Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Sentencing reforms are often presumed to be negatively received by the judiciary, although there is little research directly examining why this is the case. In this article, results from a survey of Ohio judges who recently experienced a major sentencing reform (Ohio's Senate Bill 2) are examined. A number of important findings emerge, including that a slight majority of judges favors the reform overall, despite opposition to specific features of the legislation. There is also evidence that judges who are personally unfavorable toward Senate Bill 2 assume that the majority of judges share their disfavor, whereas judges who favor the bill are more realistic in their perceptions of others' assessments. Chi-square analysis and principal components analysis show that general disfavor of Senate Bill 2 is associated with concerns about loss of judicial authority but that many judges who favor the bill believe it can promote greater equity in sentencing.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alschuler, A. W. , & Schulhofer, S. J. (1989). Judicial impressions of the sentencing guidelines. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 2, 94-99.

Cullen, F. , & Gilbert, K. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Diroll, D. (1997). Ohio adopts determinate sentencing. In M. Tonry & K. Hatlestad (Eds.), Sentencing reform in overcrowded times (pp. 110-114). New York: Oxford.

Diroll, D. , Rauschenberg, F. , Hawkins, C. , & Ward, C. (1996). Felony sentencing manual. Columbus: Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission.

Federal Courts Study Committee . (1990). Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee. Washington, DC: Administrative Offices of the Federal Courts.

Federal Judicial Center . (1994). Planning for the future: Results of a 1992 Federal Judicial Center survey of United States judges. Washington, DC: Author.

Johnson, M. T. , & Gilbert, S. A. (1997). The U.S. sentencing guidelines: Results of the Federal Judicial Center's 1996 survey. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.

Kauder, N. B. , Ostrom, B. J. , Peterson, M. , & Rottman, D. (1997). Sentencing commission profiles. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.

Knapp, K. A. (1993). Allocation of discretion and accountability within sentencing structures. University of Colorado Law Review, 64, 679-705.

10.

Knapp, K. A. , & Hauptley, D. J. (1989). U.S. sentencing guidelines in perspective: A theoretical background and overview. In D. J. Champion (Ed.), The U.S. sentencing guidelines: Implications for criminal justice (pp. 3-17). New York: Praeger.

11.

Loftin, C. , & Heumann, M. (1979). Mandatory sentencing and abolition of plea bargaining: The Michigan Felony Firearms Statute. Law and Society Review, 13, 393-430.

12.

Miethe, T. D. , & Moore, C. A. (1988). Officials' reactions to sentencing guidelines. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25(2), 170-187.

13.

Nagel, I. H. , & Schulhofer, S. J. (1992). A tale of three cities: An empirical study of charging and bargaining under the federal sentencing guidelines. Southern California Law Review, 66, 501-566.

14.

Norton, L. (1999). A comparison of 1996 and 1997 intake study findings. Columbus: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

15.

Rauschenberg, F. (1999). Monitoring sentencing reform. Columbus: Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission.

16.

Reitz, K. R. (1993). Sentencing reform in the states: An overview of the Colorado Law Review Symposium. University of Colorado Law Review, 64, 645-654.

17.

Stith, K. , & Cabranes, J. A. (1998). Fear of judging: Sentencing guidelines in the federal courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

18.

Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Oxford.

19.

Tonry, M. H. (1987). Sentencing reform impacts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

20.

United States Sentencing Commission . (1991). The federal sentencing guidelines: A report on the operations of the guidelines system and short term impacts on disparity in sentencing, use of incarceration, and prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining. Washington, DC: Author.

21.

United States Sentencing Commission . (1998). Sentencing guidelines manual. Washington, DC: Author.

22.

Wicharaya, T. (1995). Simple theory, hard reality: The impact of sentencing reforms on courts, prisons, and crime. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Judges' Reactions to Sentencing Reform in Ohio

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References