This research examines factors associated with departures from sentencing guidelines for a sample of individuals convicted of sexual offenses in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2015 (N = 26,093). We contribute to the literature on the sentencing of these cases by considering whether the impact of individual and contextual factors is conditioned by the type of sexual offense being sentenced (e.g., assaultive, child pornography, failure to comply with registration). Bayesian multilevel multinomial logit models suggested a number of legal, extralegal, and contextual correlates of departure likelihood, and indicated that the effects of offense severity, prior record, a previous sex offense conviction, multiple concurrent convictions, and court size vary across different subsets of sexual convictions.
Act of Nov. 29, 2006, Pub. L. No. 1567-178, 2006 Pa. Laws.
2.
Act of Dec. 20, 2011, Pub. L. No. 446-111, 2011 Pa. Laws.
3.
AlbonettiC. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38(2), 247–266.
4.
AmiraultJ.BeauregardE. (2014). The impact of aggravating and mitigating factors on the sentence severity of sex offenders: An exploration and comparison of differences between offending groups. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(1), 78–104.
5.
BumbyK. M.MaddoxM. C. (1999). Judges’ knowledge about sexual offenders, difficulties presiding over sexual offense cases, and opinions on sentencing, treatment, and legislation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11(4), 305–315.
6.
BürknerP. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
7.
CassidyM.RydbergJ. (2018). Analyzing variation in prior record penalties across conviction offenses. Crime & Delinquency, 64(7), 831–855.
8.
CassidyM.RydbergJ. (2020). Does sentence type and length matter? Interactions of age, race, ethnicity, and gender on jail and prison sentences. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(1), 61–79.
9.
CurryT. R.Corral-CamachoG. (2008). Sentencing young minority males for drug offenses: Testing for conditional effects between race/ethnicity, gender and age during the US war on drugs. Punishment & Society, 10(3), 253–276.
10.
DeLucaJ. S.VaccaroJ.RudnikA.GrahamN.GiannicchiA.YanosP. T. (2018). Sociodemographic predictors of sex offender stigma: How politics impact attitudes, social distance, and perceptions of sex offender recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(10), 2879–2896.
11.
EisensteinJ.FlemmingR. B.NardulliP. F. (1988). The contours of justice: Communities and their courts. Little, Brown.
12.
EllmanI. M.EllmanT. (2015). Frightening and high: The supreme court’s crucial mistake about sex crime statistics. Constitutional Commentary, 30(3), 495–508.
13.
EmbryR.LyonsP. M.Jr. (2012). Sex-based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146–162.
14.
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(1), 99–130.
15.
FoxK. J. (2013). Incurable sex offenders, lousy judges & the media: Moral panic sustenance in the age of new media. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 160–181.
16.
GarlandB.WodahlE.SchuhmannR. (2013). Value conflict and public opinion toward prisoner reentry initiatives. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(1), 27–48.
17.
GelmanA.HillJ.VehtariA. (2020). Regression and other stories. Cambridge University Press.
18.
GelmanA.JakulinA.PittauM. G.SuY. S. (2008). A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2(4), 1360–1383.
19.
GelmanA.RubinD. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457–472.
20.
GriswoldD. B. (1987). Deviation from sentencing guidelines: The issue of unwarranted disparity. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15(4), 317–329.
21.
HarperC. A.BartelsR. M. (2017). The influence of implicit theories and offender characteristics on judgements of sexual offenders: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23(2), 139–150.
22.
HartleyR. D.MaddanS.SpohnC. C. (2007). Concerning conceptualization and operationalization: Sentencing data and the focal concerns perspective–A research note. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 4(1), 58–78.
23.
HesterR. (2017). Judicial rotation as centripetal force: Sentencing in the court communities of South Carolina. Criminology, 55(1), 205–235.
24.
Hilinski-RosickC. M.FreiburgerT. L.VerheekA. (2014). The effects of legal and extralegal variables on the sentences of sex offenders. Victims & Offenders, 9(3), 334–351.
25.
JohnsonB. D. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology, 41(2), 449–490.
26.
JohnsonB. D. (2005). Contextual disparities in guidelines departures: Courtroom social contexts, guidelines compliance, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43(3): 761–796.
27.
JohnsonB. D. (2014). Judges on trial: A reexamination of judicial race and gender effects across modes of conviction. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(2), 159–184.
28.
JohnsonB. D. (2019). Trials and tribulations: The trial tax and the process of punishment. Crime and Justice, 48(1), 313–363.
29.
JohnsonB. D.KurlychekM. C. (2012). Transferred juveniles in the era of sentencing guidelines: Examining judicial departures for juvenile offenders in adult criminal court. Criminology, 50(2), 525–564.
30.
JohnsonB. D.UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. H. (2008). The social context of guidelines circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46(3), 737–783.
31.
KaiserK. A.SpohnC. (2014). “Fundamentally flawed?” Exploring the use of policy disagreements in judicial downward departures for child pornography sentences. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(2), 241–270.
32.
KaiserK.SpohnC. (2018). Why do judges depart: A review of reasons for judicial departures in federal sentencing. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 19(2), 44–62.
33.
KingL. L.RobertsJ. J. (2017). The complexity of public attitudes toward sex crimes. Victims & Offenders, 12(1), 71–89.
34.
