Is the Offense Serious Axis Free of Extralegal Influence?: Assessing the Predictors of a ‘Legally Relevant’ Guideline Criterion

Article

Abstract

Grid based sentencing guidelines, composed of offense seriousness and offender criminal history axis, have become a staple of US sentencing in recent decades. As such, extensive research explores whether they reduce extralegal sentence disparity. However, to date, no study has examined whether extralegal disparity is present in how either axis of guideline sentencing are constructed. Using federal sentencing commission data along with both single and multi-level analyses, this research explores the legal and extralegal factors that predict one of these key grid axes: the offense seriousness score. The results call into question not only some assumptions underlying guideline sentencing but also recent analytical strategies for assessing sentencing outcomes in guideline systems.

Keywords

Sentencing guidelines Offense seriousness Extralegal disparity 

References

  1. Albonetti, C. A. (1986). Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: Theory of discretionary decision-making in felony.Google Scholar
  2. Albonetti, C. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albonetti, C. A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses. Law and Society Review, 31(4), 789–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AOUSC (2001). Court and community: The U.S. Probation and pretrial services system. In U. P. a. P. Services (Ed.), Administrative Office of the US Courts.Google Scholar
  5. Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Stamford, CT: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  6. Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority group relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Bridges, G., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 554–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bushway, S. D., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law & Society Review, 35(4), 733–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cosgrove, E. J. (1994). Robo-po: The life and times of a federal probation officer. Federal Probation, 58(3), 29–30.Google Scholar
  10. D’Anca, A. R. (2001). Role of the federal probation officer in the guidelines sentencing system. Federal Probation, 65(3), 20–23.Google Scholar
  11. Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1981). Several tests for model specification in the presence of alternative hypotheses. Econometrica, 49(3), 781–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon, J. (1995). The organizational context of criminal court sentencing. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1157–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H. (1991). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  14. Engen, R. L., & Gainey, R. R. (2000a). Conceptualizing legally relevant factors under guidelines: A reply to Ulmer. Criminology, 38(4), 1245–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engen, R. L., & Gainey, R. R. (2000b). Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: The rules have changed. Criminology, 38(4), 1207–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engen, R., Gainey, R., Crutchfield, R., & Weis, J. (2003). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 41(1), 99–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Everett, R. S., & Nienstedt, B. C. (1999). Race, remorse, and sentence reduction: Is saying you’re sorry enough? Justice Quarterly, 26(1), 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fearn, N. E. (2005). A multilevel analysis of community effects on criminal sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 22(4), 452–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frankel, M. E. (1973). Criminal sentences: Law without order. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  20. Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, A. (2007). Diverting and abdicating judicial discretion: Cultural, political, and procedural dynamics in California juvenile justice. Law and Society Review, 41(2), 387–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofer, P. J., Loeffler, C., Blackwell, K., & Valentino, P. (2004). Fifteen years of guideline sentencing: An assessment of how well the federal criminal justice system is achieving the goals of sentencing reform. In U. S. S. Commission (Ed.) (pp. 246): United States Sentencing Commission.Google Scholar
  23. Hoffman, P. D. (2003). History of the federal parole system (pp. 83): US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  24. Holleran, D., & Spohn, C. (2004). On the use of the total incarceration variable in sentencing research. Criminology, 42(1), 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, B. D. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology, 41(2), 449–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kautt, P. (2002). Location, location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 633–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kautt, P. M., & DeLone, M. A. (2006). Sentencing outcomes under competing but coexisting sentencing interventions: Untying the Gordian knot. Criminal Justice Review, 31(2), 105–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kautt, P., & Spohn, C. (2002). Cracking down on black drug offenders? Testing for interactions between offender race, drug type, and sentencing strategy in federal drug sentences. Justice Quarterly, 19(1).Google Scholar
  29. Kautt, P. M., & Spohn, C. C. (2007). Assessing blameworthiness and assigning punishment: Theoretical perspectives on judicial decision making. In D. E. Duffee, & E. R. Maguire (Eds.), Criminal justice theory: Explaining the nature and behavior of criminal justice (pp. 155–180). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Klepper, S., Nagin, D., & Tierney, L. (1983). Discrimination in the criminal justice system - a critical appraisal of the literature. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, S. E. Martin, & M. H. Tonry (Eds.), Research on sentencing - the search for reform (pp. 55–128). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. LaFree, G. D. (1985). Official reactions to Hispanic defendants in the southwest. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 213–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. LaFrentz, C. D., & Spohn, C. (2006). Who is punished more harshly in federal court? The interaction of race/ethnicity, gender, age, and employment status in the sentencing of drug offenders. Justice Research and Policy, 8(2), 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawrence, P. B., & Hofer, P. J. (1992). An empirical study of the application of the relevant conduct guideline. Federal Setencing Reporter, 4, 330–334.Google Scholar
