The sentencing literature is replete with studies that have examined the influence of extralegal offender characteristics on two key sentence outcomes: the imprisonment and sentence length decisions. Yet the study of other outcomes, such as the application of intermediate sanctions, is rarely addressed. To date, no studies have been conducted in the federal courts to examine the potential influence of race/ethnicity, age, gender, and educational attainment on the decision to apply intermediate sanctions. Consequently, the present analysis employs U.S. Sentencing Commission data to examine direct and interactive effects of these extralegal characteristics on this understudied outcome. Findings indicate that extralegal effects may play an important role in the use of intermediate sanctions. The implications of this research are discussed in detail.
AlbonettiC. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38, 247-266.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39-55.
3.
BaumerE. P. (2013). Reassessing and redirecting research on race and sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 30, 231-261.
4.
BellairP. E.KowalskiB. R. (2011). Low-skill employment opportunity and African American-White difference in recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 48, 176-208.
5.
BramanD. (2004). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in Urban America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6.
CherlinA. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403-419.
7.
ChiricosT.EschholzS. (2002). The racial and ethnic typification of crime and the criminal typification of race and ethnicity in local television news. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 39, 400-420.
8.
ClearT. R.RoseD. R.WaringE.ScullyK. (2003). Coercive mobility and crime: A preliminary examination of concentrated incarceration and social disorganization. Justice Quarterly, 20, 33-64.
9.
DixonT. L.MaddoxK. B. (2005). Skin tone, crime news, and social reality judgments: Priming the stereotype of the dark and dangerous black criminal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1555-1570.
10.
DoernerJ.DemuthS. (2010). The independent and joint effects if race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27, 1-27.
11.
DohertyF. (2013). Indeterminate sentencing returns: The invention of supervised release. New York University Law Review, 88, 958.
12.
EngenR. L.GaineyR. R.CrutchfieldR. D.WeisJ. G. (2003). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 41, 99-130.
13.
EverettB. G.RogersR. G.HummerR. A.KruegerP. M. (2011). Trends in educational attainment by race/ethnicity, nativity, and sex in the United States, 1989–2005. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34, 1543-1566.
14.
FosterH.HaganJ. (2009). The mass incarceration of parents in America: Issues of race/ethnicity, collateral damage to children, and prisoner reentry. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623, 179-194.
15.
FranklinT. W. (2013). Sentencing native Americans in US federal courts: An examination of disparity. Justice Quarterly, 30, 310-339.
16.
FranklinT. W. (2015). Race and ethnicity effects in federal sentencing: A propensity score analysis. Justice Quarterly, 32, 653-679.
17.
FranklinT. W. (2017). Sentencing outcomes in US district courts: Can offenders’ educational attainment guard against prevalent criminal stereotypes?Crime & Delinquency, 63(2), 137–165.
18.
FraseR. S. (2000). Is guided discretion sufficient? Overview of state sentencing guidelines. St. Louis University Law Journal, 44, 425-430.
19.
FraseR. S. (2005). State sentencing guidelines: Diversity, consensus, and unresolved policy issues. Columbia Law Review, 105, 1190-1232.
20.
GaineyR. R.SteenS.EngenR. L. (2005). Exercising options: An assessment of the use of alternative sanctions for drug offenders. Justice Quarterly, 22, 488-520.
21.
HarerM. D. (1995). Prison education program participation and recidivism: A test of the normalization hypothesis. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation.
22.
HoferP. J. (2007). United States v. Booker as a natural experiment: Using empirical research to inform the federal sentencing policy debate. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 433-460.
23.
HoferP. J.MeierhoeferB. S. (1987). Home confinement: An evolving sanction in the federal criminal justice system (Vol. 87, No. 4). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
24.
JohnsonB. D.BetsingerS. (2009). Punishing the “model minority”: Asian-American criminal sentencing outcomes in federal district courts. Criminology, 47, 1045-1090.
25.
JohnsonB. D.DipietroS. M. (2012). The power of diversion: Intermediate sanctions and sentencing disparity under presumptive guidelines. Criminology, 50, 811-850.
26.
KauttP. M. (2002). Location, location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses. Justice Quarterly, 19, 633-671.
27.
KennedyR. (1997). Race, crime, and law. New York: Pantheon Books.
28.
KitchinR. M. (1994). Cognitive maps: What are they and why study them?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 1-19.
