Low-Level,but High Speed?: Assessing Pretrial Detention Effects on the Timing and Content of Misdemeanor versus Felony Guilty Pleas

Abstract

While numerous studies have examined pretrial detention and felony case outcomes, little empirical attention has been devoted to misdemeanor pretrial detention. We theorize that misdemeanants detained for a longer proportion of time will plead guilty quicker because the costs of fighting their charges in jail often outweigh the sanctions they face. Utilizing data on 165,630 felony and misdemeanor cases from Miami-Dade County, Florida, during a 4-year period (2012–2015) we assess whether the effects of pretrial detention length on the timing and content of guilty pleas differ across lower-level and upper-level courts. Survival analyses and multinomial logistic regressions indicate that misdemeanor cases overall and those involving lengthier pretrial detention are resolved faster, with most resulting in non-carceral sanctions such as credit for time served (CTS). Given that misdemeanors make-up the bulk of U.S. criminal cases, these findings reveal important insights about how pretrial detention impacts case-processing dynamics in lower courts.     

Contextualizing sentencing disparities: using conjunctive analysis of case configurations to identify patterns of variability

Using national data from felony cases processed in state courts (n = 48,006), the current study investigates the nature and magnitude of contextual variability associated with sentencing outcomes. Multivariate models are first estimated to identify the main effects of various offender and offense variables on sentencing decisions. Conjunctive analysis is then used to evaluate the contextual variability of each of these main effects across all observed combinations of offender and offense attributes. Separate analyses are also conducted among states with and without mandatory sentencing guidelines to explore whether these guidelines reduce this variability across different contexts. Findings from this study and its comparative methods are discussed in terms of implications for future research on criminal sentencing and assessing the contextual variability of the main effects of particular legal and extralegal factors.     

Split sentencing in georgia: A test of two empirical assumptions

Recent research on felony sentencing in the nation's trial courts has highlighted a type of sentence in which a prison term is coupled with a probation period. Under these so-called “split sentences,” convicted felons serve a term of incarceration, are released (possibly) on parole, and eventually come under the concurrent jurisdiction of both parole and probation authorities. Although such a sentence may serve a variety of purposes, it is at least conceivable that judges use the prison/probation combination as a way to respond to prison overcrowding and public pressure for punitiveness.

This article reports a study of split sentencing in Georgia from 1976 to May 1985. Drawing on more general research on felony sentencing in the state's Superior Courts, the authors test two empirical assumptions about split sentencing: (1) the perception that split sentencing has increased over time and (2) the importance of the total term (i.e., the prison/probation combination) over the actual severity (i.e., the time specified for incarceration). These assumptions surfaced in extended interviews with court and community authorities in selected judicial circuits across the state.

The empirical tests of these two assumptions consist of an examination of aggregate sentencing patterns and multivariate analyses of two conceptions of the split sentence. The data provide limited support for the two empirical assumptions. There was no evidence that felony courts in Georgia had increased their reliance on split-sentence terms. Aggregate evidence, however, suggested that judges might use split sentencing as a way to balance the competing pressures of prison overcrowding and the demand for punitiveness. Multivariate analyses offer mixed support for propositions on the importance of the total term. The study concludes with a consideration of the implications for public policy and for research on racial discrimination, sentencing, and trial court processes in general.     

The effectiveness of felony probation: Results from an eastern state

Data from New Jersey were used to examine the effectiveness of felony probation. Examination of more than 2,000 burglars, robbers, and controlled substance offenders placed on probation in 1976–1977 showed that their recidivism at three, four, and approximately 10 years after sentencing ranged from approximately one-third to more than half arrested and about 10 percent imprisoned. Prior convictions, type of offense, age, race, the Greenwood prediction device, use of heroin, and employment were statistically significant correlates of recidivism. The major conclusion is that probation is an acceptable sentencing alternative for some felony offenders in some states but that recidivism rates can be alarmingly high for particular categories of offenders. In addition, probation officials should devote some attention to the needs of probationers in such problem areas as employment and drug abuse.     

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.     

我国刑法中轻罪与重罪若干问题研究

我国刑法中轻罪与重罪的划分,仅指轻罪行与重罪行的划分。在学术界关于区分轻罪和重罪的四种观点中,以一定法定刑为标准认定罪行的轻重具有充分的依据。认定轻罪和重罪法定刑的分界线当以有期徒刑3年为限,即凡法定最低刑为3年或3年以上有期徒刑的罪行都是重罪,反之便是轻罪。我国刑法存在若干轻罪与重罪界限不明的条文,需调整其罪刑关系。犯罪的未完成形态只存在于重罪之中。     

