Examining the prevalence and correlates of a ‘senior citizen discount’ in US federal courts

Few studies focus on age as a factor influencing judicial decision-making, in spite of the widespread use of age as a control variable. Although the limited research to have done so is inconsistent, most scholars agree that age may be race- and/or gender-graded in a manner that produces more severe sentences for certain race–gender–age combinations, especially for young males who are Black or Latino. Less consensus exists with regard to whether older defendants are granted more leniency in the sentencing process and, if so, if the effects of older age are also race- and/or gender-graded. The present study examines this question by examining data from the United States Sentencing Commission. The data presented reveal three noteworthy findings. First, a ‘senior citizen discount’ exists insofar as judges afford more leniency in sentencing to older offenders than their younger counterparts. Second, compared to older males, older females were treated with greater leniency by judges. Finally, whereas Latinos 60 and over were treated with greater severity at the stage of incarceration compared to similarly situated Whites, Blacks received shorter sentence lengths on average. These results are analyzed within the framework of the focal concerns perspective.     

Difference, Disparity, and Race/Ethnic Bias in Federal Sentencing

Federal sentencing guidelines were enacted to reduce unwarranted disparities in sentencing. In this paper we examine the degree to which disparity in sentencing on the basis of race and ethnicity occurred in federal sentencing after the guidelines were implemented. We consider how much of the disparity is explained by offense-related factors as specified in the guidelines. We find that African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans receive relatively harsher sentences than whites and that these differentials are only partly explained by offense-related characteristics. We interpret our findings in light of attribution, uncertainty avoidance, and conflict theories.     

JUDGES' UNEQUAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO EXTRALEGAL DISPARITIES IN IMPRISONMENT*

How do judges in the same court system contribute differentially to extralegal disparities in sentencing? Analyses of felony sentencing in an urban Ohio trial court uncovered two distinct but equal-sized groups of judges that differed in the magnitude of extralegal correlates to imprisonment. Within the group of judges reflecting substantive extralegal correlates to prison sentences, demographic correlates (based on defendants' race, sex, age, and the interaction between them) were more pervasive across judges relative to social demographic correlates (based on education, residence length, and means of financial support). The directions of significant relationships involving a defendant's race, age, and means of support also were inconsistent across judges. These interjudge differences suggest that analyses of cases pooled across judges at either the jurisdiction or the state level might over- or understate the relevance of particular attribution theories of sentencing disparities.     

美国量刑理论中的关注焦点理论

关注焦点理论是美国刑事司法领域解释量刑差异的主流理论。该理论认为,法官和其他刑事司法系统的决策者在作出量刑决定时有三个关注焦点:罪犯的可谴责性、人身危险性,以及实践中的可操作性。由于法官在量刑时缺乏完整的信息,因此使用"感官速记"把对这三个焦点的关注转化为对性别、年龄、种族等表面信息的关注,导致"类案不同判"。对关注焦点的研究,在理论上有助于理解司法过程中量刑差异的产生原因,在实践中有助于解决量刑不规范的问题。通过介绍美国的关注焦点理论,以及这个理论框架下的实证研究和对关注焦点理论的评论,反思对我国量刑理论和实践的借鉴意义。     

Distinguishing Race Effects on Pre-Trial Release and Sentencing Decisions

Racial disparities in court dispositions and sentences might reflect systemic biases toward minorities, but they might also stem from race group differences in legal or other extra-legal factors linked to a defendant’s risk for future criminality. Analyses of over 5,000 felony defendants from an urban Ohio jurisdiction revealed that significant main effects of a defendant’s race on release on one’s own recognizance (ROR), bond amounts, and prison sentences were rendered nonsignificant when controlling for legal factors, such as offense severity. Analyses of interaction effects, on the other hand, revealed that African American males age 18–29 experienced lower odds of ROR, higher bond amounts, and higher odds of incarceration in prison relative to other demographic subgroups, even with the inclusion of rigorous controls for legally relevant criteria. The relevance of these findings for understanding disparate treatment at different stages of case processing is 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.     

Short‐ versus long‐term effects of Ohio's switch to more structured sentencing on extralegal disparities in prison sentences in an urban court*

Research Summary The impact of Ohio's presumptive guidelines on sentencing disparities was examined for one of the state's largest jurisdictions to determine whether the switch to more structured sentencing in 1996 had any enduring effects. Sentencing patterns were examined both before and shortly after the 1996 reform, as well as 9 years later. Findings revealed weaker race and marital status effects on imprisonment under guidelines versus stronger age effects, no changes in disparities based on a defendant's sex and means of support, and (virtually) no changes in the magnitude of legally relevant effects. Policy Implications Ohio's guidelines are more flexible relative to other guideline schemes, possibly accounting for the general stability in effects across regimes. Ohio has since transitioned to voluntary guidelines, which raised concerns that the change will yield higher levels of sentencing disparities. Findings suggest that the transition may coincide with no changes in legal effects, yet with greater disparities based on a defendant's race and marital status.     

The Israeli criminal justice system in action—Is justice administered differentially?

This study focuses on two major junctures in the Israeli criminal justice system, the preadjudication stage and the trial stage. The data are gathered from records accumulated during the period 1980 through 1992. For each year between 1980 and 1992, a random sample of 3637 persons, who had their first police contact that year, was drawn from the computerized central file at Israeli Police Headquarters. A total of 40,007 individuals, with a total of 97,000 records, constituted the study population. The results identify which criminal records were most likely to be terminated prior to adjudication and which records, once adjudicated, were most likely to conclude in conviction. Major emphasis was placed on the issue of nationality—being an Arab or a Jew—while the effect of other variables, such as the type of offense and the time period, were controlled. The criminal justice system was found to be less discriminating at the early stages of the criminal process, but as the offender moved along the process, the chances that nationality would play an important part increased. Authors are listed alphabetically and contributed equally to the writing of this paper.     

Actuarial Sentencing: An “Unsettled” Proposition

This paper discusses the concerns associated with the introduction of, and increased reliance on, actuarial risk tools in sentencing in order to: (1) stimulate cross-disciplinary dialog and research about the impact of incorporating actuarial risk logic into sentencing processes and (2) identify questions requiring further empirical examination. In this article, I recognize that actuarial risk logic offers managerial and organizational benefits, but I also demonstrate that the application of actuarial risk when sentencing offenders is not without important consequences. First, I provide a brief outline of the emergence, logic, and entrenchment of probabilistic reasoning within criminal justice decision-making, and the more recent extension and application of actuarial risk logic to sentencing. Then, I use the following themes to define the limits of using risk sciences in sentencing: (1) the logical structure of risk; (2) the slippage between risk prediction and individual causation; (3) current methodological limits of risk science; (4) the potential for gender and race discrimination; (5) the legal relevance and transparency of risk-based sentencing; and (6) the jurisprudential and organizational impact of various risk technologies. Importantly, the nature and severity of these complications will vary by, and within, the jurisdiction (or sentencing regime) because current sentencing practices are influenced by local jurisdictional needs and sentencing laws.     

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.