The Effects of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders on Institutional Misconduct Among Female Inmates

The US Sentencing Guidelines are among the most ambitious attempts in history to control sentencing discretion. However, a major sea change occurred in January of 2005, when the US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Booker and Fanfan, that in order to be constitutional, the federal guidelines must be advisory rather than presumptive. The impact of the Booker/Fanfan decisions on interjurisdictional variation and sentencing disparity is an opportunity to examine the issue of whether the increased opportunity to sentence according to substantively rational criteria entails increased extralegal disparity. We draw on a conceptualization of courts as communities and a focal concerns model of sentencing decisions to frame expectations about federal sentencing in the wake of Booker/Fanfan. We test these expectations using USSC data on federal sentencing outcomes from four time periods: prior to the 2003 PROTECT Act, the period governed by the PROTECT Act, post-Booker/Fanfan, and post-Gall v US. In general, we find that extralegal disparity and between-district variation in the effects of extralegal factors on sentencing have not increased post-Booker and Gall. We conclude that allowing judges greater freedom to exercise substantive rationality does not necessarily result in increased extralegal disparity.     

Sentencing disparity: An analysis of judicial consistency

This paper reports the results of an analysis of judicial disparity in the sentencing of persons represented by legal-aid lawyers. Because the socioeconomic characteristics of legal-aid clients are fairly uniform, the analysis of such cases made it possible to explore the influence of case facts, system factors, and the judicial disparity of the sentences given in relatively similar situations. The analysis finds that case facts and offender characteristics, particularly prior record, are good predictors of sentence type and excellent predictors of sentence length. While there was some indication of judicial inconsistency in sentence-type decisions, that is, unexplained variation from case to case, there was little indication of strong individual judicial bias across the cases used in the analysis.     

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.     

PUNISHING THE “MODEL MINORITY”: ASIAN‐AMERICAN CRIMINAL SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS*

Research on racial and ethnic disparities in criminal punishment is expansive but remains focused almost exclusively on the treatment of black and Hispanic offenders. The current study extends contemporary research on the racial patterning of punishments by incorporating Asian‐American offenders. Using data from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) for FY1997–FY2000, we examine sentencing disparities in federal district courts for several outcomes. The results of this study indicate that Asian Americans are punished more similarly to white offenders compared with black and Hispanic offenders. These findings raise questions for traditional racial conflict perspectives and lend support to more recent theoretical perspectives grounded in attribution processes of the courtroom workgroup. The article concludes with a discussion of future directions for research on understudied racial and ethnic minority groups.     

In Search of the Missing Link: Examining Contextual Variation in Federal Charge Bargains across U.S. District Courts

Abstract

Punishment scholars acknowledge the fundamental importance of both prosecutorial discretion and jurisdictional variation in punishment; yet, little is known about the extent to which charging practices vary across court contexts. This is especially true in the federal criminal justice system. This research investigates this issue by linking four years of charging data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) to corresponding data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC). It incorporates unique information on district court contexts from a variety of sources to investigate jurisdictional variation in charge reductions. Findings provide evidence that federal charging practices vary across district courts. In particular, several structural court characteristics are significantly related to the likelihood of charge reduction for similarly-situated defendants. Results from this study are interpreted through the lens of contemporary legal perspectives on court communities and suggest several fruitful directions for additional research on the social contexts of criminal prosecution.     

THE “EYE OF THE BEHOLDER”: PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS ABOUT THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD

Child custody evaluations (CCEs) are a central feature of parenting litigation in many North American jurisdictions. However, there has been little recent research comparing CCE decisions about children's interests with decisions made by judges. This article presents empirical research about the extent to which Ontario judges accept custody and access recommendations from CCEs employed by Ontario's Office of the Children's Lawyer. The central finding was that the judges fully agreed with the CCEs only about half of the time. Possible explanations for this finding are explored, the most salient of which is the effect of delay in Ontario family litigation. In conclusion, the article suggests that a more efficient synthesis of the judicial and CCE decision‐making processes might be more consonant with the best interests of children involved in these disputes.     

Mapping the Racial Bias of the White Male Capital Juror: Jury Composition and the “Empathic Divide”

This article examines the nature of racial bias in the death sentencing process. After reviewing the various general explanations for the continued significance of race in capital cases, we report the results of an empirical study in which some aspects of racially biased death sentencing are examined in depth. Specifically, in a simulated capital penalty‐phase trial setting where participants were assigned to small group “juries” and given an opportunity to deliberate, white male jurors were significantly more likely to sentence black defendants to death than were women and nonwhite jurors. This racialized pattern was explained in part by the differential evaluation of the case facts and the perceptions of the defendant that were made by the white male jurors. We discuss these findings in light of social psychological theories of contemporary racism, and we conclude that the demonstrated bias in capital jury settings should be understood as an interaction of several factors, including individual juror characteristics, group‐level demographic composition, and group deliberation processes.