THE APPRENDI‐BLAKELY CASES: SENTENCING REFORM COUNTER REVOLUTION?

Recent Supreme Court decisions have extended jury trial rights and beyond‐reasonable‐doubt proof standards to certain sentence‐enhancement facts. The first two cases, Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona, were narrow in scope and relatively uncontroversial. But Blakely v. Washington marked a substantial expansion of the rationale and scope of Apprendi, and threatened to invalidate entire sentencing reform systems, both legally‐binding guidelines of the type at issue in Blakely and it's sequel, Booker v. United States, and statutory determinate sentence systems like the one invalidated in Cunningham v. California. Each of these decisions has potential effects not only on sentencing severity and disparity in the cases controlled by that decision, but also on prosecutorial, legislative, and sentencing commission measures designed to comply with the decision, avoid it, and/or mitigate its impact. Field resistance and avoidance measures are likely to be stronger in jurisdictions where the existing sentencing system enjoyed broad support; in such jurisdictions, resistance may be particularly strong to the more controversial Blakely ruling. Impact assessments must therefore carefully distinguish the separate impacts of Apprendi and Blakely in each jurisdiction being studied, and the extent of support for the existing sentencing system. Such assessments should also examine pre‐existing trends and other independent sources of change; leadership by sentencing commissions or other officials in crafting responsive measures; structural and other features of the sentencing system which render compliance more or less difficult; and second‐stage effects, on sentencing, prosecutorial, or sentencing policy decisions, that reflect the prior compliance, avoidance, and mitigation measures adopted in that jurisdiction. The greatest long‐term effects may be on prosecutorial, legislative, and commission decisions, rather than on sentencing outcomes.     

Policies and Imprisonment: The Impact of Structured Sentencing and Determinate Sentencing on State Incarceration Rates, 1978–2004

Research has begun to systematically assess the relationship between sentencing policies and state incarceration rates. Prior studies, however, have examined policy‐based relationships in isolation, failing to consider the impact of combinations of policies. Using a pooled time series design, this article examines interactions between structured sentencing, determinate sentencing, and state incarceration rates between 1978 and 2004. Results show that constraining release discretion through determinate sentencing matters more than constraining sentencing discretion through structured sentencing. Consistent with prior research, determinate sentencing was associated with lower incarceration rates independent of other policies. Contrary to prior research, however, the presence of presumptive sentencing guidelines was associated with lower incarceration rates only when combined with determinate sentencing. These findings suggest that while a state may effectively insulate sentencing decisions from outside social forces, if it fails to insulate release decisions from those same forces, they will continue to affect imprisonment levels.     

Prosecutorial Discretion: An Examination of Substantial Assistance Departures in Federal Crack‐Cocaine and Powder‐Cocaine Cases

Recently there has been a call for research that explores decision‐making at stages prior to sentencing in the criminal justice process. Particularly research is needed under a determinate sentencing system where judicial dispositions are usually restricted by guidelines, which increases the importance of earlier decision‐making stages. As an answer to this call, and in an attempt to build on currents studies on the effects of departures as an intervening mechanism, and a source of unwarranted disparity, this study explores federal sentencing data on offenders convicted of crack‐cocaine and powder‐cocaine offenses. Although decision‐making of all criminal justice actors generally, and prosecutors specifically, has been the subject of much research, studies have yet to resolve the nature and outcome of their “autonomous” discretion. This autonomy becomes especially salient regarding prosecutorial decisions for substantial assistance departures. In deciding who receives a substantial assistance departure, the prosecutor has carte blanche power.     

An examination of a desert-based presumptive sentence schedule

To reduce the problem of sentencing disparity (unlike sentences for like offenses), the Committee for the Study of Incarceration proposed a determinate sentence scheme based on a desert theory of punishment. While the proposal at first glance may appear to solve many sentencing problems, this paper attempts to show its defects and some of the problems involved in (1) determinate sentence schedules generally, (2) desert as a principle of punishment, and (3) basing a determinate sentence schedule on a desert theory.     

SENTENCING REFORM AND THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM: A Case Study of the Implementation of Minnesota's Determinate Sentencing Law

In recent years, various determinate sentencing models have been proposed to promote equity in sentencing and prisoner release certainty. This article examines the implementation of Minnesota's determinate sentencing law as it relates to prisoners and the state correctional system, It reviews the extent of the reform's success in achieving predictability in prisoner release dates and equity in sentencing. Organizational, political, and transitional problems in the implementation of the determinacy concept are discussed. In particular, resistance to change among parole board and correctional treatment staff members and a prisoner movement for retroactivity are highlighted. Conditions that could lead to replications of Minnesota's experience in other states are reviewed.     

