Revising Images of Public Punitiveness: Sentencing by Lay and Professional English Magistrates

England grants unusually broad responsibility for sentencing of criminal offenders to voluntary part-time lay magistrates who, like their legally trained professional colleagues, sentence a wide range of offenders. Using simulated cases, archival analyses, and observational techniques, this article compares the sentencing decisions of the lay and professional magistrates in London. The study reveals no evidence of the lay preference for more severe sentencing that is typically shown in public opinion polls. The extent to which legal training, court experience, panel decisionmaking and role within the court system can explain the relative leniency of the lay magistrates are considered Consistent with results from other studies, these findings suggests that when laypersons assign sentences to particular offenders rather than express generalized satisfaction or dissatisfaction with current sentencing practices, laypersons are no more punitive than professional judges.     

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.     

Judges’ sentencing decisions with older offenders

Older offenders tend to be treated with more leniency in the criminal justice system. A number of studies show that older offenders are less likely to be incarcerated, and when they are incarcerated, are more likely to receive shorter sentences. However, to date, no research has directly examined why such leniency occurs. This study asked U.S. state trial court judges to reflect on their sentencing practices with older offenders and to rate the factors considered most important when sentencing this population. Responses were received from 212 judges. Only 31% of judges acknowledged treating older offenders with greater leniency. These judges also indicated that they predominantly rely on legal factors when making decisions about sentencing with older offenders rather than factors specifically associated with age. Only cognitive impairment was identified by judges as one of the five most important factors to consider when sentencing older offenders. These results are discussed in terms of judges’ awareness of how they weigh information to make legal decisions. The influence of judges’ age and attitudes about aging on sentencing decisions are also explored.     

Lawlessness in the Federal Sentencing Process: A Test for Uniformity and Consistency in Sentence Outcomes

One of the important goals of the federal sentencing guidelines was to reduce inter‐judge disparity in sentencing. In this paper, we test the assumption that structuring discretion produced uniformity in federal sentencing and consistency in the process by which judges arrive at the appropriate sentence. We also examine whether background characteristics of judges affect the sentences they impose on similarly situated offenders. We used hierarchical linear modeling, nesting the offenders in the judges that sentenced them in order to examine the sentencing decisions of federal judges in three U.S. District Courts. While we found that significant variation between judges in sentencing is largely accounted for by our level 1 characteristics, we also found that judges arrive at decisions regarding the appropriate sentence in different ways, by attaching differential weights to several of the legally relevant case characteristics and legally irrelevant offender characteristics.     

Sentence length: Interactions with race and court

Sentencing research tends to focus on two questions. First, do some categories of offenders receive substantially different sentences than do other categories of offenders, for the same or similar offenses? Second, do some courts give substantially different sentences, when compared to other courts, for the same or similar offenses? Focusing on these questions, researchers have typically examined the impact of three types of variables on either sentence length or sentence type: defendant status variables (e.g., race, education), extra-legal process factors (e.g., court, plea), and legal factors (e.g., seriousness of offense, prior convictions). Study results have been contradictory and inconclusive.The problem with sentencing studies is that only main effects are examined. A more appropriate model is one that contains the interactions between the defendant's race (black/white) and the other independent variables, and the interactions between the court's locale (urban/rural) and the other independent variables.Using data collected in 1978 on 412 male prisoners in Maryland, four interaction terms were found to contribute to an understanding of sentencing decisions. It was found that blacks received longer sentences than whites, net of all other variables. However, whites received lengthier sentences for more serious offenses. In comparison to blacks, whites received lengthier sentences when they used more court resources. It was found that rural jurisdictions give lengthier sentences than urban jurisdictions, net of all other variables. However, in comparison to rural courts, urban courts give lengthier sentences when the defendant uses more court resources. More serious offenses receive lengthier prison terms in rural, as compared to urban, courts.     

DOWNWARD DEPARTURES FOR SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENDERS: LOCAL COURT “CORRECTIONS” TO PENNSYLVANIA'S SENTENCING GUIDELINES*

We examine downward departures for serious violent offenders, using quantitative and qualitative data from Pennsylvania. We find that offense severity and prior record have negative direct effects on downward departures, but a positive interaction effect on them. Offenders convicted of aggravated assault, those who plead guilty, young black women, and offenders sentenced in large urban courts are more likely to receive downward departures, whereas those convicted by trial, young Hispanic males, and offenders sentenced in small rural courts are less likely to receive them. We argue that downward departures represent local “corrections” to guideline recommendations when there is a mismatch between guidelines and local court actors' definitions of key focal concerns of sentencing for serious violent offenders.     

