Discretion and Disagreement: A Longitudinal Study of Departures Under Presumptive and Advisory Sentencing Guidelines

Abstract

Policy disagreements have been overlooked as a driver of departure in state sentencing guideline systems. The current study uses the relaxation of Michigan’s sentencing guidelines as a case study for investigating how increases in sentencing discretion affect the use of departures. The analysis focuses on sentencing for the highest crime classes as potential sites of policy disagreement. Results reveal a significant increase in the monthly rate of downward departure and growing variability in departure usage under advisory guidelines. Elevated downward departure rates and differences in the likelihood of downward departure by offense type point to judicial disagreement with guideline sentencing recommendations. Patterns in departure are a valuable source of feedback on guidelines that should inform routine modifications.

Keywords

sentencing guidelines departures policy disagreements interrupted time series analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bennett

M. W.

(2014). Confronting cognitive “anchoring effect” and “blind spot” biases in federal sentencing: A modest solution for reforming a fundamental flaw. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 104(3), 489–534. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jclc104&i=513

Bernal

J. L.

Cummins

Gasparrini

(2017). Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: A tutorial. International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(1), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw098

Chanenson

S. L.

Arty

(2022). Chapter 7 unfinished innovation: American sentencing guidelines. In Jeglic

Calkins

(Eds.), Handbook of issues in criminal justice reform in the United States (1st ed., pp. 113–126). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77565-0

De Boef

Keele

(2008). Taking time seriously. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00307.x

Dickey

D. A.

Fuller

W. A.

(1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531

Engen

R. L.

(2009). Assessing determinate and presumptive sentencing—Making research relevant. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(2), 323–336. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/crpp8&i=327

Frankel

M. E.

(1972). Lawlessness in sentencing. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 41(1), 1–54. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ucinlr41&i=17

Frase

R. S.

(2019). Forty years of American sentencing guidelines: What have we learned? Crime and Justice, 48, 79–135. https://doi.org/10.1086/701503

Hofer

P. J.

(2007). United States v. Booker as a natural experiment: Using empirical research to inform the federal sentencing policy debate. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00446.x

10.

Jandoc

Burden

A. M.

Mamdani

Lévesque

L. E.

Cadarette

S. M.

(2015). Interrupted time series analysis in drug utilization research is increasing: Systematic review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(8), 950–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.018

11.

Johnson

B. D.

(2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology, 41(2), 449–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00994.x

12.

Johnson

B. D.

(2005). Contextual disparities in guidelines departures: Courtroom social contexts, guidelines compliance, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43(3), 761–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00023.x

13.

Johnson

B. D.

Ulmer

J. T.

Kramer

J. H.

(2008). The social context of guidelines circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46(3), 737–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00125.x

14.

Kaiser

K. A.

Spohn

(2014). Fundamentally flawed? Exploring the use of policy disagreements in judicial downward departures for child pornography sentences. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(2), 241–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12082

15.

Kaiser

K. A.

Spohn

(2018). Why do judges depart? A review of reasons for judicial departures in federal sentencing. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 19(2), 44–62. https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/3790-why-do-judges-depart-a-review-of-reasons-for-judicial-departures-in-federal-sentencing

16.

Knapp

K. A.

Hauptly

D. J.

(1991). State and federal sentencing guidelines: Apples and oranges. U.C. Davis Law Review, 25(3), 679–694. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/davlr25&i=689

17.

Kramer

J. H.

Ulmer

J. T.

(1996). Sentencing disparity and departures from guidelines. Justice Quarterly, 13(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829600092831

18.

Kramer

J. H.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court “corrections” to Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40(4), 897–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00977.x

19.

Kramer

J. H.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2009). Sentencing guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania. Lynne Rienner Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781588269188

20.

Levine

Mahar

Smith

(2021). Do Michigan’s sentencing guidelines meet the legislative goals? A historical and empirical analysis of prison terms for life-maximum offenses. https://www.safeandjustmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Do_Michigans_Sentencing_Guidelines_Meet_The_Legislatures_Goals.pdf

21.

