Deviation from sentencing guidelines: The issue of unwarranted disparity

There has been a recent trend toward sentencing guidelines in the United States, and Florida followed this pattern by adopting sentencing guidelines in 1983. The present study examined whether several extra-legal variables excluded from the guidelines influenced the elimination of unwarranted sentencing disparity following the implementation of Florida's guidelines. Age seemed to have no influence but the factors of whether there was a plea or trial, whether there was a probation or community control violation, and sex all influenced unwarranted sentencing disparity in varying degrees. The policy implications of these findings for developing sentencing guidelines are discussed.     

The sentencing reform act of 1984: A bold approach to the unwarranted sentencing disparity problem

Conclusion In 1984, after years of study and thorough debate, a bipartisan majority of the Congress enacted perhaps the most far-reaching reform of the federal criminal justice system in the history of the United States. The Sentencing Reform Act and the federal sentencing guidelines are now beginning to produce data indicating that the objectives of avoiding unwarranted disparity and invidious discrimination are being achieved.After an uncertain beginning, the guidelines are gaining acceptance by courts and criminal justice practitioners. As one appellate court observed in admonishing lower courts that the guidelines must be respected:We have embarked on a new course. Only time will tell whether the use of the guidelines will result in an improvement over the old system. But unless we follow the spirit and written directions of the guidelines, we will never know if they have been given a fair test. They at least deserve that.Indeed, the bold new approach to sentencing that is being followed today in federal courthouses throughout the United States deserves an opportunity to succeed, given its many beneficial features and the lofty goals toward which the reforms are directed. While ample work remains for the United States Sentencing Commission to monitor and improve the guidelines, indications at this still early date are that the experiment is succeeding.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the fifth conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Parliament House, Edinburgh, Scotland, August 5–9, 1990. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Sentencing Commission.B.A., Davidson College 1964; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1967.B.A., Ohio State University 1974; M.S., Arizona State University 1980; M.A., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1983.B.S., Clemson University 1971; M.S., Clemson University 1975; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1978.     

Judicial discretion and sentencing disparity in adult felony courts in Israel

This study focuses on a series of legal, extralegal, and systemic variables presumed to affect the workings of criminal-justice systems. These variables are employed first to analyze the decision of the court to refer defendants for presentence investigation when such a referral is not mandatory, then to examine how these referrals, once made, influence disposition. The relationship of legal representation to disposition is also explored.The findings contradict conventional wisdom regarding the advantages to defendants of legal representation and of presentence reports. Lawyers do not appear to influence either referral or sentencing. The presentence reports are requested by judges seeking to individualize their sentencing decisions, but this process of individualization is as likely to result in harsher sentences as in greater leniency.     

Sentence disparity in the federal courts and the adoption of sentencing guidelines

Pressure in the 1970's to reform the sentencing process can be attributed to a change in perceived public sentiment regarding the utility of treatment and to the belief that sentencing disparity was a severe problem in the sentencing process. Primary reform occurred in the federal judicial system with the development and implementation of rigorous sentencing guidelines. An evaluation of sentencing patterns for one federal judicial district indicates that sentencing disparity was not severe. Most federal offenders are relatively mild and consistently receive relatively mild sentences.     

Incompetency to stand trial: As status,as label,and as potential source of sentencing disparity

Criminal defendants are considered to be incompetent to stand trial if they are unable to understand the proceedings against them and unable to cooperate adequately with their attorneys. The purpose of this study was to compare the sentencing patterns of a group of defendants who had raised this issue and been returned to court as competent, with those of a group of defendants who had not raised the issue. Results showed that raising the issue of incompetency seemed to be a significant factor in the consumption of court resources, and lessened a defendant's likelihood of having his or her case dismissed. It did not make a significant contribution to the explanation of the variance associated with sentence length or with the granting of probation.     

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.     

Sex effects and sentencing: An analysis of the statistical literature

The violent victimization of medical patients resulting from reckless or negligent physician care has traditionally remained beyond the reach of the criminal law. The professional nature of the doctor-patient relationship, as well as the existence of civil and peer-initiated sanctions, has insulated doctors from criminal prosecution. The purpose of our research is to examine whether this traditional immunity remains intact or has been breached. As a prelude to this analysis, we identify several factors which, when considered together, indicate physicians' increasing vulnerability to criminal prosecution. We present the results of a search conducted to identify cases involving the criminal prosecution of physician violence, and we examine the cases in terms of several characteristics that marked the prosecutions. Our results suggest that we may be witnessing the beginning of the use of the criminal sanction against physician violence.     

