Consistency of sentencing outcomes is a key aspect of the achievement of justice. There is uncertainty and disagreement about whether consistency of sentencing outcomes is achieved between locations in New Zealand. This study uses administrative data to examine the degree to which similar offenders convicted of aggravated drink driving receive similar sentences for similar offending in the different circuits of the New Zealand District Courts. Logistic regression is used to control for offence seriousness, criminal history and offender demographics in order to isolate as far as possible the influence of location on sentencing decisions. Results show that while offence seriousness and criminal history combined have the greatest influence on sentencing, location is also influential, with substantial differences between circuits in the use of incarceration.
AlbonettiCA (1991) An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems38(2): 247–266.
2.
BlackwellBSHolleranDFinnMA (2008) The impact of the Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines on sex differences in sentencing. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice24: 399–418.
3.
BondCJeffriesS (2011) Indigeneity and the judicial decision to imprison. British Journal of Criminology51: 256–277.
4.
CrowMSGertzM (2008) Sentencing policy and disparity: Guidelines and the influence of legal and democratic subcultures. Journal of Criminal Justice36: 362–371.
5.
DixonJ (1995) The organizational context of criminal sentencing. American Journal of Sociology100(5): 1157–1198.
6.
DoernerJKDemuthS (2010) The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts. Justice Quarterly27: 1–27.
7.
FearnNE (2005) A multilevel analysis of community effects on criminal sentencing. Justice Quarterly22: 452–487.
8.
FieldA (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, London: Sage Publications.
9.
FreibergAKrasnosteinS (2011) Statistics, damn statistics and sentencing. Journal of Judicial Administration21: 73–92.
10.
GigerenzerG(2006) Heuristics. In: GigerenzerGEngelC (eds) Heuristics and the Law, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 17–44.
11.
HoferPJBlackwellKRRubackRB (1999) The effect of the federal sentencing guidelines on inter-judge sentencing disparity. Criminology90(1): 239–306.
12.
JeffriesSBondC (2009) Does indigeneity matter? Sentencing indigenous offenders in South Australia’s higher courts. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology42: 47–71.
13.
JeffriesSBondC (2012) The impact of indigenous status on adult sentencing: A review of the statistical research literature from the United States, Canada, and Australia. Journal of Ethnicity and Criminal Justice10: 223–243.
14.
JeffriesSFletcherGJONewboldG (2003) Pathways to sex-based differentiation in criminal court sentencing. Criminology41: 329–354.
15.
JohnsonBD (2005) Contextual disparities in guidelines departures: Courtroom social contexts, guidelines compliance, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. Criminology43(3): 761–797.
16.
JohnsonBD (2006) The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: Integrating judge- and county-level influences. Criminology44(2): 259–298.
17.
JohnsonBD(2011) Sentencing. In: TonryM (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 696–729.
18.
JohnsonBDUlmerJTKramerJH (2008) The social context of guidelines circumvention: The case of federal district courts. American Society of Criminology46(3): 737–783.
19.
JohnsonBDvan WingerdenSNieuwbeertaP (2010) Sentencing homicide offenders in the Netherlands: Offender, victim, and situational influences on punishment. Criminology48: 981–1018.
20.
KauttPM (2002) Location, location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses. Justice Quarterly19(4): 633–671.
21.
KauttPM (2009) Heuristic influences over offense seriousness calculations: A multilevel investigation of racial disparity under sentencing guidelines. Punishment and Society11: 191–218.
22.
KauttPMSpohnCC(2007) Assessing blameworthiness and assigning punishment: Theoretical perspectives on judicial decision-making. In: DuffeeDEMaguireER (eds) Criminal Justice Theory: Explaining the Nature and Behaviour of Criminal Justice, New York: Routledge.
23.
Law Commission (2006) Sentencing Guidelines and Parole Reform, Wellington, New Zealand: Law Commission.
24.
LocalioARMargolisDJBerlinJA (2007) Relative risks and confidence intervals were easily computed indirectly from multivariable logistic regression. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology60: 874–882.
25.
MitchellO (2005) A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology21: 439–466.
26.
MyersMATalaricoSM (1987) The Social Contexts of Criminal Sentencing, New York: Springer-Verlag.
27.
New Zealand Parliament (2006) New Zealand Parliamentary Debates Volume 636, Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer.
28.
New Zealand Parliament (2007) New Zealand Parliamentary Debates Volume 640, Wellington, New Zealand: Government Printer.
29.
OstromCWOstromBJKleimanM (2004) Judges and discrimination: Assessing the theory and practice of criminal sentencing, Unpublished report prepared for the US Department of Justice.
30.
OstromCWOstromBJHansonRAKleimanM (2008) Assessing consistency and fairness in sentencing: A comparative study in three states, Unpublished report prepared for the US Department of Justice.
Sharp BA (2007) A longitudinal study of the US sentencing guidelines: A decade of balancing judicial discretion and unwarranted disparity (1993–2003). PhD thesis, University of Maryland, USA.
34.
SimonHA (1976) Administrative Behavior, 3rd edn. New York: The Free Press.
35.
SnowballLWeatherburnD (2007) Does racial bias in sentencing contribute to indigenous over representation in prison?The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology40: 272–290.
36.
SpierP (1989) An examination of regional differences in the use of custodial sentences in the District Court, Unpublished report prepared for the Department of Justice, Wellington.
37.
SpohnC (2000) Offender race and case outcomes: Do crime seriousness and strength of evidence matter?, Unpublished report prepared for US Department of Justice.
38.
SteffensmeierDDemuthS (2006) Does gender modify the effects of race-ethnicity on criminal sanctions? Sentences for male, female, White, Black, and Hispanic defendants. Journal of Quantitative Criminology22: 241–261.
39.
SteffensmeierDUlmerJKramerJ (1998) The interaction of race, gender and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black and male. Criminology36(4): 763–798.
40.
ToddPMGigernzerG(2007) Mechanisms of ecological rationality: Heuristics and environments that make us smart. In: DunbarRIMBarrettL (eds) Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 197–210.
41.
TriggsS (1999) Sentencing in New Zealand: A Statistical Analysis, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice.
42.
UlmerJT (2005) The localized uses of federal sentencing guidelines in four U.S. District Courts: Evidence of processual order. Symbolic Interaction28(2): 255–279.
43.
UlmerJT (2012) Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Quarterly29: 1–40.
44.
UlmerJTBradleyMS (2006) Variation in trial penalties among serious violent offenses. Criminology44: 631–670.
45.
UlmerJTJohnsonB (2004) Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology42(1): 137–177.
46.
von HelversenBReiskampJ (2009) Predicting sentencing for low-level crimes: Comparing models of human judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied15(4): 375–395.
47.
WeidnerRRFraseRS (2003) Legal and extralegal determinants of intercounty differences in prison use. Criminal Justice Policy Review14(3): 377–400.
48.
WeidnerRRFraseRPardoeI (2004) Explaining sentence severity in large urban counties: A multilevel analysis of contextual and case-level factors. The Prison Journal84(2): 184–207.
49.
WeidnerRRFraseRSchultzJS (2005) The impact of contextual factors on the decision to imprison in large urban jurisdictions: A multilevel analysis. Crime and Delinquency51(3): 400–424.
50.
Wiseman A and Connelly M (2008) Judicial discretion and sentencing outcomes: Incorporating data from the courtroom. Unpublished report prepared for the US Department of Justice.