SEX‐BASED DISPARITIES IN FELONY DISPOSITIONS BEFORE VERSUS AFTER SENTENCING REFORM IN OHIO*

Extending Koons‐Witt's (2002) study of whether sex‐based disparities in imprisonment likelihoods changed under sentencing guidelines in Minnesota, we examined similar models for Ohio with additional analyses of felony conviction likelihoods and sentence length for 5,472 felony defendants from twenty‐four trial courts. The main effects of a defendant's sex on imprisonment were significant during both periods (unlike the Minnesota findings), consistent with a chivalry perspective. Random coefficient models revealed that these effects were similar across the twenty‐four jurisdictions. Analyses also revealed significant postguideline reductions in sentence length disparities based on a woman's race and number of dependent children, yet increased disparities in imprisonment likelihoods postguidelines based on a woman's race and whether she was convicted on drug charges. These and other findings are discussed in the context of the Ohio legislature's implementation of a sentencing scheme that retains considerably more judicial discretion relative to Minnesota's template.     

Individualization,criminalization, or problem resolution: A factorial survey of juvenile court judges' decisions to incarcerate youthful felony offenders

Existing research on the criteria used by juvenile court judges in choosing dispositions is limited in two respects. First, the predictor variables included in most investigations have been limited either in number or in the quality of their measurement. Second, research has not focused on sentencing decisions for serious offenders. Using a factorial survey of juvenile court judges, the present study seeks to determine what factors shape disposition decisions for juvenile felony offenders. The results suggest that judges focus primarily on offense characteristics, and are influenced only marginally by the offender's social characteristics. These findings are more consistent with the view that juvenile courts are becoming “criminalized” than with the view that individualized treatment is the goal. An alternative interpretation—that judges may be problem solvers, trying to dispose of cases efficiently—also is proposed.     

Intimate Partner Violence: The Role of Suspect Gender in Prosecutorial Decision‐Making

Utilizing a sample of 8,461 cases involving heterosexual intimate partner violence, this paper examines the role of suspect gender in prosecutorial decision‐making. Four decision points are assessed: the decision to file charges (versus rejection for insufficient evidence); to file as a felony (versus a misdemeanor or probation violation); to dismiss for insufficient evidence (versus full prosecution); and to reduce felony charges to a misdemeanor or violation of probation. Suspect gender was found to be statistically significant in relation to all four outcomes in favoring female over male suspects. Numerous interaction effects were observed between gender and measures of prior arrest and offense severity in particular, suggesting that prosecutors distinguish between male and female suspects across these variables. We suggest that these data provide some support for recent qualitative research suggesting that court personnel are responsive to the gendered asymmetry of intimate partner violence, and may view female intimate violence perpetrators more as victims than offenders.     

MODELING THE EFFECTS OF LEGALLY RELEVANT AND EXTRALEGAL FACTORS UNDER SENTENCING GUIDELINES: THE RULES HAVE CHANGED*

Studies of sentencing in jurisdictions with sentencing guidelines have generally failed to specify adequately the effects of offense seriousness and criminal history—the principal factors that, by law, should determine sentencing decisions. As a result, the explanatory power of those models is seriously limited, and regression coefficients representing both legal and extralegal factors may be biased. We present an alternative approach to specify more precisely the effects of legally relevant factors on sentencing outcomes and test the approach using felony sentencing data from Washington State. We find that controlling for the presumptive sentence substantially improves the fit and explanatory power of models predicting sentencing decisions, and that the estimated effects of extralegal factors, specifically sex and race, reduce considerably. The findings have both substantive and methodological implications.     

Reassessing the Influence of Criminal History in Federal Criminal Courts

Abstract

Prior sentencing research indicates that defendants with more extensive criminal histories receive more punitive dispositions and that criminal history influences sentencing decisions over and above its influence on the guideline recommended sentence. To date, these additional effects of criminal history have almost exclusively been treated as linear effects. However, there are plausible reasons to expect that criminal history could have curvilinear effects on sentencing outcomes that taper off at higher scores. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential curvilinear effects of defendant criminal history on incarceration, sentence length, and downward departure decisions in federal criminal courts. The findings suggest that criminal history has curvilinear effects on each of these sentencing outcomes. As criminal history category increases, defendants receive more severe sentences, net of other factors, but only up to a certain threshold level, at which point criminal history effects taper off and even reverse.     

Convicting and sentencing differences among black,Hispanic, and white males in six localities

The many studies examining differences in convicting and sentencing black, Hispanic, and white defendants have not led to solid generalizations about the treatment of these defendants because the studies have been done at different times and with different methodologies. This study examines differences in convicting and sentencing male defendants in six localities, at the same time and with the same methodology. It concludes that discrimination is directed against blacks and is manifested in incarceration rates. The exact source of this discrimination is not identical in all cities. In some, it seems to occur because whites get better plea bargains than blacks; in others, it is due to the different rates of guilty pleas by black and whites. Overall, there is less evidence of discrimination in cases where a trial is held than in those where a guilty plea is entered.     

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.     