  34. Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1980). Applied regression: An introduction, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Lukacs, G. (1971). History and class consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. MacKinon, J., White, H., & Davidson, R. (1983). Tests for model specification in the presence of alternative hypotheses: Some further results. Journal of Econometrics, 21, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maveal, G. M. (1996). Federal presentence reports: Multi-tasking at sentencing. Seton Hall Law Review, 26, 544–596.Google Scholar
  38. Miethe, T. (1987). Charging and plea-bargaining under determinate sentencing: The hydraulic displacement of discretion. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78(1), 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller, L. L., & Eisenstein, J. (2005). The federal/state criminal prosecution nexus: A case study in cooperation and discretion. Law and Social Inquiry, 30(2), 239–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moerbeck, M. (2004). The consequence of ignoring a level of nesting in multilevel analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moore, C. A., & Miethe, T. D. (1986). Regulated and unregulated sentencing decisions: An analysis of first year practices under Minnesota’s felony sentencing guidelines. Law and Society Review, 20(2), 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nagel, I. H., & Schulhofer, S. J. (1992). A tale of three cities: An empirical study of charging and bargaining practices under the federal sentencing guidelines. Southern California Law Review, 66(1), 501–566.Google Scholar
  43. Parker, K. F., & Maggard, S. R. (2005). Structural theories and race-specific drug arrests: What structural factors account for the rise in race-specific drug arrests over time? Crime and Delinquency, 51(4), 521–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, vol. 1 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Ruback, R. B., Ruth, G. R., & Shaffer, J. N. (2005). Assessing the impact of statutory change: A statewide multilevel analysis of restitution orders in Pennsylvania. Crime and Delinquency, 51(3), 318–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruback, R. B., & Wroblewski, J. (2001). The federal sentencing guidelines: Psychological and policy reasons for simplification. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7(4), 739–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rubin, A. B., & Bartell, L. B. (1989). Law clerk handbook (No. FJC-M-89-2). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
  48. Sabol, W. J. (1989). Racially disproportionate prison populations in the united states: An overview of historical patterns and review of contemporary issues. Contemporary Crises, 13, 405–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spohn, C., & Cederblom, J. (1991). Race and disparities in sentencing: A test of the liberation hypothesis. Justice Quarterly, 8(3), 305–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spohn, C., Gruhl, J., & Welch, S. (1981–2). The effects of race on sentencing: A re-examination of an unsettled question. Law and Society Review, 16(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Steen, S., Engen, R. L., & Gainey, R. R. (2005). Images of danger and culpability: Racial stereotyping, case processing and criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43(2), 435–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomas, R. L. (1982). Court-prosecutor-probation officer: When is discretion disparity in the criminal justice system? Federal Probation, 46, 57–62.Google Scholar
  54. Tonry, M. H. (1987). Sentencing reform impacts. Washington, DC.: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  55. Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Ulmer, J. T. (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentencing guidelines. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ulmer, J. T. (2000). The rules have changed-so proceed with caution: A comment on Engen and Gainey’s method for modeling sentencing outcomes under guidelines. Criminology, 38(4), 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ulmer, J. T. (2005). The localized uses of federal sentencing guidelines in four U.S. District courts: Evidence of processual order. Symbolic Interaction, 28(2), 255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42(1), 137–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. USSC (1991). The federal sentencing guidelines: A report on the operation of the guidelines system and short-term impacts on disparity in sentencing, use of incarceration, and prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining. Washington, DC: US Sentencing Commission.Google Scholar
  61. USSC (1999). United states sentencing commission, guidelines manual, §3e1.1 (nov. 1999). In U. S. S. Commission (Ed.).Google Scholar
  62. USSC (2000). United states sentencing commission, guidelines manual, §3e1.1 (nov. 2000). In U. S. S. Commission (Ed.).Google Scholar
  63. USSC (2001). United states sentencing commission, guidelines manual, §3e1.1 (nov. 2001). In U. S. S. Commission (Ed.).Google Scholar
  64. USSC (2002). United states sentencing commission guidelines manual, §3e1.1 (nov. 2002). In U. S. S. Commission (Ed.).Google Scholar
  65. Wilmot, K. A., & Spohn, C. (2004). Prosecutorial discretion and real-offense sentencing: An analysis of relevant conduct under the federal sentencing guidelines. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15(3), 324–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wooldredge, J., & Griffin, T. (2005). Displaced discretion under Ohio sentencing guidelines. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(4), 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of CriminologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations