affect sentencing outcomes and their predictors.