Older and more recent evidence on racial discrimination in sentencing

Examination of previous studies of racial discrimination in sentencing indicates more widespread evidence of discrimination than allowed in three separate reviews by M. J. Hindelang [(1969).J. Crim. Law Criminal. Police Sci. 60: 306–313], J. Hagan [(1975). InThe Aldine Crime and Justice Annual, Aldine, Chicago], and G. Kleck [(1981).Am. Social. Rev. 46: 783-805]. It is not the case, as these reviewers suggest, that racial discrimination is a thing of the past, shown almost exclusively for capital offences from the American South, and often supported only because relevant legal variables were not controlled. In addition, analysis of recent (1977) data from a non-Southern state (Pennsylvania) covering noncapital offenses and including recommended controls shows that evidence of racial disparity in sentencing is revealed more clearly when separate analyses are conducted within levels of urbanization. The labeling perspective and conflict theory guide our interpretation.     

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN PRETRIAL RELEASE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES: A COMPARISON OF HISPANIC,BLACK, AND WHITE FELONY ARRESTEES*

The present study uses data on the processing of felony defendants in large urban courts to examine Hispanic, black, and white differences at the pretrial release stage. The major finding is that Hispanic defendants are more likely to be detained than white and black defendants. And, racial/ethnic differences are most pronounced in drug cases. In fact, Hispanic defendants suffer a triple burden at the pretrial release stage as they are the group most likely to be required to pay bail to gain release, the group that receives the highest bail amounts, and the group least able to pay bail. These findings are consistent with a focal concerns perspective of criminal case processing that suggests Hispanics as a newly immigrated group are especially prone to harsher treatment in the criminal case process.     

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING DEPARTURES ACROSS MODES OF CONVICTION*

Recent analyses of guideline sentencing practices have demonstrated that sentences departing from guidelines serve as a significant locus of racial/ethnic and other extralegal disparity. Little is known, however, about the ways that different courtroom processes, such as modes of conviction, condition these effects. Using recent data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS), I analyze the overall effects of race/ethnicity and other factors on judicial decisions to depart from the sentencing guidelines, and then I reexamine these relationships according to four modes of conviction (non‐negotiated pleas, negotiated pleas, bench trials, and jury trials). I argue that the mode of conviction provides a useful indicator of the differential exercise of discretion by different courtroom actors in the sentencing process. As such, it is likely to condition the use of stereotypical patterned responses, thus moderating the effects of race/ethnicity and other relevant sentencing factors. Findings support this expectation, demonstrating that extralegal effects vary considerably across modes of conviction. These results raise important questions about the role of different courtroom actors in contributing to racial and ethnic disparities under sentencing guidelines.     

Criminal Prosecutions: Examining Prosecutorial Discretion and Charge Reductions in U.S. Federal District Courts

The role of the prosecutor in criminal punishments remains a fervent topic of criminal justice discourse, yet it has received limited empirical attention, particularly for U.S. Attorneys in federal district courts. The present study examines charging and sentencing outcomes in federal courts by combining charging data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts with sentencing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The merger of these data sources overcomes limitations of each and provides for an investigation of the causes and consequences of federal prosecutorial charging decisions. Our investigation focuses on the subtle but important influences that extralegal offender characteristics exert in this process. Results indicate that some extralegal characteristics are intricately tied to the likelihood of charge reductions. Moreover, these effects sometimes interact to produce compound disadvantages for some groups of offenders. Our analyses are guided by contemporary theoretical perspectives on courtroom decision‐making.     

Sentencer and offender factors as sources of discrimination in magistrates' penalties for drinking drivers

This study examined the contributions of sentencer and case (legal and extralegal) factors to magistrates' sentences for 678 drink-drivers at 2 courts. Qualitative codings of magistrates' sentencing orientations were incorporated with case factors in a multivariate statistical model of differences in fines and disqualifications. Discriminations in penalties were related to offenders' legally relevant prior offenses and blood alcohol concentrations, and extralegal variables of offender age, gender and employment status. Men were treated more harshly than women, and young offenders more harshly than all other offenders except those over 56 years. Unemployed offenders were fined less, but disqualified for longer than offenders in the workforce. Magistrates' orientations and court interacted with offense categories to produce further differences related to blood alcohol concentration and recidivism. Sentencers responded to offender characteristics but also relied on their own mental images of stereotypic drink-drivers and their individualized sentencing orientations to exercise their discretionary powers. Results are discussed in relation to issues of warranted or justifiable discriminations and the just distribution of penalties.     

