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.     

The role of criminal record in the federal sentencing guidelines

In this paper my concern is with the collective moral responsibility of criminal investigators for the outcomes of their investigations, bearing in mind that it is important to distinguish collective moral responsibility from, and relate it to, individual moral responsibility. In what sense, if any, are police detectives individually and collectively morally responsible for their success (or, for that matter, their failure) in gathering sufficient evidence to identify, arrest, and charge an offender who has committed a serious crime? Alternatively, in what sense are they morally responsible in cases where they identify, arrest, and charge an innocent person? And in what sense, if any, are police detectives individually and collectively morally responsible for the ultimate outcome of the trial, the finding by the courts of someone they have investigated and charged with a serious crime to be guilty or innocent?     

Race and sentencing: A meta-analysis of conflicting empirical research results

This paper employs meta-analytic methodology to evaluate the research results of a number of separate race and sentencing studies in the context of three competing theoretical frameworks (the differential involvement, direct-impact, and interactionist perspectives), and the empirical evidence supporting each. The data indicate that although the effect size of race on sentencing is not statistically significant at this level of aggregation, its relationship to sentencing is significantly conditioned by the measurement techniques employed by researchers. Specifically, this study shows that certain methods of classifying racial groups may mask the true effect of race on sentencing decisions. The implications of this finding for future research are discussed.     

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.     

Regulatory decision making: structure and agency in the development of the organizational sentencing guidelines

The United States Sentencing Commission promulgated federal organizational sentencing guidelines in 1991. The final product eroded the guidelines’ original severity, as drafts were rejected over a period of 4 years. The initial goal of the Commission was to implement organizational guidelines that were on par with individual-level sanctions in order to remove any suggestion that powerful corporations receive lesser penalties than individuals convicted of “street crimes”. This study analyzes the erosion of the Commission’s stated goal by evaluating the organizational structures, individual and group characteristics, and the social, political, economic, and historical contexts involved in the evolution of federal sentencing guidelines for organizations. Results indicate that, while structural-level variables played a large part in explaining the development of the guidelines, a more accurate and complete understanding of this process is possible by including an analysis of the individual-level characteristics of Commissioners, including their professional backgrounds, ideological perspectives, styles of leadership, and future goals.

---

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.     

Factors influencing the use of the “truth in sentencing” law in Kentucky murder cases: A research note

This study is based upon a data set on the capital sentencing process in Kentucky. Here, we examine the effect of Kentucky’s “truth in sentencing” statute on murder cases. The evidence suggests that a sentence of life without possibility of parole can serve as an alternative to capital sentencing that avoids racial discrimination. This paper is based upon a report that was developed in response to Kentucky Senate Bill 8-Bias Related Crime Reporting passed by the 1992 Kentucky General Assembly. The authors wish to express their appreciation to Fonda Butler of the Kentucky Justice Cabinet, Dale Helton of the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, Kathy Black-Dennis, Colleen E. Williams, and Bill Clark of the Kentucky Department of Corrections, and James Oakes, Greg Bucholtz, and Jeanne M. Fenn, our graduate research associates at the University of Louisville.     

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.     

Circle sentencing in Canada: A partnership of the community and the criminal justice system

Throughout North America, there has been an increasing interest in the development of alternative forums for dispute resolution that may more effectively address the needs of victims, offenders, and the community. Concurrent with this has been an attempt to alter the adversarial framework of the criminal justice system. This has included the development and implementation of case processing strategies premised on restorative justice and attempting to secure the participation of communities as partners in the resolution of disputes. One particularly innovative initiative is circle sentencing, which has been implemented in several communities in the Yukon, Canada. The procedure by which cases are processed in circle sentencing is outlined and the involvement of the offender, the victim, the community, and the territorial court are discussed.     

Evaluating the impact of prior record on judges' sentencing decisions: A seven-city comparison

There is much agreement among social scientists that the prior criminal records of defendants are important in explaining the sentences given by judges. That being so, it is crucial to control for prior record when examining sentence discrepancies, such as between black and white defendants. However, when examining sentencing patterns, a remarkable variety of indicators has been used to measure prior record. It is very likely that different measures of prior record have different relationships to sentencing. Only fragmentary evidence of these differential relationships has been offered, however. We will add to our knowledge about the efficacy of different measures of prior record by examining numerous measures and analyzing their relationship to sentences levied on black and white defendants. Data from seven cities will be used in the analysis in order to try to understand the variation that might exist in these relationships.     

Disentangling effort and performance: a renewed look at gender differences in commercializing medical school research

Recently, questions about gender gaps in science have extended to academic technology transfer. Using systematic data on US medical school faculty, we capture both behavior and performance, examining the hypothesis that women are less likely than men to commercialize their research findings. We pooled faculty invention data from ten departments in three Academic Health Centers from 1991 to 1998??a period when patenting had become prevalent and other researchers note that a gender gap was pronounced. Rather than focusing on patenting, we capture the first step in the commercialization process, as well as the subsequent successful licensing of faculty inventions to a company. We find no significant gender differences in the likelihood of reporting inventions or successfully commercializing them. We do find differences in the number of inventions reported, however, with women disclosing fewer inventions than their male counterparts. Our results demonstrate that gender effects are highly conditioned by employment context and resources. We attribute differences in our findings with regards to gender to the use of outcome measures that capture both behavior and performance, and the inclusion of a more extensive set of control variables.     

Decision-Making in court: Observing the sentencing of men and women

Abstract

Using systematic observation together with an analysis of the relevant court and criminal records this research examined the processing and sentencing of a small number of male and female defendants in an English magistrates' court. The findings indicate that sentencing was indirectly affected by a defendant's sex and directly affected by at least one aspect of a defendant's demeanour. These results provide support for the view that combining systematic observation with an analysis of court records offers a more effective means of investigating the differential treatment of male and female defendants than either unsystematic observational studies or the analysis of court records alone.