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.     

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.     

Driving racial profiling research forward: Learning lessons from sentencing research

Discretion is an integral component of the criminal justice system and is exercised by both police and the judiciary. Based on the extant research, evidence of racial/ethnic disparities within the context of traffic stops and sentencing decisions has been documented. Due to its long history of inquiry, sentencing research has developed a more thorough understanding of disparity and its correlates. This article contends that racial profiling research could expedite its development by learning from the history of sentencing research. Specifically, the extant research on sentencing decisions has demonstrated the value and utility of theory and methods as pillars of knowledge development. Therefore, progress in racial profiling research is most likely accomplished by employing similar theoretical frameworks and appropriate quantitative and qualitative approaches.     

The effect of local policy on the sentencing patterns of state wards

A large number of studies have identified individual and offense characteristics that predict the severity of criminal justice system sanctions against juvenile delinquents. However, very few studies have examined the effect of local decision making procedures and funding practices on sentencing outcomes. As such local practices could have important effects on sentencing, the present study compared the sentencing of juvenile state wards in counties that differ markedly in local policies. The hypothesis was that the availability of state, as opposed to local, funding for institutional placement (called a “charge-back” policy) in one of the counties would result in a more severe sentencing decisions and that this county's use of board of decision makers instead of individual caseworkers would result in harsher treatment of youths differentiated by minority status, sex, or family status. This difference might be due to the board's insulation from review.     

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 AND UNWARRANTED DISPARITY: AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES IN MINNESOTA*

Using an interrupted time-series design, this research note analyzes the long-term effect of Minnesota's sentencing guidelines on reducing unwarranted disparity in sentencing outcomes that fall within their scope of authority. Unwarranted disparity is defined as residual variation not attributable to legally mandated sentencing factors. Findings suggest that although the sentencing guidelines initially reduced disparity for the no prison/prison sentencing decision, inequality began to revert to preguideline levels as time passed. Further analysis revealed that the guidelines had a permanent impact on reducing disparities in decisions on the length of prison sentence. Overall we observed an 18% decline in disparity for the no prison/prison outcome and a 60% reduction in inequality for the judicial decision as to length of prison sentence. Two explanations for the reversionary trend in the no prison/prison series are highlighted.     

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.     

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.     

Location,location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses

Research on sentencing has made clear that factors beyond case and offenders' attributes influence court decisions. Environmental and procedural characteristics also significantly affect the sentences of criminal courts. Yet, while state-level studies regularly control for such factors, most research on modern federal determinate sentencing has neglected jurisdictional attributes and variation as sources of extralegal sentence disparity. Using the organizational context and social worlds theoretical perspectives with a multilevel analytical approach, this study assessed how district and circuit of adjudication affect case-level lengths of sentences for federal drug-trafficking offenses, finding that both significantly affect sentencing outcomes and their predictors.     

The impact of state sentencing policies on the U.S. prison population

This article examines the aggregate effects of neoclassical sentencing reforms on three often contested outcomes of these reforms. The rate of new court commitments, the average length of time inmates serve, and prison population rates across the fifty U.S. states and the District of Columbia are examined. Data from 1973 to 1998 across these jurisdictions are analyzed using hierarchical multivariate linear models (HMLM). Results show that on the aggregate, sentencing reforms are not directly related to changes in state prison populations; however, abolition of parole is negatively associated with state prison population rates. Two types of sentencing reforms, the voluntary sentencing guidelines and the ‘three-strikes’ laws are indirectly related to changes in prison populations and have opposite influences on rates of new court commitments. Of six sentencing practices examined, not one is associated with length of incarceration. These results do not support the contention that neoclassical changes to the nation's sentence policies account for the rapid increase in the state prison populations between the early 1970s and late 1990s.     

Gender dynamics in the sentencing of white-collar offenders

Theory and empirical research often have agreed that female and white-collar offenders benefit from leniency at the sentencing stage of criminal justice system processing. An untested research question emerging from these distinct bodies of literature is whether the greatest leniency is afforded to female white-collar offenders. We investigate the individual and interactive influences of gender and white-collar conviction on judicial leniency by analyzing Florida sentencing guidelines data from 1994 to 2004 using multinomial logistic regression to model the decision to incarcerate nonviolent economic offenders in jail or prison rather than sentence them to community control. Results indicate that female street offenders sentenced by male judges receive the most lenient sentences, while male offenders are punished the harshest regardless of the gender of the sentencing judge or type of crime. Theoretical and policy implications of the findings are discussed in terms of focal concerns, familial paternalism, and attributional perspectives on judicial decision-making.     

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.     