Displaced discretion under Ohio sentencing guidelines

The argument that curbing judicial sentencing discretion generates more prosecutorial discretion at earlier decision points in case processing received little empirical attention beyond Miethe's (1987) before/after study of the Minnesota guidelines. This article presents an examination of whether Ohio's sentencing reform resulted in significant changes in prosecutorial decisions related to indictment severity, dropped charges, charge reductions, and overall plea bargains. The implementation of determinate sentencing guidelines corresponded with a significant yet modest increase in the likelihood of charge reductions only. Some changes also occurred in the specific effects of various defendant characteristics on some of the outcomes examined, but these changes did not uniformly result in harsher dispositions for defendants facing greater social and economic disadvantage. Similar to Miethe's observation regarding Minnesota's sentencing scheme, any increase in levels of prosecutorial discretion that might have occurred under Ohio's latest scheme had not resulted in substantive extra-legal disparities in case dispositions.     

SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITIES UNDER DETERMINATE SENTENCING SYSTEMS: A COMPARISON OF PREGUIDELINE AND POSTGUIDELINE PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA*

After a brief review of determinate sentencing systems, this study examines the impact of Minnesota's determinate sentencing law on various presentence and sentencing outcomes. Using comparable pre- and postguideline measures, the results of this study suggest that Minnesota's reform effort was largely successful in reducing disparity within the scope of the new guidelines. However, although the direct impact of socioeconomic attributes of the offender diminished, these characteristics continued to influence sentencing decisions indirectly through various presentence decisions and case attributes not governed by the guidelines Different models of charge bargaining and sentence negotiations are also observed when pre- and postguideline models are compared. Yet, the determinants of these time-specific models are not consistent with the assumptions of a circumvention argument. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research evaluating the impact of determinate sentencing systems on achieving social neutrality in the application of criminal sanctions.     

THE INTERACTION OF RACE, GENDER, AND AGE IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING: THE PUNISHMENT COST OF BEING YOUNG, BLACK, AND MALE

Prior theory and research on sentencing oversimplify the role of race, gender and age in judicial decision making. In this article we present a "focal concerns" theory of judicial decision making to frame hypotheses regarding the effects on sentencing of these social statuses, both singly and in combination. Analyzing statewide sentencing outcomes in Pennsylvania for 1989–1992, we find that, net of controls: (1) young black males are sentenced more harshly than any other group, (2) race is most influential in the sentencing of younger rather than older males, (3) the influence of offender's age on sentencing is greater among males than females, and (4) the main effects of race, gender, and age are more modest compared to the very large differences in sentencing outcomes across certain age-race-gender combinations. These findings demonstrate the importance of considering the joint effects of race, gender, and age on sentencing, and of using interactive rather than additive models.     

Race, Ethnicity, and Determinate Sentencing

A study of 4729 sentences handed out during the first year of determinate sentencing in California shows subtle differences in the sentencing of Whites, Blacks, and Chicanos. As expected, main effects of race/ethnicity are not found. However, the type of offense, mode of disposition, and the defendant's prior record do affect sentencing differently, even with determinate sentencing, depending on the defendant's race/ethnicity. The detrimental effect of a prior record for Chicanos is especially interesting as it can be invoked legally as a sentence enhancement. The findings reported here demonstrate that Chicanos constitute a separate group, distinct from both Blacks and Whites, and must be treated accordingly in criminological research. So doing clarifies many of the inconsistencies in prior sentencing research.     

The President's Commission and Sentencing,Then and Now

The proposals made in 1967 by the U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice on sentencing were sensible, humane, well informed, and ambitious. They were premised on an assumption that indeterminate sentencing, then ubiquitous, would long continue, and sought to remedy its weaknesses and build on its strengths. That assumption proved wrong. Within a decade, indeterminate sentencing and its rehabilitative aspirations lost credibility and legitimacy. Within two decades, American policies incorporated features such as determinate sentences, lengthy prison terms, and mandatory minimum sentence laws that the Commission explicitly repudiated. The Commission's influence is evident in successful sentencing reform initiatives of the 1970s and early 1980s, some of which survive in a few places in compromised forms. Many of the Commission's proposals to make sentencing fairer, more consistent, and less vulnerable to influence by political considerations and public emotion are as germane today as they were in 1967.     

Bringing Principles and Fairness to the Sentencing of Murder

The authors take a closer look at the current sentencing laws for murder and argue the need to change them. Expanding on the proposals described in the recently published book, Exploring the Mandatory Life Sentence for Murder, the authors provide a more detailed explanation for the new framework. The proposals suggest a new method of sentencing, and discuss how primary and secondary mitigating and aggravating favors can play a role in forming the suggested scheme. This article suggests that this method would constitute a more principled approach compared to mandatory life sentencing, by achieving higher levels of proportionality, greater consistency and restraint in the use of custody. While these proposals focus on the sentencing regime in England and Wales, the authors argue their relevance for other countries that also impose a mandatory life sentence framework.     

“Fixed” Sentencing: The Effect on Imprisonment Rates Over Time

Objective

Sentencing guidelines, statutory presumptive sentencing, determinate sentencing, truth in sentencing, and three strikes are important components of the criminal justice system. The main purpose behind a relatively-fixed sentence is to remove judicial discretion by insuring that convicted felons receive a reasonably-assumed sentence depending on the crime committed. The current study assessed shifts in year-to-year changes in incarceration rates within all 50 states from the years 1965–2008 due to the adoption of sentencing reforms.