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.     

Sentencer and offender factors as sources of discrimination in magistrates' penalties for drinking drivers

This study examined the contributions of sentencer and case (legal and extralegal) factors to magistrates' sentences for 678 drink-drivers at 2 courts. Qualitative codings of magistrates' sentencing orientations were incorporated with case factors in a multivariate statistical model of differences in fines and disqualifications. Discriminations in penalties were related to offenders' legally relevant prior offenses and blood alcohol concentrations, and extralegal variables of offender age, gender and employment status. Men were treated more harshly than women, and young offenders more harshly than all other offenders except those over 56 years. Unemployed offenders were fined less, but disqualified for longer than offenders in the workforce. Magistrates' orientations and court interacted with offense categories to produce further differences related to blood alcohol concentration and recidivism. Sentencers responded to offender characteristics but also relied on their own mental images of stereotypic drink-drivers and their individualized sentencing orientations to exercise their discretionary powers. Results are discussed in relation to issues of warranted or justifiable discriminations and the just distribution of penalties.     

The Gender Gap in Sex Offender Punishment

This paper tests theoretical arguments that suggest court actors hold gendered views of sex offenders that result in a gender gap in sex offender punishment, where women who commit sexual offenses are treated more leniently than their male counterparts. We test this argument with precision matching analyses using 15 years of data on all felony sex offenders sentenced in a single state. Results indicate that gender disparities in sex offender sentencing exist and are pervasive across sex offense types. Specifically, male sex offenders are more likely to be sentenced to prison, and given longer terms, than female sex offenders. Findings are similar across sex offense severity and whether the offense involved a minor victim. These findings suggest that female sex offenders are treated more leniently than their matched male counterparts, even in instances of more serious sex offenses and those involving minor victims. Findings support theoretical arguments that contend that court decision-making is influenced by legally-irrelevant characteristics and raise questions about the source of gendered views of sex offenders and their effects on punishment approaches. Findings also raise questions about the virtue of get-tough sentencing policies that provide leeway for such dramatic variation across different groups of people.     

Mandating treatment for drug possessors: The impact of Senate Bill 123 on the criminal justice system in Kansas

Kansas' Senate Bill 123 (SB 123) created mandatory community-based drug treatment for individuals convicted of first- or second-offense drug possession. This study examined the impact of SB 123 on sentencing practices, supervision, and treatment services across Kansas. The study indicated that SB 123 diverted drug possessors not from prison, as intended, but from one form of community supervision to another, subjecting more offenders to greater surveillance and longer sentences. Such “front-end” net-widening was due to the structure of the law itself and a lack of understanding of pre-implementation sentencing practices. In some counties, judges engaged in some circumvention of the law, suggesting possible local-level differences in buy-in among courtroom actors; such circumvention was also focused on offenders with more serious criminal histories, indicating judicial-level evaluations of offender amenability to treatment. While SB 123 offenders received the treatment they were assessed to need, the provision of treatment remained heavily concentrated in a few providers, increasing disparities in access to treatment and making the success of the program highly dependant on a small number of institutional actors.     

THE IMPRISONMENT PENALTY PAID BY YOUNG, UNEMPLOYED BLACK AND HISPANIC MALE OFFENDERS

A recent study of sentencing decisions in Pennsylvania (Steffensmeier et al., 1998) identified significant interrelationships among race, gender, age, and sentence severity. The authors of this study found that each of the three offender characteristics had significant direct effects on sentence outcomes and that the characteristics interacted to produce substantially harsher sentences for one category of offenders—young black males. This study responds to Steffensmeier et al.'s (1998:789) call for "further research analyzing how race effects may be mediated by other factors." We replicate their research approach, examining the intersections of the effects of race, gender, and age on sentence outcomes. We extend their analysis in three ways: We examine sentence outcomes in three large urban jurisdictions; we include Hispanics as well as blacks and test for interactions between ethnicity, age, and gender; and we test for interactions between race/ethnicity, gender, and employment status. Our results are generally—although not entirely—consistent with the results of the Pennsylvania study. Although none of the offender characteristics affects the length of the prison sentence, each has a significant direct effect on the likelihood of incarceration in at least one of the jurisdictions. More importantly, the four offender characteristics interact to produce harsher sentences for certain types of offenders. Young black and Hispanic males face greater odds of incarceration than middle-aged white males, and unemployed black and Hispanic males are substantially more likely to be sentenced to prison than employed white males. Thus, our results suggest that offenders with constellations of characteristics other than "young black male" pay a punishment penalty.     

