Examining the research underlying the sentencing guidelines concept in Denver,Colorado: A partial replication of a reform effort

This paper examines the empirical basis for the criminal sentencing guidelines developed in Denver, Colorado. Unlike many other sentencing reforms, such guidelines have generally been developed out of an empirical analysis of past sentencing decisions, which identifies those variables most predictive of sentence. Empirical arguments, as a part of a reform effort, are often more persuasive than nonempirical arguments. However, when the analysis is inadequate or faulty, the resultant reform effort may be called into question.Presented in this paper is a reanalysis of the original data used to develop the Denver guidelines. Questions are raised regarding implications of extensive missing observations across cases and the resulting shrinkage of cases available for multivariate analyses. The original data is reanalyzed in both its original form and in a more complete form by estimating the missing data through a complex regression technique. Our analyses suggest that there are serious methodological weaknesses in the original study. The implications of these weaknesses are discussed.