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.     

Bridging the gap between judges and the public? A multi-method study

This article examines the gap between Dutch judges and the public in terms of preferred severity of sentences. It focuses on one particular explanation usually given for the gap: the lack of case-specific, detailed information on the part of the general public. Findings from three studies are reported and combined: (a) a survey among a sample from the Dutch population (N = 2,127), (b) a sentencing experiment with judges in Dutch criminal courts (N = 180), and (c) a sentencing experiment, using the same case materials as with judges, but now with a sample from the Dutch population (N = 917). Results show that providing the public with detailed case information indeed reduces severity of sentences preferred. Moreover, those members of the public who were given short and unbalanced newspaper reports preferred much harsher sentences than did those who were given the full case files. However, despite such a reduction in punitiveness as a result of information, the public’s preferred sentences remain much more punitive than judges’ sentences pertaining to exactly the same case files.

Penal ideology, sentencing and the legitimacy of trial justice

The paper explores the link between penal ideology and international trial justice from the perspective of sentencing. The argument is based on the premise that the perceived legitimacy of punishment is directly related to effective governance in criminal justice. As such, loss of faith, or lack of moral empathy by individuals and communities with the ideologies, processes and outcomes of punishment compromises the ability of criminal trials to function effectively in maintaining the ‘rule of law’. The paper argues that more emphasis should be given explaining the moral foundations that underpin perceptions of ‘justice’ in sociological accounts of the ‘reality’ of sentencing, and proposes an analytical framework for conceptualising this. Adopting this approach, the paper draws on examples from national and international criminal justice to illustrate how the hegemony of penal ideology and its implementation compromises the ability of sentencing outcomes to resonate with the trial‘s ‘relevant audience’. The paper then focuses on how penal ideology influences the construction of the factual basis for sentencing in international criminal trials, and considers the consequences of this for the perceived ‘legitimacy’ of international trial justice.     

THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.     

Sentencing Disparity and Sentencing Guidelines: the Case of China

Asian Journal of Criminology - This study investigates sentencing disparity under the sentencing guidelines in China. Drawing upon the firsthand data of 509 criminal cases from a county-level court...     

CONTEXTUAL DISPARITIES IN GUIDELINES DEPARTURES: COURTROOM SOCIAL CONTEXTS,GUIDELINES COMPLIANCE,AND EXTRALEGAL DISPARITIES IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING1

This study examines the theoretical and empirical linkages between criminal court social contexts and the judicial use of sentences that deviate from the recommendations of sentencing guidelines. Individual sentencing data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) are combined with county‐level measures of social context to examine predictions about the role courtroom characteristics play in judicial departures. Results from hierarchical analyses suggest that the likelihood of departure varies significantly across courts, even after accounting for variations in individual case characteristics. Several measures of courtroom social context—including the size of the court, its caseload pressure and the overall guidelines compliance rate—are significantly related to the individual likelihood of receiving a departure sentence. Moreover, the social context of the court also conditions the influence of various individual‐level sentencing considerations. Findings are discussed in relation to contemporary theoretical perspectives on courtroom decision making and future directions for research on contextual disparities in criminal sentencing are suggested.     

Methamphetamine use in nonurban and urban drug court clients

Population-based surveys suggest that methamphetamine use and abuse may be rising in the United States. However, little is known about methamphetamine use in eastern sections of the United States, particularly nonurban areas. The purpose of the present study was (a) to explore reported methamphetamine use and its correlates among Kentucky drug court clients and(b) to determine whether differences exist between methamphetamine users by drug court location. Of the 500 drug court clients surveyed, approximately 32% n=161) reported lifetime methamphetamine use. Methamphetamine users and nonusers differed in their drug-use profiles, self-reported criminal history, and number of criminal offenses. Nonurban and urban methamphetamine users differed in their drug-use profiles, psychological functioning, self-reported criminal history, and number of criminal offenses. These results suggest that differences exist between these populations and clinicians, and criminal justice officials may need to consider these differences when planning treatment and rehabilitation strategies.     

THE MULTILEVEL CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL SENTENCING: INTEGRATING JUDGE‐ AND COUNTY‐LEVEL INFLUENCES*

This study extends recent inquiries of contextual effects in sentencing by jointly examining the influence of judge and courtroom social contexts. It combines two recent years of individual sentencing data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) with data on judicial background characteristics and county court social contexts. Three‐level hierarchical models are estimated to investigate the influence of judge and county contexts on individual variations in sentencing. Results indicate that nontrivial sentencing variations are associated with both individual judge characteristics and county court contexts. Judicial background factors also condition the influence of individual offender characteristics in important ways. These and other findings are discussed in relation to contemporary theoretical perspectives on courtroom decision making that highlight the importance of both judge and court contexts in sentencing. The study concludes with suggestions for future research on contextual disparities in criminal sentencing.     

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.     

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.     

One perspective on sentencing reform in the United States

Summary and Conclusion The most difficult part of constructing a system of criminal sentencing is to be able to give a rationale for each sentence. Historically, this has been an unsurmountable hurdle because it required reformers to resolve the irresolvable conflict between utility and desert as sentencing goals and to measure the immeasurably complex relative utility of the alterative utilitarian strategies of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The good news is that we need not try to leap these insurmountable hurdles: the greatest utility is found in a desert distribution of liability and punishment. By following desert, the criminal law can establish its moral credibility with the public and thereby harness the real sources of social control—the power of social sanctions and internalized norms. In the context of criminal sentencing, this means the system must establish a reputation for giving offenders the precise amount of punishment they deserve. Despite the utilitarian importance of desert, however, nondesert concerns can govern the selection of the sanctioning method. As long as the total punitive bite of all aspects of an offender’s sentence is what the offender deserves, judges otherwise can be left free to construct the sentence they think will best avoid future crime. With a system of punishment units and punishment equivalencies, a desert-based determination of the amount of punishment can co-exist with a selection of sanctioning methods looking to nondesert, utilitarian considerations, such as the need for deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. This essay is based upon lectures given at the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI) for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan. B.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1970; LL.M., Harvard University 1975; J.D., University of California-Los Angeles 1973; Dip. Leg. Stud., Cambridge University 1976.     

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.     

One perspective on sentencing reform in the United States

Summary and Conclusion The most difficult part of constructing a system of criminal sentencing is to be able to give a rationale for each sentence. Historically, this has been an unsurmountable hurdle because it required reformers to resolve the irresolvable conflict between utility and desert as sentencing goals and to measure the immeasurably complex relative utility of the alterative utilitarian strategies of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The good news is that we need not try to leap these insurmountable hurdles: the greatest utility is found in a desert distribution of liability and punishment. By following desert, the criminal law can establish its moral credibility with the public and thereby harness the real sources of social control—the power of social sanctions and internalized norms. In the context of criminal sentencing, this means the system must establish a reputation for giving offenders the precise amount of punishment they deserve. Despite the utilitarian importance of desert, however, nondesert concerns can govern the selection of the sanctioning method. As long as the total punitive bite of all aspects of an offender’s sentence is what the offender deserves, judges otherwise can be left free to construct the sentence they think will best avoid future crime. With a system of punishment units and punishment equivalencies, a desert-based determination of the amount of punishment can co-exist with a selection of sanctioning methods looking to nondesert, utilitarian considerations, such as the need for deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. This essay is based upon lectures given at the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI) for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan. B.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1970; LL.M., Harvard University 1975; J.D., University of California-Los Angeles 1973; Dip. Leg. Stud., Cambridge University 1976.     

