CONCEPTUALIZING LEGALLY RELEVANT FACTORS UNDER GUIDELINES: A REPLY TO ULMER (original) (raw)
Related papers
Criminology, 2000
Studies of sentencing in jurisdictions with sentencing guidelines have generally failed to specify adequately the effects of offense seriousness and criminal history-the principal factors that, by law, should determine sentencing decisions. As a result, the explanatory power of those models is seriously limited, and regression coefficients representing both legal and extralegal factors may be biased. We present an alternative approach to specify more precisely the effects of legally relevant factors on sentencing outcomes and test the approach using felony sentencing data from Washington State. We find that controlling for the presumptive sentence substantially improves the fit and explanatory power of models predicting sentencing decisions, and that the estimated effects of extralegal factors, specifically sex and race, reduce considerably. The findings have both substantive and methodological implications.
Criminology, 2000
Rodney Engen and Randy Gainey's research note (provided in this issue) makes a real and significant contribution to the literature on the quantitative measurement and modeling of sentencing outcomes under guidelines. They identify an important problem that has received insufficient attention. Most analyses of incarceration decisions and sentence lengths under sentencing guidelines rely on those guidelines' measures of offense severity and prior record, which in turn combine to determine the guidelines' sentence recommendations. Offense severity and prior record are typically (but not alwaysl) included as linear, additive predictors of incarceration (known as the "in/out" decision) or sentence length. Engen and Gainey correctly point out that, given the structure of most guideline systems, the effects of offense severity and prior record on sentencing outcomes are bound to be nonlinear and nonadditive. They argue further that, in fact, we sentencing researchers have overlooked a much better tool for measuring the effect of legally prescribed, guidelinerelevant influences on sentencing-the presumptive sentence recommendation itself. To illustrate their point, they use guidelines sentencing data from Washington State. The heart of their analysis compares ordinary least-squares (OLS) models of sentence length that include traditional offense severity and prior record measures, an offense severity*prior record interaction term, blocks of dummy variables for offense severity levels and prior record scores, and, finally, the presumptive sentence (see their ). Consistent with their argument, the best-fitting model is the one with the presumptive sentence (operationalized as the midpoint of the relevant guideline-prescribed sentence range). When it comes to modeling sentences under guidelines, they claim, "the rules have changed."
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 2006
Contemporary research on criminal sentencing has analyzed sentencing under numerous sentencing policies, yet the effect of sentencing policy on outcomes and disparity is not known. A variety of sentencing guidelines systems, one of the more common sentencing policies, exists throughout the country. In addition, recent Supreme Court decisions regarding sentencing guidelines are likely to produce alterations to several state sentencing policies over the next few years. Using data from the state of Florida, the current study examines the effects of policy transformation on sentencing disparity within the focal concerns of sentencing perspective. The authors view sentencing guidelines as a practical constraint on sentencing decisions that influence other key variables. The results indicate that sentencing policy transformation has an important effect on both sentencing decisions and on the factors that shape those decisions. The findings suggest that future sentencing research and theoretical development would benefit from incorporating measures of policy differences in its analyses. t Direct all correspondence to: Matthew S. Crow, University of West Florida, Division of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies,
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND THE LEGAL THREAT TO PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCING GUIDELINES
Criminology & Public Policy, 2007
The general tone of articles by policy makers is satisfaction that presumptive sentencing, as practiced in the United States, although threatened, has not been greatly damaged by Blakely v. Washington and related cases. Sentencing research, because it usually does not consider how discretion operates before and after the sentencing stage, does not actually provide an empirical basis for such satisfaction. Illustrations from several jurisdictions show that the presumptive sentence guidelines may not have been as effective at reducing discretion and disparity as policy makers seem to believe. In addition, the policy choices embedded in the sentencing grid itself can contribute to disparity, and the grid can and should be analyzed to assess its role.
2000
This study examines the separate impacts of Federal sentencing guidelines and Federal mandatory minimum statutes in reducing sentencing disparity, particularly disparity due to extralegal factors such as the race of the offender. The research strategy entailed the partitioning and analysis of the 1992 U.S. Sentencing Commission's sentencing data, first by specific offense type and then by specific mandatory minimum statute. The intent of this design was to determine whether or not there are differences in the sentences meted out under mandatory minimum statutes compared to guideline statutes. Findings support the two hypotheses that the significant predictors of imprisonment will vary significantly by offense type and specific statute. Findings also support the hypothesis that defendant race is a significant predictor of sentence length but not of incarceration in the general offense model. The hypothesis that race and other extralegal factors would be stronger predictors of sentence outcomes in mandatory-minimum than in guideline cases, however, was refuted by the findings. Partial support was found for the hypothesis that predicted the effect of race would be greater for mandatory minimum drug offenses than for other mandatory minimums. Extensive tabular data and 200 references
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2012
There is a debate about whether advisory non-binding sentencing guidelines affect the sentences outcomes of individuals convicted in jurisdictions with this sentencing framework. Identifying the impact of sentencing guidelines is a difficult empirical problem because court actors may have preferences for sentencing severity that are correlated with the preferences that are outlined in the guidelines. But, in Maryland, ten percent of the recommended sentences computed in the guideline worksheets contain calculation errors. We use this unique source of quasi-experimental variation to quantify the extent to which sentencing guidelines influence policy outcomes. Among drug offenses, we find that the direct impact of the guidelines is roughly ½ the size of the overall correlation between recommendations and outcomes. For violent offenses, we find the same ½ discount for sentence recommendations that are higher than they should have been, but more responsiveness to recommendations that are too low. We find no evidence that the guidelines themselves directly affect discretion for property offenders, perhaps because judges generally have substantial experience with property cases and therefore do not rely on the errant information. Sentences are more sensitive to both accurate and inaccurate recommendations for crimes that occur less frequently and have more complicated sentencing. This suggests that when the court has more experience, the recommendations have less influence. More tentative findings suggest that, further down the decision chain, parole boards counteract the remaining influence of the guidelines.