The federal sentencing guidelines were created to reduce unwarranted sentencing disparities among similar defendants. This paper explores the impact of increased judicial discretion on racial ...disparities in sentencing after the guidelines were struck down in United States v. Booker (543 U.S. 220 2005). Using data on the universe of federal defendants, I find that black defendants received 2 months more in prison compared with their white counterparts after Booker, a 4 percent increase in average sentence length. To identify the sources of racial disparities, I construct a data set linking judges to defendants. Exploiting the random assignment of cases to judges, I find that racial disparities after Booker were greater among judges appointed after Booker, which suggests acculturation to the guidelines by judges with experience sentencing under a mandatory-guidelines regime. Prosecutors also responded to increased judicial discretion after Booker by charging black defendants with binding mandatory minimum sentences.
This Article critiques, on legal and empirical grounds, the growing trend of basing criminal sentences on actuarial recidivism risk prediction instruments that include demographic and socioeconomic ...variables. largue that this practice violates the Equal Protection Clause and is bad policy: an explicit embrace of otherwise-condemned discrimination, sanitized by scientific language. To demonstrate that this practice raises serious constitutional concerns, I comprehensively review the relevant case law, much of which has been ignored by existing literature. To demonstrate that the policy is not justified by countervailing state interests, I review the empirical evidence underlying the instruments. I show that they provide wildly imprecise individual risk predictions, that there is no compelling evidence that they outperform judges' informal predictions, that less discriminatory alternatives would likely perform as well, and that the instruments do not even address the right question: the effect of a given sentencing decision on recidivism risk. Finally, I also present new empirical evidence, based on a randomized experiment using fictional cases, suggesting that these instruments should not be expected merely to substitute actuarial predictions for less scientific risk assessments but instead to increase the weight given to recidivism risk versus other sentencing considerations.
Prior research on the criminal court punishment of transferred youth relative to adult defendants has produced mixed findings; however, these disparities have not been examined in the context of ...intermediate and alternative sanctions. In Florida, judges have the discretion to assign a split sentence, which involves a mitigated term of imprisonment followed by a sentence to community supervision. Using data on felony cases sentenced under Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code (N = 704,977), these results provide evidence of a “youth discount,” with juveniles more likely than adults to receive split sentences. However, this pattern is observed regardless of whether a prison sentence is recommended by the guidelines, that is, even among cases in which a split sentence represents an upward departure.
A consistent criticism of the Indonesian criminal justice system indicates its dysfunctional judicial system plagued by systemic corruption and government interference. Given the high profiles of ...terrorism offences and their strict punishment, it is essential to maintain consistency in sentencing decisions for these crimes. However, there is a significant lack of evidence-based studies of sentencing in Indonesian courts, and none specifically related to terrorism offences. The aim of this study is to analyse the application of the right to a fair trial in sentencing terrorism offences in Indonesia through the interpretive lens of Southern criminology. This study takes a multi-dimensional approach of historical, legal, and empirical analyses to provide an in-depth understanding of factors that affect sentencing decisions in terrorism cases. First, the historical analysis explains that prosecutions for terrorism today include radical Islamists, minority extremists and separatist groups willing to resort to violence against the state and society to achieve their goals. Second, the legal analysis highlights how the existing sentencing regimes provide limited guidance for judges when determining the appropriate punishment for terrorist offenders, frequently leading to prison sentences exceeding 10 years. Third, qualitative analysis further explains that judges use their discretion to avoid the minimum mandatory sentence in specific circumstances, such as in the case of juvenile offenders. A Southern criminology approach helps explain terrorism sentencing in the broader historical, legal, and socio-political contexts. Ultimately, the way laws are written and how judges determine the sentences of terrorism offences result from the persistent impact of colonialism, authoritarianism, and the 'war on terror' discourse. The case study reveals violations of international human rights rules and standards. Terrorism sentencing practices also exemplify a troubling trend where national security trumps the fundamental procedural rights of terrorist offenders.
Abstract
Treating young adults (18–25 year olds) as a distinct group within the criminal justice system is receiving growing support. This article asks three specific questions. Should specialist ...young adult courts be introduced so that young age and developing maturity are considered with more consistency across court sentencing; should social background factors be taken into account when appraising culpability and have the 2019 ‘sentencing guidelines’ that give judicial direction for sentence mitigation gone far enough? The article argues significant gains in sentencing policy have been made, but a specialist young adult court model would ensure a dedicated response to this age group and would foster a shared courts working culture that pursues the common goals of rehabilitation and social pedagogic interventions.