An experimental study of sentencing by magistrates

A pilot study was carried out with 23 magistrates to develop a sentencing severity scale. An experiment was then conducted with 168 magistrates deciding sentences for simulated cases in 56 groups of three. The results showed that sentences were more severe when offenses were more serious, when offenders had a more serious criminal record, when offenders were male, and when offenders were of higher social status. The age of the offender, the race of the offender and victim, the plea, the prevalence of the offense, and whether breack of trust was involved, did not have significant effects on sentence severity. A comparison between real and simulated sentencing decisions showed that they were similar, and a comparison between individual and group decisions showed that the group decisions were more likely to be relatively severe than relatively lenient.This research was completed while Mr. Kapardis was supported by a Social Science Research Council studentship.     

An argument for self-imposed explicit judicial sentencing standards

Despite considerable attention, unwarranted disparity in sentencing remains a major and pervasive criminal justice problem. In this paper the argument is made that the most appropriate remedy lies not in an attempt to eliminate judicial sentencing discretion, but rather through the development and articulation of explicit sentencing standards or guidelines. Building upon the experience gained in a recent study with the United States Board of Parole, a model is put forth for the development and articulation of sentencing policy on a district or circuit basis that could be applied to structure and control discretion without removing individual case consideration.     

Sentencing disparity: An analysis of judicial consistency

This paper reports the results of an analysis of judicial disparity in the sentencing of persons represented by legal-aid lawyers. Because the socioeconomic characteristics of legal-aid clients are fairly uniform, the analysis of such cases made it possible to explore the influence of case facts, system factors, and the judicial disparity of the sentences given in relatively similar situations. The analysis finds that case facts and offender characteristics, particularly prior record, are good predictors of sentence type and excellent predictors of sentence length. While there was some indication of judicial inconsistency in sentence-type decisions, that is, unexplained variation from case to case, there was little indication of strong individual judicial bias across the cases used in the analysis.     

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.     

Attitudes toward sentencing guidelines and simulated sentencing among Missouri circuit court judges

This study examines attitudes toward sentencing guidelines and simulated sentencing practices among Missouri circuit court judges. In addition, the study investigates the efficacy of sentencing workshops by comparing judges who attended or did not attend workshops. All Missouri circuit court judges were mailed surveys and 97 judges responded. Results indicated that judges generally felt positive toward Missouri’s voluntary sentencing guidelines, but often failed to refer to the guidelines when sentencing sample cases. Attendance at a sentencing workshop was not associated with attitudes about Missouri sentencing guidelines or sentencing in simulated cases. Sentencing in simulated cases varied by nature of the crime and circuit type. Judges from metropolitan areas tended to sentence more leniently than judges from rural areas. In their written comments, many judges expressed fear about the possibility of mandatory guidelines. Results suggest that there is ambivalence among Missouri judges over the acceptance and use of sentencing guidelines.     

Crime,time, and punishment: An exploration of selection bias in sentencing research

The sentencing decision reflects the culmination of a long series of processing and, thus, selection decisions, with cases leaving the system at each decision point. Accordingly, the substantive implications of bias due to sample selection are of particular concern for sentencing research. In an effort to assess the existence and manifestations of selection bias, the sentencing decision is modeled for three samples, each of which was selected from different stages of the justice process. Event-history data on felony arrests in the State of California over a 3-year period are used, along with a relatively simple analytic technique which reduces such bias. Results indicate that biasis introduced when censored observations are excluded from the analyses. Also, the effects of certain exogenous variables on sentence length differ, depending upon the selection criteria. Of these, the influence of pleading guilty rather than going to trial is especially interesting. Overall, our findings are consistent with the possibility that selectivity bias has concealed effects of sentence bargaining in some earlier studies.The data utilized in this study were collected and made available by the State of California Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Statistics. The Department of Justice bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here.     

Tourism and sentencing: Establishing informal status privileges

This article follows a recent international case where tourism has influenced a criminal trial and its outcome. In order to assess the real impact of this development it draws upon the conceptual frameworks that have informed sentencing to establish best fit with existing theories. Furthermore, it compares this informal development in sentencing with recent legislation in the UK (and more established provision in the United States) designed to outlaw hate crimes. From this it is possible to see that certain countries reliant on tourism are offering tourists what might be termed ‘status privileges’ (a concept borrowed and adapted from the hate crime literature), which serves to distort justice and lays the foundations for a two-tier system that can only lead to inferior protection for indigenous people.