Skip to main content
Log in

Predicting the estimated use of alternatives to incarceration

  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A greater use of sentencing alternatives to incarceration may help to reduce problems related to prison crowding and high costs of incarceration. However, a judge's ability to use these alternatives more frequently may be hindered by state sentencing policies designed to reduce judicial sentencing discretion. A study of a national random sample of 181 chief trial court judges revealed that state sentencing policies, court size, and the degree of plea bargaining in a judge's court docket are significant predictors of a judge's estimated use of alternatives to incarceration. Also, these variables are significant predictors of a judge's willingness to use alternatives for specific groups of felons constituting significant proportions of state prison populations. Consistent with the latter finding, a descriptive analysis further revealed that judges who perceive less use of alternatives for felony offenders reside predominantly in states with more crowded prisons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldrich, J., and Nelson, F. (1984).Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alschuler, A. (1983). Implementing the criminal defendant's right to trial: Alternatives to the plea bargaining system.Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 50: 931–1050.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, R., and Lilly, J. (1985). Home incarceration with electronic monitoring. In Scott, J., and Hirschi, T. (eds.).Controversial Issues in Crime and Justice, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blalock, H. (1978).Social Statistics, McGraw Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, J. (1990). The future of intensive probation supervision and the new intermediate sanctions.Crime Delinq. 36(1): 6–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper, J. (1972).Criminal Courts: The Defendant's Perspective, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diroll, D. (1989).Use of Community Corrections and the Impact of Prison and Jail Crowding on Sentencing, Ohio Governor's Office of Justice Services, Columbus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, J., and Jacob, H. (1977).Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts, Little-Brown, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M. (1975). The effects of heavy caseloads. Paper presented at the 1975 Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

  • Frank, J., Cullen, F., and Cullen, J. (1987). Sources of judicial attitudes toward criminal sanctioning.Am. J. Crime Just. 11: 151–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. (1976).Federal Courts and a Political System, Harper and Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, S. (1983). Institutional responses to prison crowding.Rev. Law Soc. Change 12: 259–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E., and Jackson, J. (1977).Statistical Methods for Social Scientists, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heumann, M. (1978).Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges and Defense Attorneys, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heumann, M., and Loftin, C. (1979). Mandatory sentencing and the abolition of plea bargaining: The Michigan Felony Firearms Statute.Law Soc. Rev. 13: 393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hograth, J. (1971).Sentencing as a Human Process, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holten, N., and Lamar, L. (1991).The Criminal Courts: Structures, Personnel, and Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. (1980). The prisoners' rights movement and its impact, 1960–1980. In Morris, N., and Tonry, M. (eds.),Crime and Justice, Vol. 2, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 429–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. (1982).Judicial Attitudes Towards Community Sentencing Options, Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services Planning and Research Branch, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski, L. (1992).Correctional Populations in the United States, 1990, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langan, P. (1991). America's soaring prison population.Science 251: 1568–1573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langbein, L., and Lichtman, C. (1978).Ecological Inference, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, M. (1980). Urban politics and policy outcomes: The criminal courts. In Cole, G. (ed.),Criminal Justice: Law and Politics, 3rd ed., Duxbury Press, North Scituate, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather, L. (1979).Plea Bargaining or Trial? The Process of Criminal Case Disposition, Lexington Books, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, W. (1985).Plea Bargaining: Critical Issues and Common Practices, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, S. (1982). Discretion in the criminal justice system: Analyzing, channeling, reducing and controlling it.Emory Law J. 31: 603–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardulli, P., Eisenstein, J., and Flemming, R. (1988).The Tenor of Justice: Criminal Courts and the Guilty Plea Process, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1982).California Summit Seminar on Prison Crowding, March 4, 5. and 6, 1982, Sacramento, California Final Report, Crocker National Bank Foundation, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, F. (1985). New Jersey's intensive supervision program: A progress report.Crime Delinq. 31: 393–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, W., and Castle, D. (1989). Alternative judicial selection devices: An analysis of Texas judges' attitudes.Judicature 73: 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, C. (1994).National Corrections Reporting Program, 1991, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J. (1985). Probation reform. In Scott, J., and Hirschi, T. (eds.),Controversial Issues in Crime and Justice, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, M., and Hawkins, G. (1981).Imprisonment in America: Choosing the Future, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, R. (1983). Desert sentencing and prison overcrowding: Some doubts and tentative answers.Rev. Law Soc. Change 12: 85–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell, T. (1993).Correctional Populations in the United States, 1991, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (1990). Stated and latent functions of ISP.Crime Delinq. 36: 174–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldredge, J. (1986).Structural and Cultural Sources of Variation in Guilty Plea Rates: A Study of Illinois Circuit Courts, Unpublished PhD dissertation. Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, Urbana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldredge, J. (1989). An aggregate-level examination of the caseload pressure hypothesis.J. Quant. Criminol. 5: 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldredge, J. (1996). Research Note: A state-level analysis of sentencing policies and inmate crowding in state prisons.Crime Delinq. 42: 456–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimring, F., and Hawkins, G. (1991).The Scale of Imprisonment, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wooldredge, J., Gordon, J. Predicting the estimated use of alternatives to incarceration. J Quant Criminol 13, 121–142 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02221305

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02221305

Key words

Navigation