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 One-hundred-sixteen statistically independent contrasts were coded from 71 published and unpublished studies.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.     

区分加重构成与量刑规则——罪量加重构成概念之提倡

法定刑升格条件确有区分加重构成与量刑规则的必要。不具备违法推定机能、不是故意认识内容的首要分子、作为报酬的违法所得等升格条件是典型的量刑规则;具备犯罪个别化、违法性推定与故意规制三大机能的时间地点、行为方式、加重结果等升格条件是典型的(罪体)加重构成要素;而多次、数额巨大等升格条件,仅表征违法程度、不体现行为类型变异,虽是故意的认识内容,却无法发挥犯罪个别化机能,既非典型的加重构成要素,也非典型的量刑规则,应属于罪量加重构成要素。罪量加重构成有行为规模类与结果程度类之分,结果程度类罪量加重构成是基于基本犯结果的危险性而加重刑罚的,当基本犯未遂时,即丧失加重之依据,不能论以加重犯的未遂犯。情节严重作为升格条件,则应当根据具体化的情节事实,依据上述标准判断各具体事项的归属。     

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。     

Bail and Pretrial Release Decisions

Abstract

The racial threat perspective is tested using data from empirical studies of bail and pretrial release. Of the thirty empirical studies investigating race and bail/pretrial release, eighteen identified specific cities and counties, thereby permitting an examination of the effect of racial composition on the race and bail/pretrial release nexus. Results suggest a possible modification of the racial threat perspective as typically conceptualized. Other factors affecting this relationship are briefly discussed.     

Alcohol and Drug Mitigation in Capital Murder Trials: Implications for Sentencing Decisions

Analyses of the impact on sentencing when alcohol and drug‐related mitigation is used in the sentencing phases of capital murder trials is virtually absent from the existing literature. The present study addresses this by exploring the effect of having mitigation with alcohol and drug themes accepted in a large sample (n = 804) of capital murder trials in North Carolina. Logistic regression analyses that include a number of relevant control variables reveal no substantive impacts of having alcohol mitigation accepted by capital murder juries, but drug mitigators that were either accepted or rejected by juries were associated with an increased risk of receiving a death sentence. Possible reasons for the results and their implications are discussed and suggestions are made for further study of the effects of alcohol/drug mitigation in capital trials.     

BILEVEL DISPARITIES IN COURT DISPOSITIONS FOR INTIMATE ASSAULT*

Using data on cases of intimate assault, we offer a relatively rare examination of disparities in court dispositions across multiple stages of case processing. In this context we introduce the theoretical and empirical relevance of considering the characteristics of defendants' neighborhoods as possible extralegal influences on disposition severity. Bilevel analyses of 2,948 males arrested for misdemeanor assaults on intimates in Cincinnati reveal significant disparities based on neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) in decisions related to charging, full prosecution, conviction, and incarceration, even when adjusting for compositional differences in defendant's race and SES across neighborhoods. Implications are discussed for the broader literature on extralegal disparities.     

Sentencing Female Misdemeanants: An Examination of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Race/Ethnicity

Little is known about the predictors of sentencing for the typical female offender—one who commits a misdemeanor or lesser offense. Moreover, although ample discussions of racial/ethnic disparity in sentencing may be found in the extant literature, most researchers have focused on what happens to males who commit felonies. Thus, to help fill a void I examine the likelihood of receiving a jail sentence among a sample of cases for female misdemeanants. All were convicted in New York City's Criminal Court. I account for direct and indirect effects by estimating a causal model that predicts the sentencing outcome. Race/ethnicity did not directly affect sentencing. Indirect effects, however, were found. Black and Hispanic females were more likely to receive jail sentences than their White counterparts due to differences in socio‐economic status, community ties, prior record, earlier case processing, and charge severity.     

A Multilevel Analysis of Community Effects on Criminal Sentencing

This research examines the influence of several important community characteristics on the sentencing of convicted felony defendants, net of other predictors associated with sentencing decisions. Using an appropriate multilevel technique, I find that several community characteristics affect the likelihood that defendants are sentenced to prison versus jail. However, none of the community characteristics influence the odds of prison versus non‐custodial sanctions or jail versus non‐custodial sanctions for these defendants. This underscores the importance of using sentencing measures beyond the basic “in/out” dichotomy. Even more importantly, the results suggest that there remains a statistically significant and substantial amount of sentencing variation across counties after controlling for relevant individual‐ and community‐level factors. The implications of these findings for research, theory, and policy‐making are discussed.     

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.     

Evaluating the Role of Race in Sentencing: An Entropy Weighting Analysis

The current study builds on prior research examining racial disparities in sentencing. Entropy weighting is introduced as a new method for estimating racial disparities that has several advantages over traditionally used methods. Entropy weighting is compared to regression and propensity score methods in estimating Black-White disparities in incarceration sentences. Although all methods find non-significant racial disparities in incarceration sentences, regression and propensity score methods underestimate disparities in incarceration sentence lengths. Entropy weighting provides comparable estimates to propensity score methods, but assures that the samples are identical on all covariates aside from race. The method offers researchers a useful and flexible approach for estimating racial disparities in criminal justice, and its use may lead to alternative conclusions about the size and presence of racial disparities in sentencing.     

