A Study of Criminal Justice Descretion (original) (raw)
Related papers
Evaluation of Judicial Characteristics and Sentencing Disparities
Academia Letters, 2021
The United States' public policy and administration have undergone significant reforms over the past half-century. In 1984, the US Sentencing Reform Act was enacted and three years later altered the sentencing guideline to account for the offender's criminal history. From a review of the literature, judicial characteristics may correlate with sentencing disparities. Racial and socioeconomic status are disparities most common in the sentencing debate today. Social and political influences may also attribute to the change in the type of sentencing disparities. Thus, this paper evaluates the scholarly literature on judicial characteristics and sentencing disparities in the American Judicial System.
A study of criminal justice discretion
Journal of Criminal Justice, 1994
Abstract This research empirically examined indicators of charging and sentence reduction and the criminal sanctions meted out to a representative sample of felons convicted in one midwestern state court. A multivariate analysis of prosecutorial and judicial discretion ...
Sentencing Reform in an Era of Racialized Mass Incarceration
2016
This statement responds to the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission’s invitation to comment on issues relating to sentencing policies and practices for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We provide the commission with a brief overview of sociological research on mass incarceration, sentencing practices, and racial/ethnic minorities’ disproportionate contact with criminal justice institutions. We focus on empirical research pertaining to potential sentencing practices, policies, and principles that may assist the commonwealth in reducing racial/ethnic sentencing disparities (G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (4)), and in so doing, promote greater respect for the law (G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (3) (B)), provide just punishment (G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (1); G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (3) (C)), and secure public safety (G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (2); G.L. c. 211 E, § 2 (3) (E)). We then draw on this research to comment on the specific topics outlined by the commission at its October 19, 2016 public hearing.
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,
Judicial Sentencing Strategies and Recidivism
The notion of punishment as a consequence for criminal behavior and its purpose as a mechanism for deterrence has long been an issue of considerable debate among members of the criminal justice system including law enforcement agencies, probation authorities, juvenile justice practitioners, and especially those of us within the judiciary. A variety of complementary and disparate perspectives and philosophies exist relative to this particular aspect of jurisprudence, but given the plethora of approaches used by the courts, it is safe to assume that there is a distinct lack of consensus about the most effectual strategies for sentencing those convicted of a crime. Two principle theories and ideologies are prevalent with regard to this aspect of jurisprudence. They have been defined within scholarly journals as the consequentialist theory and the retributive theory.
Circumventing the sentencing grid: Encouraging downward departures in presumptive prison cases
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2023
This study examines sentencing outcomes of Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) focused on reducing incarceration by encouraging downward departures to community-based sanctions in presumptive prison cases. The sample includes 3,930 defendants enrolled in the JRI program. Pre-adjudication assessment reports and a judicial settlement conference were used to help the court decide if a case warranted a departure offer. A quasi-experimental design with propensity score matching balanced JRI program defendants to 1,153 historic defendants that would have been eligible in the previous year. Logistic regressions assessed the impact of both program participation and race/ethnicity, controlling for other factors on prison versus probation sentence outcomes and sentence length in prison outcomes. On average, across all racial groups, program participants are 52% less likely to go to prison. The impact of participation on sentencing outcomes was also equitable across the race/ ethnicity of defendants. However, the program did not affect sentence length of prison outcomes.
County Level Re-Sentencing Guidelines
The sample population is composed of all offenders who were sentenced to Allegheny County jail in 2008. To understand the specific characteristics of these offenders, we collected three datasets: the 2008 sentencing data from the Commission, parole violation data from the Probation Department of Allegheny County, and the Records of Arrest and Prosecution (or-RAP-sheets‖) from the Pennsylvania State Police via the Commission.