Sentencing Guideline Departures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Kaiser
Keyword(s):  
Federal Courts ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Sentencing Guideline ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Federal Judges ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Guideline System ◽  
Sentencing Outcomes

Sentencing guidelines were created with the goal of reducing unwarranted disparities in sentencing outcomes based on race, gender, and other legally irrelevant characteristics in order to establish a uniform sentencing system. In the 21st century, approximately 21 states and the federal courts use sentencing guidelines, although the types of guidelines used vary, with some more restrictive than others. With the quest to create more uniform sentences, scholars have examined whether the guidelines have actually reduced unwarranted disparities in sentencing outcomes. One area that has received attention from sentencing scholars as an avenue for the potential reintroduction of disparity into the sentencing process is the ability to sentence offenders outside of the guideline range, a practice otherwise known as “sentencing departures.” Departures from guideline sentences are either below or above the suggested guideline range for a particular offense, with most departures resulting in below guideline sentences. Both judges and prosecutors have the authority to issue departures. Within the federal sentencing guideline system, prosecutors have the sole discretion to offer substantial assistance and other types of government-sponsored downward departures. The amount of discretion given to federal judges to depart from the guidelines has changed dramatically over the years, and the use of departures has subsequently increased in recent years. Research has examined whether this increase in departures has resulted in an increase in unwarranted disparity once again. This research has primarily focused on two related questions: (1) Have departures increased disparities in sentencing outcomes based on race, ethnicity, gender, or other factors? (2) Who is most likely to receive a departure sentence? Several studies have found there to be differences in likelihood of receiving departures; with African Americans, males, and offenders charged with specific types of crimes less likely to receive downward departures. Other research, however, has further suggested that the increased use of departures may not have increased sentencing disparities based on race or ethnicity. Additionally, a new scope of research has emerged which takes a more nuanced examination of sentencing departures; looking at variations among districts, policy disagreement departures, and other considerations. Ultimately, the current body of research on the use, consequences, and implications of sentencing departures has provided some mixed findings and many questions remain unresolved. As research on departures continues, our understanding of the complex nature of sentencing decisions under guideline based systems will continue to grow.

Discretion and Disparity under Sentencing Guidelines Revisited: The Interrelationship between Structured Sentencing Alternatives and Guideline Decision-making

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah Painter-Davis ◽  
Jeffery T. Ulmer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Sentencing Guideline ◽  
Alternative Sanction ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
The Relationship

Objectives: We argue that the reasons court actors conform to or depart from sentencing guideline recommendations likely vary depending on whether the decision involves an alternative sanction or incarceration and that these reasons may have consequences for ethnoracial disparities in the sentencing of defendants and how these disparities are understood. Method: We use recent (2012–2016) Pennsylvania sentencing data to examine (1) the relationship between defendant race/ethnicity and court actors’ decisions to depart downward and upward from the guidelines and (2) whether such relationships vary depending on whether they involve an alternative sanction, namely intermediate punishments (IPs). Results: We find that the association of defendant race/ethnicity with decisions to conform to the guidelines or to depart is greatly impacted by whether the sentence involves an IP. Blacks and, to a lesser extent, Latinos experienced greater disadvantage in guideline decision-making, whether conformity or departures, when the sentence involved an IP. Conclusions: Results suggest that the integration of IP into guideline systems may have (1) mobilized ethnoracial disparities in sentencing, (2) focused the location of sentencing disparities to sentences involving IP, and (3) changed the applicability of common interpretations of guideline decisions and disparities in their imposition.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines and United States v. Booker: Social Context and Sentencing Disparity

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Nowacki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sentence Length ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Aggregate Level ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Federal Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Federal Sentencing ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Sentencing Outcomes

The United States v. Booker decision rendered Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. In the context of this decision, this study examines both the direct influence of aggregate-level political, community, and administrative variables on sentencing outcomes, and the way that such characteristics might contextualize individual-level predictors. Using multi-level regression techniques, this study examines the role of aggregate-level variables on sentence length decisions across four distinct time periods. Moreover, this article also examines whether aggregate-level variables condition the effects of race/ethnicity on sentencing outcomes. Whereas the direct effects of aggregate-level variables on sentencing outcomes are generally limited to political climate effects, there is evidence that political climate and other aggregate-level measures contextualize individual-level race/ethnicity effects. Future research should seek to better understand the specific mechanisms behind these relationships.

Understanding the Link Between Race/Ethnicity, Drug Offending, and Juvenile Court Outcomes

2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (14) ◽  
pp. 1807-1837 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Leiber ◽  
Jennifer H. Peck ◽  
Melissa Lugo ◽  
Donna M. Bishop
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Hispanic Youth ◽  
Drug Offender ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Dangerous Offender ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
The Impact ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Drug Seller

Compared with criminal sentencing decisions, limited research has assessed the impact of an imagery of a “dangerous” offender on the interrelationships between race/ethnicity and juvenile court outcomes. Applying base premises from Steen, Engen, and Gainey’s perspective concerning the dangerous drug offender stereotype, the present study examines the case outcomes of White, Black, and Hispanic youth charged with drug offenses and who match the stereotype of a “dangerous drug offender” (male drug seller with a prior record). Findings suggest that youth who fully matched the stereotype were more likely to receive harsher dispositions compared with those who have some or none of the characteristics, but the magnitude of these effects for Whites did not exceed those of Blacks and Hispanics.