Older and more recent evidence on racial discrimination in sentencing

Examination of previous studies of racial discrimination in sentencing indicates more widespread evidence of discrimination than allowed in three separate reviews by M. J. Hindelang [(1969).J. Crim. Law Criminal. Police Sci. 60: 306–313], J. Hagan [(1975). InThe Aldine Crime and Justice Annual, Aldine, Chicago], and G. Kleck [(1981).Am. Social. Rev. 46: 783-805]. It is not the case, as these reviewers suggest, that racial discrimination is a thing of the past, shown almost exclusively for capital offences from the American South, and often supported only because relevant legal variables were not controlled. In addition, analysis of recent (1977) data from a non-Southern state (Pennsylvania) covering noncapital offenses and including recommended controls shows that evidence of racial disparity in sentencing is revealed more clearly when separate analyses are conducted within levels of urbanization. The labeling perspective and conflict theory guide our interpretation.     

英美法系国家量刑指南制度的比较研究

量刑指南是指导法官裁量刑罚的准则.为了防止量刑偏差和量刑失衡问题,限制法官的自由裁量权,英美法系国家普遍制定了明确的量刑指南.其中,美国量刑指南制度是中国刑法理论研究较多的一个问题.实际上,在英美法系领域,产生了三种不同模式的量刑指南制度:美国数量化量刑指南、英国论理式量刑指南和澳大利亚信息化量刑指南.相比较而言,英国量刑指南制度对我国量刑制度的改革更具参考和借鉴意义.     

论量刑偏差及规制

量刑偏差现象在世界各国普遍存在,在我国也是使刑事司法深受困扰的难题,量刑偏差严重损害了法律的尊严和司法机关的威信,危害极大。导致量刑偏差有多种原因,必须有针对性在采取措施,预防、避免量刑偏差。     

量刑与定罪互动论:为了量刑公正可变换罪名

现行刑法理论中定罪与量刑的关系被扭曲了,刑法理论把准确定罪置于至高无上的地位,司法机关把大量精力耗费于准确判断罪名,定罪决定量刑、量刑不可能影响罪名成为刑法公理。但是,判断罪名意义上的定罪,并非刑法的目的;对被告人和社会最有意义的是量刑,判断罪名只是为公正量刑服务的;因此,如果常规判断的罪名会使量刑失当,就可以为了公正量刑而适度变换罪名。     

量刑规范化问题研究——以西安市碑林区人民法院为例

量刑规范化改革是党中央确定的重大司法改革项目,也是人民法院＂三五改革纲要＂的重要内容。量刑规范化问题的研究,对于规范司法行为,统一法律适用标准,促进社会公平正义,提高人民法院公信力,树立司法权威都具有重大意义。量刑规范化就是要进一步规范法官审理刑事案件的刑罚裁量权,将量刑纳入法庭审理程序,增强量刑的公开性与透明度,统一法律适用标准,更好地贯彻落实宽严相济的刑事政策。     

中美量刑机制比较研究

中美在量刑的指导思想、量刑的模式、量刑的依据、量刑的主体、量型的程序和方法等方面均有很大不同,美国的量刑机制对我国量刑制度的改革和完善有借鉴意义。     

香港与内地毒品犯罪量刑比较研究

为打击毒品犯罪,香港以立法中的《危险药物条例》和司法实践中的量刑准则为基础,发展出了一整套针对毒品犯罪的量刑模式。香港的毒品犯罪量刑模式具有灵活、统一、适应对新兴毒品犯罪的量刑及符合现代刑法理论发展等诸多特点,值得内地借鉴。     

Direct and Indirect Effects of Case Complexity, Guilty Pleas, and Offender Characteristics on Sentencing for Offenders Convicted of a White-Collar Offense Prior to Sentencing Guidelines

Previous research on the punishment of offenders convicted of a white-collar offense estimated models that specify only direct effects of defendant characteristics, offense-related variables, and guilty pleas on sentence severity. Drawing from conflict or labeling theories, much of this research focused on the effects of offender's socioeconomic status on sentence outcomes. Findings from this research are inconsistent about the relationship between defendant characteristics and sentence severity. These studies overlook how differences in case complexity of white-collar offense and guilty pleas may intervene in the relationship between offender characteristics and sentence outcomes. This study seeks to contribute to an understanding of federal sentencing prior to the federal sentencing guidelines by testing a legal-bureaucratic theory of sentencing that hypothesizes an interplay between case complexity, guilty pleas and length of imprisonment. This interplay reflects the interface between the legal ramifications of pleading guilty, prosecutorial interests in efficiency and finality of case disposition in complex white-collar cases, and sentence severity. Using structural equation modeling, a four-equation model of sentencing that specifies case complexity and guilty pleas as intervening variables in the relationship between offender characteristics and length of imprisonment is estimated. Several findings are noteworthy. First, the hypothesized interplay between case complexity, guilty pleas, and sentence severity is supported. Second, the effect of offender's educational attainment on sentence severity is indirect via case complexity and guilty pleas. Third, offender's race and gender effect length of imprisonment both directly and indirectly through the intervening effect of case complexity and guilty pleas. These findings indicate the need to specify sentencing models that consider the direct and indirect effects of offender characteristics, offense characteristics, and guilty pleas on judicial discretion at sentencing.     

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.