29.
MateiS.Ball-RokeachS. J.QiuJ. L. (2001). Fear and misperception of Los Angeles urban space: A spatial-statistical study of communication-shaped mental maps. Communication Research, 28, 429-463.
30.
MayD. C.WoodP. B. (2005). What influences offenders’ willingness to serve alternative sanctions?The Prison Journal, 85, 145-167.
31.
MooreN. T.MayD. C.WoodP. B. (2008). Offenders, judges, and officers rate the relative severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46, 49-70.
32.
MorrisN.TonryM. H. (1991). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
MurrayJ.FarringtonD. P.SekolI. (2012). Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 175-210.
34.
PetersiliaJ.CullenF. T. (2015). Liberal but not stupid: Meeting the promise of downsizing prisons. Stanford Journal of Criminal Law and Policy, 2, 1-44.
35.
RiosV. M. (2006). The hyper-criminalization of Black and Latino male youth in the era of mass incarceration. Souls, 8, 40-54.
36.
RobertsD. E. (2004). The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities. Stanford Law Review, 56, 1271-1305.
37.
RoseD. R.ClearT. R. (1998). Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36, 441-480.
38.
SavelsbergJ. (1992). Law that does not fit society: Sentencing guidelines as a neoclassical reaction to the dilemmas of substantivized law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1346-1381.
39.
SmithP.GogginC.GendreauP. (2002). The effects of prison sentences and intermediate sanctions on recidivism: General effects and individual differences (Rep. JS42-103/2002). Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General of Canada.
40.
SnyderT. D.DillowS. A. (2011). Digest of Education Statistics 2010 (NCES 2011-015). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
41.
SpohnC. C. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. In HorneyJ. (Ed.), Policies, process, & decisions of the criminal justice system: Criminal Justice 2000 (pp. 427-501). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
42.
SpohnC. C.HolleranD. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38, 281-306.
43.
StarrS. B.RehaviM. M. (2013). Mandatory sentencing and racial disparity: Assessing the role of prosecutors and the effects of Booker. Yale Law Journal, 123, 2-80.
44.
SteffensmeierD.DemuthS. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in US federal courts: Who is punished more harshly?American Sociological Review, 65, 705-729.
45.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ.KramerJ. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763-798.
46.
StithK.CabranesJ. A. (1998). Fear of judging: Sentencing guidelines in the federal courts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
47.
TonryM. (1996). Sentencing matters. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48.
TonryM. (1998). Intermediate sanctions in sentencing guidelines. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 199-253). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
49.
TonryM.LynchM. (1996). Intermediate sanctions. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 99-144). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
50.
TurnerS.PetersiliaJ.DeschenesE. P. (1992). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 38, 539-556.
51.
UlmerJ. T. (2001). Intermediate sanctions: A comparative analysis of the probability and severity of recidivism. Sociological Inquiry, 71, 164-193.
52.
UlmerJ. T. (2012). Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Quarterly, 29, 1-40.
53.
UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. H. (1996). Court communities under sentencing guidelines: Dilemmas of formal rationality and sentencing disparity. Criminology, 34, 383-408.
54.
UlmerJ. T.LightM. T.KramerJ. H. (2011a). The “liberation” of federal judges’ discretion in the wake of the Booker/Fanfan decision: Is there increased disparity and divergence between courts?Justice Quarterly, 28, 799-837.
55.
UlmerJ. T.LightM. T.KramerJ. H. (2011b). Racial disparity in the wake of the Booker/Fanfan decision. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 1077-1118.
56.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
57.
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (1996). Sentencing options under the guidelines. Washington, DC: Author.
58.
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2009). Alternative sentencing in the federal criminal justice system. Washington, DC: Author.
59.
Von HirschA. (1976). Doing justice: The choice of punishments. New York, NY: Hill & Wang.
60.
WeberM. (1968). Economy and society. New York, NY: Bedminster Press.
61.
WesternB. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
62.
WildemanC. (2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography, 46, 265-280.
63.
WooldredgeJ.GordonJ. (1997). Predicting the estimated use of alternatives to incarceration. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 13, 121-142.
64.
ZatzM. (2000). Convergence of race, ethnicity, and class on court decision-making: Looking toward the 21st century. In HorneyJ. (Ed.), Policies, process, & decisions of the criminal justice system: Criminal Justice 2000 (pp. 503-552). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