SENTENCING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS IN THE NETHERLANDS: OFFENDER,VICTIM, AND SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES IN CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT*

Empirical investigations of criminal sentencing represent a vast research enterprise in criminology. However, this research has been restricted almost exclusively to U.S. contexts, and often it suffers from key data limitations. As such, an examination of more detailed international sentencing data provides an important opportunity to assess the generalizability of contemporary research and theorizing on criminal punishment in the United States. The current study investigates little-researched questions about the influence of prosecutorial sentencing recommendations, victim/offender relationships, and extralegal disparities in sentencing by analyzing unique data on the punishment of homicide offenders in the Netherlands. The results indicate that offender, victim, and situational offense characteristics all exert important independent effects at sentencing and that prosecutorial recommendations exert powerful influences over judicial sentences. The article concludes with a discussion of future directions for comparative sentencing research across international contexts.     

Excessive Uniformity in Federal Drug Sentencing

The ideal of fair and proportionate punishment was a major impetus for federal sentencing reform. Observers of the current federal drug sentencing regime contend that the sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums lead to the problem of “excessive uniformity” in which offenders of widely differing culpability receive similar sentences due to the dominance of drug quantity as a sentencing factor. This study investigates this phenomenon using the 1997 Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities. Controlling for relevant offense, offender, and case processing variables, the analysis finds that the quantity-driven sentencing fails to account for important differences in offender culpability—resulting in excessively uniform sentences for offenders with highly dissimilar roles in the offense. The main policy implication of this research is that the central, organizing role of drug quantity in federal drug sentencing needs to be rethought. Indeed, effectively dealing with the problem of excessive uniformity will likely require the wholesale restructuring of how federal sentences for drug offenders are determined.

Violent Youth in Juvenile and Adult Court: An Assessment of Sentencing Strategies in Texas

This paper examines the effectiveness of two sentencing strategies for managing serious and violent juvenile offenders: judicial waiver to adult court and determinate sentencing in juvenile court. Corrections data were analyzed and it was found that both groups consistently receive longer terms of incarceration than are available through normal juvenile justice processing. However, this finding changed when actual time served was taken into consideration. A discriminant analysis showed that juveniles determin-ately sentenced in juvenile court are more likely to be younger and receive and serve shorter sentences than juveniles waived to adult court and sentenced to prison.     

Victim-offender race and support for capital punishment: A factorial design approach

Existing research suggests that juries are more likely to condemn murderers to death when offenders are black victims are white. It remains to be seen, however, whether these decisions reflect broader racial prejudices in society that are imported into the jury room. If they do, then insuring equity in capital sentencing may be beyond reach. Accordingly, this study uses factorial design methodology to examine whether members of the general public are more supportive of capital punishment when asked to rate a vignette describing a murder involving a white victim and black offender as opposed to other victim-offender racial combinations. Our analyses suggest that the race of the offender, but not the victim, has a significant influence on support for capital punishment. Thus, procedural safeguards alone may be unable to eliminate racial bias in capital sentencing.     

Sentencing Native Americans in US Federal Courts: An Examination of Disparity

Existing sentencing literature largely focuses on the study of white, African-American, and to a lesser extent, Hispanic offenders. Unfortunately, very little is known about the sentencing of Native American offenders, especially in the federal courts. To address this shortcoming, the current study employs United States Sentencing Commission data for the fiscal years 2006-2008 to examine the comparative punishment of Native Americans. Consistent with the focal concerns perspective and its reliance on perceptions of race-based threat, findings demonstrate that Native Americans are often sentenced more harshly than white, African-American, and Hispanic offenders. Moreover, race-gender-age interactions indicate that during the incarceration decision, young Native American males receive the most punitive sentences, surpassing the punishment costs associated with being a young African-American or Hispanic male. These findings highlight the importance of directing increased attention toward the sentencing of this understudied offender population.     