Gender Effects Across Place: A Multilevel Investigation of Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Region in Sentencing

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie M. Holland ◽  
Ariane Prohaska
Keyword(s):  
Women Of Color ◽  
White Women ◽  
Geographic Region ◽  
Gender Effects ◽  
Gender Ideologies ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Using Data ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Sentencing Outcomes

Previous empirical research has indicated that women receive less punitive sentencing outcomes, compared to their male counterparts, while controlling for legally relevant case characteristics. This advantage persists at the federal level, despite the implementation of sentencing guidelines. However, drawing from the “intersectionalities” literature, it does not appear as though all women are equal beneficiaries of this courtroom leniency. Specifically, women of color are less inclined to receive sentencing benefits in response to the differential stereotyping of this demographic. Furthermore, due to differing sociohistorical contexts and gender ideologies, the influence of gender on sentencing outcomes will likely vary across place. This study contributes to the existing sentencing literature by examining whether, and to what extent, gender leniency is moderated by race/ethnicity and geographic region. Using data from the 2015 Monitoring of Federal Criminal Sentences, this study finds that women receive shorter sentence lengths than men. However, contrary to expectation, women of color receive shorter sentences than White women. Additionally, women who are adjudicated in the southern and border districts receive significantly longer sentences. These findings demonstrate the importance of contextualizing and disaggregating female criminal justice outcomes as well as the need to limit research and discourse that imply a singular shared experience among all women.

Second Looks at Sentences under the First Step Act

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-85
Author(s):  
Sarah French Russell
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Length ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Second Look ◽  
The People ◽  
The Law ◽  
Supervised Release ◽  
Federal Prisoners ◽  
Federal Judges ◽  
The Impact

Under the First Step Act of 2018, federal prisoners may now petition courts directly for reduction of their sentences, and judges may grant such requests if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” support reduction. Judges are also in the process of imposing reduced sentences in thousands of cases where the First Step Act has retroactively reduced statutory penalties. Not only does the First Step Act offer prisoners new opportunities for sentence reduction, but the law also may change how federal judges understand the impact of their sentencing decisions. Before now, in federal cases, judges rarely had the chance to take a second look at the prison sentences they (or their colleagues) imposed. Encounters between judges and the people they sentenced typically occurred only if a person violated the terms of supervised release after leaving prison. Now, judges can reassess sentence length while someone is still in prison and evaluate whether a reduction in the sentence is warranted. This newfound power allows judges to see their sentencing decisions in a new light and may influence how they conceive of the prison time they impose in future cases.

Supporting Responsive Federal Drug Sentencing Through Education in the Workshop on Science-Informed Decision Making

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-22
Author(s):  
Hon. Nancy Gertner ◽  
Dr. Judith Edersheim ◽  
Dr. Robert Kinscherff ◽  
Cassandra Snyder
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Science ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Probation Officers ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Federal Districts ◽  
Federal Judges

On the federal level, judicial education in sentencing has been focused primarily on preparing judges to calculate and apply the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. But in an advisory guidelines context, making individualized assessments in drug cases requires education in the science of addictions, the drivers of behavior, and the prospects for behavior change when substances are involved. Neuroscience and the sciences of human behavior provide clarifying insight into substance-driven behaviors and cognitions that are routinely encountered in federal drug cases. These disciplines support individualized sentencing by shedding new light on the nature of inhibitory control, the reasonable expectations for relapse, and the distinctions that can be drawn based on science between different treatment interventions. In this Article, we report on the Workshop on Science-Informed Decision Making, an education initiative in the federal judiciary. Since 2016, it has provided education in neuroscience and behavioral science, as well as skills training in individualizing sentences using insights from that science, to U.S. district judges, magistrate judges, and pretrial services and probation officers in thirty-two federal districts. We describe the case-study-based instructional approach of the workshop, including some of the misconceptions about addiction behavior it addresses, and explain why we believe that this kind of education helps federal judges, and pretrial services and probation officers, craft more responsive sentencing decisions and recommendations.

scholarly journals Disparities in ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment by Race/Ethnicity in Youth Receiving Kentucky Medicaid in 2017

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-76
Author(s):  
Deborah Winders Davis ◽  
Kahir Jawad ◽  
Yana Feygin ◽  
Liza Creel ◽  
Maiying Kong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Population Density ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Diagnosis And Treatment ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Adhd Diagnosis ◽  
Stimulant Use ◽  
Treatment Type ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
To Receive

Background: Kentucky has among the highest rate of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and stimulant use in the United States. Little is known about this use by race/ethnicity and geography. This article describes patterns of diagnosis of ADHD and receipt of stimulants and psychosocial interventions for children aged 6-17 years receiving Kentucky Medicaid in 2017 and identifies factors associated with diagnosis and treatment.Methods: Using Medicaid claims, children with and without ADHD (ICD-10 codes F90.0, F90.1, F90.2, F90.8, and F90.9) were compared and predictors of diag­nosis and treatment type were examined. Psychosocial interventions were defined as having at least one relevant CPT code. Chi-squared tests and logistic regression models were used for univariate and multivariable analysis, respectively.Results: The rates of ADHD, stimulant use, and psychosocial interventions in our study population exceeded the national aver­age (14% vs 9%; 75% vs 65.5%; and 51% vs 46.5%, respectively). The distributions varied by sex, race/ethnicity, sex among race/ethnicities, and population density. In general, race/ethnicity predicted ADHD diagnosis, stimulant use, and receipt of psy­chosocial interventions with non-Hispanic White children being more likely to receive diagnosis and medication, but less likely to receive psychosocial therapy than other children. Differences were also shown for rural compared with urban residence, sex, and sex within racial/ethnic groups.Conclusions: Diagnosis and treatment modalities differed for children by race/ ethnicity, population density, and sex. More data are needed to better understand whether differences are due to provider bias, child characteristics, or cultural varia­tions impacting the utilization of different treatment options.Ethn Dis. 2021;31(1):67- 76; doi:10.18865/ed.31.1.67

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document