The place of public fear in sentencing and correctional policy

Public opinion about sentencing and correctional issues has emerged in recent decades as a salient topic in criminology. Empirical studies have suggested that the public has dynamic perceptions about these criminal justice issues. Sentencing and correctional policy have become key issues confronting legislators and policymakers, as correctional budgets and public interest in these areas have increased. Despite the focus on public opinion about sentencing and corrections, previous research has largely ignored how the public feels about the role of policymakers regarding these issues, and what influences opinions about whether public fear should be an important consideration in policy decisions. The current study partly replicated the work of Cullen and colleagues by examining perceptions of crime salience, crime causation, goals of the criminal justice system, and attitudes towards imprisonment and rehabilitation. It uniquely examined perceptions about the importance of legislator consideration of a specific determinant, namely, public fear, in decision making about sentencing and correctional policy.     

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.     

Exploring sentencing in three European cities

This research represents the results of a sentencing study conducted in three cities in Europe. The cities were chosen because they represent widely varying judicial philosophies. The question addressed is: do different formal legal attitudes impact sentencing behaviors? Data come from a randomly selected set of cases acquired from one judge in each of the three cities. The results indicate that, as in the United States, extra‐legal variable play a lesser role than legally relevant criteria in determining sentences. Contextual factors are also important as the models for explaining the variations in sentencing decisions change from city to city. This research continues the line of investigation which points to the need for a more thorough sample of sentencing decisions so that generalizations about the relationship between ideology and courtroom behavior can be made across countries.     

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.     

Sentencing Female Drug Offenders: Reexamining Racial and Ethnic Disparities

This study analyzes the relationship between race/ethnicity and sentencing outcomes for female drug offenders in Florida. Grounded in the focal concerns perspective, the research examines whether, in the specific case of drug offenders, minority women are treated more harshly than White women. Interaction models are estimated to determine the influence of drug offense type on racial and ethnic sentencing disparities. Differences in sentencing outcomes are also examined following significant policy changes in the state. In general, the findings suggest that minority female drug offenders are disadvantaged at both the incarceration and sentence length decisions. It also appears that perceptions of dangerousness associated with female offenders' race/ethnicity and offense are incorporated into sentencing authorities' patterned responses. That is, the level of disparity between Black, Hispanic, and White females is conditioned by type of drug offense in the interaction models. The changes in sentencing policy also impact the role of race and ethnicity in sentencing decisions. By analyzing drug offenders exclusively, the current study clarifies the role of race in sentencing decisions for females. In contrast to prior research that examined all offense categories together, the current study suggests that for drug offenses, minority females may, in fact, be deemed more dangerous and culpable than White female drug offenders.     

Modeling the Distribution of Sentence Length Decisions Under a Guidelines System: An Application of Quantile Regression Models

How should sentencing disparity be assessed when decisions are constrained under a sentencing guidelines system? Much of the debate over the measurement of sentence disparity under a guidelines system has focused primarily on using specific values from within the sentencing grid (e.g., minimum recommended sentence) or on using interaction terms in regression models to capture the non-additive effects of offense severity and prior record on length of sentence. In this paper, I propose an alternative method for assessing sentencing disparity that uses quantile regression models. These models offer several advantages over traditional OLS analyses (and related linear models) of sentence length, by allowing for an examination of the effects of case and offender characteristics across the full distribution of sentence lengths for a given sample of offenders. The analysis of the distribution of sentence lengths with quantile regression models allows for an examination of questions such as: Do offender characteristics, such as race or offense severity, have the same effect on sentence length for the 10% of offenders who receive the shortest sentences as they do for the 10% of offenders who receive the longest sentences? I illustrate the application and interpretation of these models using 1998 sentencing data from Pennsylvania. Key findings show that the effects of case and offender characteristics are variable across the distribution of sentence lengths, meaning that traditional linear models assuming a constant effect fail to capture important differences in how case and offender characteristics affect punishment decisions. I discuss the implications of these findings for understanding sentencing disparitites, as well as other possible applications of quantile regression models in the study of crime and the criminal justice system.     

Disproportional Imprisonment of Black and Hispanic Males: Sentencing Discretion,Processing Outcomes,and Policy Structures

Disproportional incarceration of black and Hispanic men has been the subject of much critical commentary and empirical inquiry. Such disproportionality may be due to greater involvement of minority men in serious crime, to discretionary decisions by local justice officials, or to the differential impact of sentencing policies, such as mandatory minimums or sentencing guidelines, that differentially impact minority men. This study investigated the extent to which the disproportional punishment of black and Hispanic men, and local variation in such disproportionality, can be attributed to unexplained disparities in local sentencing decisions, as opposed to the extent to which such differences are mediated by sentencing policies, or case-processing and extralegal factors. We use 2005–2009 federal court and Pennsylvania state court data. Our findings suggest, particularly in Federal courts, that most disproportionality is determined by processes prior to sentencing, especially sentencing policies that differentially impact minority males.     

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.