The influence of court location on type of criminal sentence: The rural-urban factor

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of court location on criminal sentencing. Previous research in both the field of rural-urban sociology and public-policy decision making suggested that differences in the location of the sentencing court might result in different sentences being imposed on criminal offenders. Review of the criminal sentencing literature located several empirical studies which had previously focused on the rural-urban factor and criminal sentencing. The findings from those studies coupled with the conceptual linkages between rural-urban attitudes and values, public-policy decision making, and judicial sentencing provided a rationale for assuming that the sentences imposed on convicted offenders in rural, suburban, and urban courts might differ. Data for the study consisted of a secondary sample of 1,664 convicted Iowa felony offenders derived from archival sources including the Iowa Division of Adult Corrections and the Bureau of Correctional Evaluation within the Iowa Department of Social Services. The major finding from the study was that in urban courts legal considerations were of greater importance than extralegal ones in accounting for the sentences received by offenders, while in rural and, to a limited degree, in suburban courts, the opposite was true. The findings from the study contain theoretical and policy-related implications regarding criminal sentencing.     

Review on the inefficiency and disorganization of judicial power

The reform of civil procedure has been taken as an important topic by both scholars and judges in the recent twenty years. Cases and judges’ practices offer materials and opportunities for scholars to carry out researches, which help judges find the direction of the reform on civil procedures. However, it is not advisable to reconstruct the absolute adversary system and pure due process in China to reduce the great power of the court. Therefore, it is essential to review on the basic theory of civil procedure and overcome the inefficiency and disorganization of the judicial power by regulating judges’ power and independence as well as their responsibilities. Xiao Jianhua, professor and doctoral tutor of China University of Politics and Law. He got a master degree in Southwest University of Politics and Law in 1995 and a doctor degree in China University of Politics and Law in 1998. He had been a Fulbright Visiting Scholar studying at Law School of Northwestern (USA) in 2003–2004. His research field covers civil procedural law and evidence law. His six books on civil procedural law and evidence law are published in China, his another book on bankruptcy will be published in England. Now his research is focused on comparative law.     

Do Criminal Court Outcomes Vary by Juvenile Transfer Mechanism? A Multi-Jurisdictional,Multilevel Analysis

In recent decades, the number of juvenile defendants transferred to criminal court has increased dramatically, in large measure due to an expansion of available transfer mechanisms. While transfer traditionally occurred by judicial waiver of jurisdiction, alternatives have emerged and eclipsed judicial waiver as the primary route to adult court. The present study examines whether the mechanism of waiver—judicial, prosecutorial, or legislative—affects sentencing outcomes for juvenile defendants transferred to adult court. Results from multilevel models that control for state-level variation indicate that sentencing outcomes are inextricably tied to method of transfer. Most notably, non-criminal outcomes are most likely for cases that arrive in criminal court by legislative waiver. This suggests that legislative waiver is an ineffective means of sending juvenile offenders to criminal court, and provides some empirical support for the notion that judicial waiver is the most appropriate method of transfer.     

法院审理认罪认罚案件疑难问题研究

认罪认罚从宽制度的广泛适用,进一步促进刑事案件审判活动的繁简分流,提升刑事审判效率,但也在挑战着传统的刑事审判规则。作为行使刑事审判权力的国家机关,法院在审理认罪认罚案件过程中,存在法检关系、审理程序、庭审内容、应对上诉方式等方面的转变,同时,还面临精准量刑难以推进、程序效率价值不明、庭审实质效果不足、对上诉权制约无力等方面的难题。对此亟需通过科学的顶层设计,提升法院适用认罪认罚从宽制度的综合质效,其举措应包括但不限于:限定精准量刑的适用条件、健全分案和程序转化规则、明确庭审的审理重点和审理方式、确定并规范专门的上诉程序。     

Crime and punishment in the soviet union and the united states: 1986–19901

A relatively recent development in the comparative criminology literature concerns cross‐national comparisons of criminal sentencing practices (e.g., Lynch, 1993). While there are now several studies comparing sentencing practices and lengths, there is a particular shortage of studies that examine the disposition of serious criminal cases through several stages of the criminal justice process. Specifically, there is a shortage of information concerning this issue in Russia and the former Soviet Union. To address this limitation, we present data on the police and court disposition of violent criminal cases in the former Soviet Union during the period of 1986 to 1990. For comparative purposes, comparable data from recent studies of criminal case dispositions in the United States are presented. Implications of the findings are discussed.