KingN. J.SouléD. A.SteenS.WeidnerR. R. (2005). When process affects punishment: Differences in sentences after guilty plea, bench trial, and jury trial in five guidelines states. Columbia Law Review, 105, 959–1009.
35.
KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (1996). Sentencing disparity and departures from guidelines. Justice Quarterly, 13(1), 81–106.
36.
KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court “corrections” to Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40(4), 897–932.
37.
KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (2009). Sentencing guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania (p. 120). Lynne Rienner Publishers.
38.
LevensonJ. S.CotterL. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49–66.
39.
LevensonJ. S.BrannonY. N.FortneyT.BakerJ. (2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 137–161.
40.
LinJ.GrattetR.PetersiliaJ. (2010). “Back-end sentencing” and reimprisonment: Individual, organizational, and community predictors of parole sanctioning decisions. Criminology, 48(3), 759–795.
41.
LynchM. (2019). Focally concerned about focal concerns: A conceptual and methodological critique of sentencing disparities research. Justice Quarterly, 36(7), 1148–1175.
42.
ManciniC.BuddK. M. (2016). Is the public convinced that “nothing works?” Predictors of treatment support for sex offenders among Americans. Crime & Delinquency, 62(6), 777–799.
43.
McElreathR. (2020). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. CRC Press.
44.
MorisonS.GreeneE. (1992). Juror and expert knowledge of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(4), 595–613.
45.
NhanJ.PolzerK.FergusonJ. (2012). “More dangerous than hitmen”: Judicial perceptions of sexual offenders. International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, 5(1), 823–836.
46.
Painter-DavisN.UlmerJ. T. (2020). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines revisited: The interrelationship between structured sentencing alternatives and guideline decision-making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 57(3), 263–293.
47.
PickettJ. T.ManciniC.MearsD. P. (2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51(3), 729–759.
48.
QuinnJ. F.ForsythC. J.Mullen-QuinnC. (2004). Societal reaction to sex offenders: A review of the origins and results of the myths surrounding their crimes and treatment amenability. Deviant Behavior, 25(3), 215–232.
49.
RobertielloG.TerryK. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(5), 508–518.
50.
RydbergJ.CassidyM.SociaK. M. (2018). Punishing the wicked: Examining the correlates of sentence severity for convicted sex offenders. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34(4), 943–970.
51.
SampleL. L.BrayT. M. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous?Criminology & Public Policy, 3(1), 59–82.
52.
SavelsbergJ. J. (1992). Law that does not fit society: Sentencing guidelines as a neoclassical reaction to the dilemmas of substantivized law. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1346–1381.
53.
SociaK. M. (2011). The policy implications of residence restrictions on sex offender housing in Upstate NY. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(2), 351–389.
54.
SociaK. M. (2012). The implementation of county residence restrictions in New York. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(2), 206–230.
55.
SociaK. M.HarrisA. J. (2016). Evaluating public perceptions of the risk presented by registered sex offenders: Evidence of crime control theater?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 375.
56.
StarkR.KentL.DoyleD. P. (1982). Religion and delinquency: The ecology of a” lost” relationship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19(1), 4–24.
57.
SteffensmeierD. J. (1980). Assessing the impact of the women’s movement on sex-based differences in the handling of adult criminal defendants. Crime & Delinquency, 26(3), 344–357.
58.
SteffensmeierD.DemuthS. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in US federal courts: Who is punished more harshly?American Sociological Review, 65(5), 705–729.
59.
SteffensmeierD.KramerJ.StreifelC. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31(3), 411–446.
60.
SteffensmeierD.Painter-DavisN.UlmerJ. (2017). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, and age on criminal punishment. Sociological Perspectives, 60(4), 810–833.
61.
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(4), 763–798.
62.
TewksburyR. (2005). Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–81.
63.
ThompsonL.RydbergJ.CassidyM.SociaK. M. (2019). Contextual influences on the sentencing of individuals convicted of sexual crimes. Sexual Abuse, 32(7), 778–805.
64.
UlmerJ. T. (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentencing guidelines. State University of New York Press.
UlmerJ. T. (2014). Mismatch of guidelines and offender danger and blameworthiness departures as policy signals from the courts. Criminology and Public Policy, 13(2), 271–280.
67.
UlmerJ. T.BaderC.GaultM. (2008). Do moral communities play a role in criminal sentencing? Evidence from Pennsylvania. The Sociological Quarterly, 49(4), 737–768.
68.
UlmerJ. T.EisensteinJ.JohnsonB. D. (2010). Trial penalties in federal sentencing: Extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Quarterly, 27(4), 560–592.
69.
UlmerJ. T.JohnsonB. D. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42(1), 137–178.
70.
UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. H. (1996). Court communities under sentencing guidelines: Dilemmas of formal rationality and sentencing disparity. Criminology, 34(3), 383–408.
71.
van BuurenS.Groothuis-OudshoornK. (2011). Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67.
72.
VehtariA.GelmanA.GabryJ. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27(5), 1413–1432.
73.
WarrenP. Y.CochranJ.ShieldsR. T.FeldmeyerB.BaileyC.StewartE. A. (2020). Sentencing departures and female defendants: Assessing the effects of racial and ethnic threat. Crime & Delinquency, 66(1), 59–92.
74.
ZevitzR. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2), 193–208.
75.
ZilneyL. J.ZilneyL. A. (2009). Perverts and predators: The making of sexual offending laws. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