The Direct and Indirect Effects of Offender Drug Use on Federal Sentencing Outcomes

Objectives

The federal sentencing guidelines constrain decision makers’ discretion to consider offenders’ life histories and current circumstances, including their histories of drug use and drug use at the time of the crime. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that judges are required to take the offender’s drug use into account in making bail and pretrial detention decisions and the ambiguity inherent in decisions regarding substantial assistance departures allows consideration of this factor. In this paper we build upon and extend prior research examining the impact of an offender’s drug use on sentences imposed on drug trafficking offenders.

Methods

We used data from three U.S. District Courts and a methodologically sophisticated approach (i.e., path analysis) to test for the direct and indirect (i.e., through pretrial detention and receipt of a substantial assistance departure) effects of an offender’s drug use history and use of drug at the time of the crime, to determine if the effects of drug use varies by the type of drug, and to test for the moderating effect of type of crime.

Results

We found that although the offender’s history of drug use did not affect sentence length, offenders who were using drugs at the time of the crime received longer sentences both as a direct consequence of their drug use and because drug use at the time of the crime increased the odds of pretrial detention and increased the likelihood of receiving a substantial assistance departure. We also found that the effects of drug use varied depending on whether the offender was using crack cocaine or some other drug and that the type of offense for which the offender was convicted moderated these relationships.

Conclusions

Our findings illustrate that there is a complex array of relationships between drug use and key case processing decisions in federal courts.     

"CLUB FED" AND THE SENTENCING OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENDERS BEFORE AND AFTER WATERGATE

This paper counterposes the common assumption that criminal justice systems are resistant to reform with the widespread belief that the sentencing of white-collar offenders became more severe after Watergate. It is argued that readjustments may be more more common than actual reforms in criminal justice systems. This paper provides an example of how such processes of readjustment can be explored in the context of sentencing decisions made before and after the unique historical experience of Watergate. It is shown with data from one of America's most prominent federal district courts that changes did occur in sentences imposed before (in 1973) and after (1975) Watergate, but with offsetting results: after Watergate, persons convicted of white-collar crimes were more likely to be sentenced to prison, but for shorter periods of time, than less-educated persons convicted of common crimes. Using a technique that corrects for sample selection processes, these effects are shown to cancel one another out. Examples are provided of the token kinds of prison sentences assigned after Watergate to white-collar offenders in several highly publicized cases and areas of enforcement.     

Reactions to Mandatory Sentences in Relation to the Ethnic Identity and Criminal History of the Offender

This study investigated the responses of 181 participants (87 men, 94 women), from Adelaide, South Australia, to scenarios describing mandatory sentences for perpetrators of a property offense committed in the Northern Territory, Australia. Four scenarios that were randomly distributed varied ethnic identity (White Australian, Aboriginal Australian) and criminal history (first-time offender, third-time offender). Participants completed attitude measures for both mandatory sentencing and capital punishment, a right-wing authoritarianism scale, and a scale concerned with sentencing goals (retribution, deterrence, protection of society, and rehabilitation). Results showed strong effects of attitude toward mandatory sentencing on scenario responses for variables such as perceived responsibility, deservingness, leniency, seriousness, anger and pleasure, and weaker effects of ethnic identity and criminal history. Participants were generally more sympathetic when the offender was an Aboriginal Australian. Results of a multiple regression analysis showed that attitude toward mandatory sentence was predicted by right-wing authoritarianism and by sentencing goals relating to deterrence and the protection of society.     

Training,experience, and magistrates' sentencing philosophies

The lay magistracy is unique to the English legal system, and this study investigates how those appointed as magistrates change in their sentencing policy and attitudes toward defendants as a result of the experience gained during the first year on the bench and as a result of the mandatory training program. An experimental design was used to evaluate the effects of training in which a group of newly appointed magistrates was randomly assigned to defer their training for one year and compared to those who completed their training during the first year in the usual way. In addition, the use of a group of nonmagistrates as controls enabled a quasiexperimental evaluation of the effects of experience on the bench. Magistrates and controls completed a questionnaire in which they sentenced a number of cases at the time of the magistrates' appointment to the bench and again one year later. The results showed that magistrates as a result of their experience became more committed to the aims of deterrence and punishment, became more pessimistic about the prospects of reforming defendants, regarded the severe sentences as more appropriate, and took a less sympathetic view of defendants. The training program, however, tended to ameliorate these effects. Possible explanations for these findings and the implications for the training of magistrates are discussed.This study was supported by a grant from the Nuffield Foundation