Methods

The study tests two competing theories, a normative theory and critical theory of the expected effects of reforms on imprisonment. Data was analyzed using panel regression with unit-specific fixed effects, conditional change scores, panel corrected standard errors, and a new measure of reforms.

Results

This study, possibly due to differences in model specification, ran counter to a number of previous studies and suggests some “front-end” sentencing reforms and “back-end” release changes are, on average, related to changes in imprisonment.

Conclusions

The study concluded, that when significant, reforms increased more than decreased prison growth in comparison to indeterminate sentencing. Additionally, the analysis concludes that changes in release mechanisms and parole decision structures are driving increased growth more than changes in sentencing structures.     

论量刑证据独立性的基础

受同态复仇的量刑模式影响，法定化量刑在相当长历史时期内存在。其导致刑事审判基本多集中于如何定罪，形成了服务于定罪，以定罪证明为中心的传统刑事证据法。量刑的精细化和传播的大众化，使得量刑公正和量刑均衡的重要性逐渐凸显．从而为量刑证据从幕后走向台前提供历史机遇。量刑的目标追求和指导原则是量刑事实特殊性的基础．量刑事实构成的...     

The Impact of Race on the Pretrial Decision

This study examined the effect of race on the pretrial release decision for drug offenders. Although this decision point has not been examined as extensively as the final sentencing decision, it is a critical discretion point which impacts defendants’ future sentencing outcomes. The results found that race had a significant impact on judges’ decisions to release a defendant on recognizance, with black defendants less likely to receive this release status. Race was not significant, however, in the decision of bail amount or in the likelihood to post bail. These results are consistent with the focal concerns perspective which suggests that black defendants are viewed by courts as more dangerous and blameworthy and thereby, less likely to be released on their own recognizance.     

The use of the determinate sentence—an historical perspective: A research note

During the past decade, the move toward determinate sentencing has been rapid, spurred by the fear of crime and a spiralling crime rate. In the 1920s the state of Ohio faced similar circumstances and altered its sentencing structure. This note examines this event and reveals that some unintended negative consequences can result from a shift in sentencing.     

A Proposed Determinate Sentencing Model In Virginia: An Empirical Evaluation

After a brief presentation of issues that preceded the current disillusionment with the indeterminate sentencing practices in juvenile justice, the authors describe a determinate sentencing model being proposed in Virginia. Then, data are discussed comparing length of sentence under the proposed model to incarceration periods under the present indeterminate structure according to offense history, age, gender, and race. Finally, some immediate implications of the proposed model of sentencing are discussed.     

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.     

FROM RETRIBUTION TO "DESERT"The Evolution of Criminal Punishment

Does current disenchantment with rehabilitation and the movement toward determinate sentencing signal a return to “retribution”? To the contrary, a close analysis of the program and philosophy of determinate sentencing reveals a fundamental break with the retributive tradition of punishment according to generic categories of conduct. In an evolutionary development that can be traced through the classical and positivist reform movements. punishment has gradually shifted from a focus upon vengeonce and expiation toward individualized consideration of factors relevant to fairness. The thrust of the new movement toward regularizing the assessment of factors in aggravation or mitigation, with particular emphasis on harm and culpability, must be viewed in an evolutionary perspective.     

Does a therapeutic court context matter?: The likelihood of imprisonment for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders sentenced in problem-solving courts

A key aspect of the focal concerns perspective of sentencing is that time and information restrictions within the courtroom create the conditions under which perceptual shorthands may impact sentencing determinations. These shorthands are based stereotypes related to offender characteristics including minority group statuses (i.e. ethnicity, race, Indigenous status) (Steffensmeier et al., 1998). To date, sentencing scholars drawing on the focal concerns perspective have only considered the impact of minority group statuses on sentencing in the mainstream courts (Mitchell, 2005; Spohn, 2000). Utilizing multiple regression techniques the current paper explores the impact of Indigenous status on the decision to imprison in the problem solving courts of South Australia. Unlike the mainstream courts, sentencing determinations within the therapeutic problem-solving court environment involve a more extensive examination of offenders and their cases and by extension, perceptual shorthands should be less influential. Evidence supporting this argument is provided by the current research. Results show a direct relationship between Indigenous status and the likelihood of imprisonment, with leniency being extended to Indigenous offenders.     

Sentencing policy and disparity: Guidelines and the influence of legal and democratic subcultures

This study analyzed the effects of sentencing policy on sentencing outcomes and the determinants of sentencing decisions. The authors used hierarchical modeling to examine the impact of sentencing reform on legal and individual- and county-level extralegal factors in addition to the sentencing outcomes themselves. The research was framed within the legal and democratic subculture perspective developed by Richardson and Vines (1970) for understanding lower court decision making. The results indicated that sentencing policy acts as a filter, through which cues from each subculture are synthesized, and helps to shape the effects of both legal and extralegal variables on sentencing outcomes.