Whither the Prosecutor? Prosecutor and County Effects on Guilty Plea Outcomes in Wisconsin

Abstract

By most accounts, the prosecutor is the most powerful person in the courtroom, with discretion to dismiss cases, reduce charges, and offer noncustodial sentences in exchange for guilty pleas. Yet, little is known about the effects of individual prosecutors or community contexts on case outcomes. Relying on data from 318,000 felony and misdemeanor cases in Wisconsin, the present study examines the impact of several prosecutor and county characteristics on case dismissal, guilty plea to lesser charges, and the imposition of a noncustodial sentence following a guilty plea. The authors find that prosecutor caseload composition is associated with variations in guilty plea outcomes, but that neither prosecutor experience nor prosecutor caseload pressure affect other case outcomes. The authors also find that defense counsel and change in defense counsel exert significant influence on guilty plea outcomes. These findings are discussed in relation to focal concerns and courtroom communities perspectives.     

Defending the Homeland: Judicial Sentencing Practices for Federal Immigration Offenses

In the last decade, immigration prosecutions in federal court have increased 165%, with immigration offenses comprising over 28% of the federal criminal caseload in 2008. Despite this increase, research has yet to fully examine the sentencing outcomes for these offenders. Exploration of sentencing outcomes for immigration offenders is particularly salient due to the racial/ethnic composition of these defendants and the documented history of disparate treatment of minorities at this decision point. To explicate these issues, we examine the sentence length of immigration cases to assess the impact of legal, extra-legal, and case-processing factors. We further disaggregate by offense type to explore if correlates of sentencing are consistent across specific categories of immigration violations. Finally, we examine southwestern border districts, which process over 70% of all cases, to assess their specific sentencing practices. Model results, theoretical implications, and avenues for future research are also discussed.     

A Meta-Analysis of Race and Sentencing Research: Explaining the Inconsistencies

Numerous studies have addressed the question: Are African-Americans treated more harshly than similarly situated whites? This research employs meta-analysis to synthesize this body of research. One-hundred-sixteen statistically independent contrasts were coded from 71 published and unpublished studies. Coded study and contextual features are used to explain variation in research findings. Analyses indicate that African-Americans generally are sentenced more harshly than whites; the magnitude of this race effect is statistically significant but small and highly variable. Larger estimates of unwarranted disparity are found in contrasts that examine drug offenses, imprisonment or discretionary decisions, do not pool cases from several smaller jurisdictions, utilize imprecise measures, or omit key variables. Yet, even when consideration is confined to those contrasts employing key controls and precise measures of key variables, unwarranted racial disparities persists. Further, a substantial proportion of variability in study results is explained by study factors, particularly methodological factors.     

量刑建议制度:现实与未来——一个实证角度的研究

检察官量刑建议制度是制约法官量刑自由裁量权的重要方式,也是确保量刑公正的重要手段。通过对某基层检察院量刑建议施行情况调研资料的分析可以看出:实务界对量刑建议采纳率存在误读、程序设置背离诉讼效率、辩护权并未加强、量刑建议中的刑期计算存在不合理性和不规范性等一系列问题。应以公正和效率两大诉讼价值为主线,寻求解决我国检察官量刑建议实务困境之路径。     

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.     

JUVENILITY AND PUNISHMENT: SENTENCING JUVENILES IN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT*

The study outlined in this article addressed a key limitation of prior research on the punishment of juveniles transferred to adult court by employing propensity score matching techniques to create more comparable samples of juvenile and young adult offenders. Using recent data from the Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy, it tested competing theoretical propositions about the salience of juvenile status in adult court. Findings indicate that even after rigorous statistical matching procedures, juvenile offenders are punished more severely than their young adult counterparts. We found no evidence that this “juvenile penalty” is exacerbated by an offender's race or gender, but it does vary starkly across offense type and mode of transfer, being driven primarily by drug crimes and discretionary waivers. The import of these findings is discussed as they relate to the future of juvenile justice policy regarding the continued use of juvenile transfer to adult court.     

FEDERAL SENTENCING AS A COMPLEX COLLABORATIVE PROCESS: JUDGES,PROSECUTORS, JUDGE–PROSECUTOR DYADS,AND DISPARITY IN SENTENCING

Investigations of how criminal justice actors contribute to variation in sentencing typically focus on the role played by the judge. We argue that sentencing should be viewed as a collaborative process involving actors other than the judge and that the role of the prosecutor is particularly salient. We also contend that the courtroom workgroup literature has suggested that sentences may vary depending on the particular judge and prosecutor to whom the case is assigned. By using a unique data set from three U.S. district courts (N = 2,686) that identifies both the judge and the prosecutor handling the case, we examine how the judge, the prosecutor, and the judge–prosecutor dyad contribute to variance in offender sentences. We do this by employing cross‐classified random‐effects models to estimate the variance components associated with judges, prosecutors, and judge–prosecutor interactions. The results indicate that disparity attributable to the prosecutor is larger than disparity from the judge. Moreover, the role that the judge plays is moderated by the prosecutor to whom the case is assigned, as the judge–prosecutor effect is consistently larger than other random effects across the models. We also find that results vary by judicial district.