RACE,RACIAL THREAT,AND SENTENCING OF HABITUAL OFFENDERS*

As legislatures proliferate novel “enhancements” to criminal sentencing, such as “three-strikes” and related provisions, and as criminologists debate their effects, the role of existing enhancements, such as habitual offender statutes, has received little empirical attention. This article explores the effect of race in the decision to prosecute and sentence eligible defendants as “habitual” offenders. During FY 1992–93, 9,690 males admitted to prison in Florida were statutorily eligible (two prior felony convictions or one prior violent felony conviction) for sentencing as “habitual” offenders. Approximately 20% received that disposition. They will serve at least 75% of their enhanced sentence as compared with the state average of about 40%. Logistic regression, controlling for prior record, crime seriousness, and other relevant factors, shows a significant and substantial race effect. The disadvantage of black defendants is particularly strong for drug offenses and for property crimes that have relatively high victimization rates for whites (larceny, burglary). Race is less consequential for violent and weapons-related crimes. Race effects are more often significant in sentencing contexts that are low in terms of percent black, racial income inequality, drug arrest rates, and violent crime rates. The relevance of these findings for a “racial threat” interpretation of sentencing outcomes is discussed.     

Gender Differences in Felony Court Processing:

Interactive analyses examined three related hypotheses of disparity. The typicality hypothesis proposes that women are treated with chivalry in criminal processing, but only when their charges are consistent with stereotypes of female offenders. Selective chivalry predicts that decision makers extend chivalry disproportionately to white females. Differential discretion suggests that disparity is most likely in informal decisions such as charge reduction rather than in formal decisions at final sentencing. Data for the analysis derived from 9,966 felony theft cases and 18,176 felony assault cases disposed in California in 1988. Gender disparity was evident in findings that females with no prior record were more likely than similar males to receive charge reductions, and this enhanced females' chances for probation. The only indication of selective chivalry was a greater tendency to change charges of assault to nonassault among white female defendants than among minority females. Pivotal decisions concerning charge reduction provided partial support for the notion of differential discretion. The findings provided no clear support for the typicality thesis.     

Sentencing Female Misdemeanants: An Examination of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Race/Ethnicity

Little is known about the predictors of sentencing for the typical female offender—one who commits a misdemeanor or lesser offense. Moreover, although ample discussions of racial/ethnic disparity in sentencing may be found in the extant literature, most researchers have focused on what happens to males who commit felonies. Thus, to help fill a void I examine the likelihood of receiving a jail sentence among a sample of cases for female misdemeanants. All were convicted in New York City's Criminal Court. I account for direct and indirect effects by estimating a causal model that predicts the sentencing outcome. Race/ethnicity did not directly affect sentencing. Indirect effects, however, were found. Black and Hispanic females were more likely to receive jail sentences than their White counterparts due to differences in socio‐economic status, community ties, prior record, earlier case processing, and charge severity.     

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.

     

Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions

Although the social context of a court is often claimed to be important to understanding the effect of the offender's race on punishment decisions, the links between context and racial disparities in punishment decisions are not well understood. I propose and test four hypotheses involving elements that may link social context to racial disparities in punishment decisions: urbanization, racial threat, economic threat, and crime control. I test these four hypotheses with sentencing data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing for the period 1991 to 1994. The main findings are as follows: (1) punishment severity varies by court jurisdiction, even after controlling for offender and case characteristics; (2) racial disparities vary by court jurisdiction, with controls for other offender and case characteristics; (3) measures of social context explain little of the contextual variation in punishment decisions for all offenders; and (4) measures of social context do not explain racial disparities in punishment decisions. Thus, I find convincing evidence of contextual variation in punishment decisions, but typical indicators of social context do not explain these variations.     

Court Sentencing Patterns for Environmental Crimes: Is There a “Green” Gap in Punishment?

Objectives

This study examines sentencing patterns for environmental crimes and tests the assumption that “green” offenders receive more lenient treatment from criminal courts than non-environmental offenders.

Methods

We present two sets of analyses. First, we present an empirical portrait of environmental felony offenses convicted in a single state (Florida) over a fifteen-year period and the resulting criminal sanctions. Second, we use a precision matching analysis to assess whether environmental offenders receive more lenient treatment when compared to non-environmental offenders with the same characteristics and offense severity scores.

Results

Findings indicate that an overall small percentage of felony convictions in state courts stem from environmental crimes. We also find that punishments for environmental crimes are more lenient than sanctions assigned to comparable non-environmental offenses when the environmental crime is ecological, but that punishments are sometimes harsher when the environmental crime involves animals.

Conclusions

The findings provide general support for the argument that courts and other formal institutions of social control treat environmental crimes more leniently than non-environmental crimes. This paper also raises important questions about citizen and state actors’ perceptions of crimes against the environment and, more generally, about the ways in which theories of court sentencing behaviors apply to environmental crime sanctioning decisions.

     

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.