The Offense-Specific Nature of Gender and Familial Responsibility in United States Federal Sentencing, 2010–2016

2021 ◽  
pp. 088740342110218
Author(s):  
Bryan Holmes ◽  
Christopher D’Amato ◽  
Stephen T. Holmes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Specific Nature ◽  
Federal Sentencing ◽  
Offense Type ◽  
Sentencing Research ◽  
Sentencing Outcomes

Prior sentencing research has identified leniency afforded to females (compared with males) and those with familial responsibility (compared with those without). Studies have also found that the effect of defendant gender, familial responsibility, and their intersections depend on the type of offense examined. What remains unclear is the situations in which these factors matter more or less. The purpose of this study is to disaggregate extralegal effects by understanding how gender, familial responsibility, and their intersections influence federal sentencing outcomes across various offense types. Findings from this study suggest that gender, familial responsibility, and their combinations exert different influences depending on the (a) dependent variable and (b) offense type examined.

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.

scholarly journals An intersectional approach to race/ethnicity, sex, and age disparity in federal sentencing outcomes: An examination of policy across time periods

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S Nowacki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Sentence Length ◽  
Least Squares Regression ◽  
Federal Sentencing ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
Changing Role ◽  
Sentencing Outcomes

Approaches to intersectionality stress the importance of recognizing multiple, intersecting inequalities. As such, recent sentencing research has examined the changing role of extra-legal characteristics on United States federal sentencing outcomes in the aftermath of recent policy changes (e.g. United States v. Booker), but scholarship has less often examined these characteristics at the intersections of race/ethnicity, gender, and, especially age. This article uses an intersectional approach to examine the influence of these characteristics net of legally relevant characteristics. Using ordinary least squares regression procedures, the author examines the role of the joint effects of extra-legal variables on sentence length decisions across four distinct time periods. Net of control variables, results indicate that young black men are the group most likely to receive the longest sentences, but interesting differences between other groups also emerge.

A Good Sentencing Precedent is Hard to Find

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 138-144
Author(s):  
Brian A. Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Significant Role ◽  
College Admissions ◽  
The Body ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Federal Sentencing

In federal criminal cases, federal law requires that judges consider the sentences other courts have imposed in factually similar matters. Courts and parties, however, face significant challenges in finding applicable sentencing precedents because judges do not typically issue written sentencing opinions, and transcripts of sentencings are not readily available in advanced searchable databases. At the same time, particularly since the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker, sentencing precedent has come to play a significant role in federal sentencing proceedings. By way of example, this article discusses recent cases involving defendants with gambling addictions, and recent cases involving college admissions or testing fraud. The article explores the ways the parties in those cases have used sentencing precedent in their advocacy, as well as the ways the courts involved have used sentencing precedent to justify their decisions. Given the important role of sentencing precedent in federal criminal cases, the article finally looks at ways in which the body of sentencing law could be made more readily available to parties and courts alike.

Seeking Criminal Justice Clarity amid Historic Chaos

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Douglas A. Berman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Racial Justice ◽  
Federal Sentencing ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
Societal Changes ◽  
Justice Systems ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Impact

The remarkable events of 2020 have disrupted and altered all sorts of plans, and this issue of FSR covers some of the many varied criminal justice and sentencing echoes of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and urgent new calls for racial justice. The intense and dynamic topics that have come to define 2020 in the United States necessarily impact, and may even consume our thinking, about modern criminal justice systems generally and federal sentencing realities in particular. Included in this FSR issue are reports and data and commentary that predate spring shutdowns and summer protests and related developments; but these materials now carry distinctive meaning and even a new urgency in light of 2020 challenges. It is impossible to fully assess in short order the impact of massive societal changes on the federal sentencing system, but we are hopeful this FSR issue can provided added perspective to a rapidly changing world that still often seems hard to fully grasp.

Misdemeanor Courts, Due Process, and Case Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (9) ◽  
pp. 1312-1339
Author(s):  
Alisa Smith ◽  
Sean Maddan
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Due Process Rights ◽  
Sentencing Research ◽  
Research And Policy ◽  
Sentencing Outcomes

Very little research on courts and sentencing outcomes focuses on misdemeanor courts despite the fact that most crime processed through the criminal justice system is misdemeanor in nature. In fact, the overwhelming empiricism in this area is on felony court outcomes at either the federal or state levels. This research utilized a mixed methodology approach, a combination of observation, survey, and secondary data, to explore misdemeanor court outcomes across the State of Florida. In particular, this research focused on the extent of due process afforded misdemeanor defendants and how this impacted case outcomes. Findings indicate an overall lack of due process and awareness of due process rights across the vast majority of cases. This study also explored sentencing outcomes via traditional metrics associated with contemporary sentencing research. Findings suggest that misdemeanor courts processing operate much differently than felony courts. The implications for future research and policy are discussed.

Sentencing in Chaos

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-137
Author(s):  
Mark H. Allenbaugh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Federal Sentencing ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Statistical Survey ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Relevant Factors

Antonin Scalia famously observed in his dissent in United States v. Booker that an advisory sentencing guidelines regime would result in a “discordant symphony” where similarly situated offenders would receive ad hoc sentences. As this article demonstrates through a statistical survey, he was right. Federal sentencing practice is in chaos. The fundamental goals of the guidelines—uniformity, proportionality, and certainty—have been undermined. Nonetheless, this does not mean the guidelines should be abandoned or a wholesale redrafting is required. As it turns out, the guidelines continue to be a useful tool, not for determining the ultimate sentence per se, but for identifying similarly situated offenders. Using the total offense level, criminal history category, and other relevant factors discussed in the article, a sentencing judge can identify those individuals within the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s datafiles matching those criteria. From there, a judge can determine various relevant statistics to consider when imposing a sentence: most importantly, the Interquartile Range (IQR). The IQR defines the central range of sentences imposed on similarly situated offenders. Sentencing within the IQR will necessarily promote the guidelines fundamental goals and thus harmonize federal sentencing. But the upshot of this approach also demonstrates that it is the sentencing table, and not the guidelines overall, that are in need of fundamental revision. This article concludes that the Commission should recalibrate the sentencing table downward to match current sentencing practice.

Looking Backward and Moving Forward

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 125-127
Author(s):  
Steven L. Chanenson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Good Thing ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
Federal Sentencing ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The World ◽  
Learning From History

We are at a notable moment to contemplate federal sentencing. Fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Booker. Just over 25 years ago, Congress passed and the President signed the 1994 Crime Bill. By looking backward and learning from history, we may be able to move forward more productively. One remarkable aspect of Booker is that it still controls federal sentencing a decade and a half later. Congress has chosen to largely leave the system as the Court refashioned it. The world is different today than it was in 2005. Yet the Booker framework – established by two essentially dueling 5-4 majorities of the Supreme Court – endures. In some ways, the most remarkable aspect of Booker at 15 is how unremarkable it appears to contemporary eyes. It is the dog that doesn’t bark – at least not much. In order to truly benefit from the lessons of our criminal justice history, we must go beyond guidelines. Just over 25 years ago, Congress spoke forcefully in the 1994 Crime Bill. It was addressing the concerns of that era with tactics that garnered wide support at the time but are not always viewed favorably today. By stopping to explore the context and consequences of two of the most significant judicial and legislative criminal justice events of the last quarter-century, lessons may emerge. That is a good thing. If we are to make mistakes again (and we will), they should be new ones. Only by understanding the past can we effectively illuminate the path forward.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document