Prior criminal record is routinely cited as one of the primary determinants of sentencing, and the common view is that prior record was a leading factor in non-guidelines jurisdictions going back ...decades. Yet, recent findings from a non-guidelines state failed to conform to this account. This study uses interviews with judges from a non-guidelines state to understand the role of prior record in sentencing in an unstructured sentencing state. This study also reexamines some of the early sentencing guidelines formation literature and finds some indications that pre-guidelines, prior record was not universally an instrumental predictor of sentence length.
In the United States, there are well-known racial, ethnic, age, and sex differences in incarceration rates. Younger offenders are more likely to be sentenced to prison than are older offenders. Black ...and Hispanic rates of incarceration are six to eight times that of White offenders and males are 14 times as likely as women to be sentenced to prison. This research explores how the combined effects of race, ethnicity, age, and sex, net of legally relevant factors, influence the decision to incarcerate. We examine these effects across nine offense categories. The analysis is based on Florida felony conviction data for the years 2000 to 2006. We find that legally relevant factors significantly influence the incarceration decision. Young Black males are most disadvantaged at the incarceration decision.
The guarantee of the right to a jury trial lies at the heart of the principles that underlie the American criminal justice system's commitment to due process of law. We investigate the differential ...sentencing of those who plead guilty and those convicted by trial in U.S. District Courts. We first investigate how much of any federal plea/trial sentencing differences are accounted for by substantial assistance to law enforcement, acceptance of responsibility, obstruction of justice, and other Guideline departures. Second, we investigate how such differences vary according to offense and defendant characteristics, as well as court caseloads and trial rates. We use federal sentencing data for fiscal years 2000-02, along with aggregate data on federal district court caseload features. We find that meaningful trial penalties exist after accounting for Guidelines-based rationales for differentially sentencing those convicted by guilty plea versus trial. Higher district court caseload pressure is associated with greater trial penalties, while higher district trial rates are associated with lesser trial penalties. In addition, trial penalties are lower for those with more substantial criminal histories, and black men. Trial penalties proportionately increase, however, as Guideline minimum sentencing recommendations increase. We also supplement our analysis with interview and survey data from federal district court participants, which provide insights into the plea reward/trial penalty process, and also suggest important dimensions of federal court trial penalties that we cannot measure.
Theoretically, people's justification of a sentencing decision involves a hybrid structure comprising retribution, incapacitation, general deterrence, and rehabilitation. In this study, a new ...ratio-type measure was developed to assess this structure and was tested to detect changes in the weighting of justification according to the content emphasized in a particular crime. Two child neglect scenarios were presented to participants, where they read either a severe-damage scenario (where a single mother's selfish neglect caused her son's death) or a moderate-damage scenario (where a single mother became apathetic due to economic deprivation and caused her child's debilitation). Participants then indicated the proportion of importance they placed on each justification in determining the defendant's punishment, with an overall proportion of 100%, along with responding to the sentence on an 11-point scale. This study involved a two-factor analysis of variance for justification ratios, a
-test for the sentence, and a multiple regression analysis with three demographic variables, the four justifications as independent variables, and the sentence as the dependent variable. The ratio of retribution to rehabilitation was reversed depending on the scenario: in the severe-damage scenario, retribution was weighted highest at 27.0% and rehabilitation was weighted at only 19.0%. By contrast, in the moderate-damage scenario, rehabilitation had the highest weighting of about 26.2%, while retribution was weighted at 21.5%. The sentence was more severe in the severe-damage scenario. Multiple regression analysis suggested that in the severe-damage scenario, most participants failed to deviate from choosing retribution by default and decided on heavier sentences, while some who considered rehabilitation and incapacitation opted for lighter sentences. The present measure succeeded in detecting changes in the weighting of justification, which can be difficult to detect with common Likert Scales. In addition, it was found that not only retribution but utilitarian justification was considered in the sentencing decisions of serious cases.
Sentencing in America, 1975–2025 Tonry, Michael
Crime and justice (Chicago, Ill.),
01/2013, Letnik:
42, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
American sentencing policy has gone through four stages in the past 50 years. Indeterminate sentencing was followed by a sentencing reform period in which policy initiatives sought to make sentencing ...fairer and more consistent, a tough on crime period in which initiatives sought to make sentences harsher and more certain, and the current period, which is hard to characterize. Most tough on crime initiatives remain in place, coexisting with rehabilitative and restorative programs that aim to individualize sentencing and programming. Social science evidence was influential in the second period and to a limited degree in the current period. Indeterminate sentencing was broadly compatible with prevailing utilitarian ideas about the purposes of punishment and the sentencing reform period was broadly compatible with retributive ideas. The initiatives of the tough on crime period are difficult to reconcile with any coherent set of normative ideas. Current sentencing policies are a crazy quilt, making it impossible to generalize about prevailing normative ideas or an “American system of sentencing.”
PDF