Michigan Department of State. (2016). 2014 Michigan official general election results—11/04/2014. https://mielections.us/election/results/14GEN/

22.

Michigan Judicial Institute. (2022). State of Michigan sentencing guidelines manual. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/publications/felony-sentencing-resources/sentencing-guidelines-manuals/

23.

Michigan Judicial Institute. (2023). Criminal proceedings benchbook (Vol. 2, Revised ed.). https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4a4835/siteassets/publications/benchbooks/criminal/crimv2.pdf

24.

Michigan Sentencing Commission. (1997). Report of the Michigan sentencing guidelines commission.

25.

Mustard

D. B.

(2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. federal courts. The Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285–314. https://doi.org/10.1086/320276

26.

Nemes

Jonasson

J. M.

Genell

Steineck

(2009). Bias in odds ratios by logistic regression modelling and sample size. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-56

27.

Ostrom

B. J.

Ostrom

C. W.

Hanson

R. A.

Kleiman

(2008). Assessing consistency and fairness in sentencing: A comparative study in three states (NCJ Number 223854). https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/assessing-consistency-and-fairness-sentencing-comparative-study-three-states

28.

Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (Robina Institute). (2018). Jurisdiction profile: Tennessee. Retrieved on December 10, 2022, from https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/sites/robinainstitute.umn.edu/files/2022-05/Tennessee%20SGRC%20Profile%202018.pdf

29.

Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (Robina Institute). (2022a). Sentencing guidelines resource center: In-depth jurisdiction profiles. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. Retrieved on December 10, 2022, from https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/sentencing-guidelines-resource-center-depth-jurisdiction-profiles

30.

Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (Robina Institute). (2022b). Comparing key elements of guidelines systems. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. Retrieved February 4, 2023, from https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/comparing-key-elements-guidelines-systems

31.

Smith

J. M.

Smith

(2019). Sentencing and the iron cage: Judges’ experiences with rationalization. Journal of Crime and Justice, 42(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2018.1515100

32.

Spohn

Fornango

(2009). U.S. attorneys and substantial assistance departures: Testing for interprosecutor disparity. Criminology, 47(3), 813–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00163.x

33.

Stein

Drouin

(2017). Cognitive bias in the courtroom: Combating the anchoring effect in criminal sentencing. Social Science Research Network (SSRN). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2991611

34.

Stith

(2008). The arc of the pendulum: Judges, prosecutors, and the exercise of discretion. Yale Law Journal, 117(7), 1420–1497. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ylr117&i=1433

35.

Stolzenberg

D’Alessio

S. J.

(1994). Sentencing and unwarranted disparity: An empirical assessment of the long-term impact of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota. Criminology, 32(2), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01156.x

36.

Tonry

(1993). The failure of the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s guidelines. Crime & Delinquency, 39(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128793039002001

37.

Travis

Western

Redburn

(2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18613

38.

Turner

S. L.

Forbes

A. B.

Karahalios

Taljaard

McKenzie

J. E.

(2021). Evaluation of statistical methods used in the analysis of interrupted time series studies: A simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21(1), 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01364-0

39.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2012). Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Quarterly, 29(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.624115

40.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2014). Mismatch of guidelines and offender danger and blameworthiness departures as policy signals from the courts. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(2), 271–280. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/crpp13&i=281

41.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2019). Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. Crime and Justice, 48, 483–522. https://doi.org/10.1086/701504

42.

Ulmer

J. T.

Eisenstein

Johnson

B. D.

(2010). Trial penalties in federal sentencing: Extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Quarterly, 27(4), 560–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902998063

43.

Ulmer

J. T.

Johnson

B. D.

(2017). Organizational conformity and punishment: Federal court communities and judge-initiated guidelines departures. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 107(2), 253–292. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48572141

44.

Ulmer

J. T.

Kramer

J. H.

(1998). The use and transformation of formal decision-making criteria: Sentencing guidelines, organizational contexts, and case processing strategies. Social Problems, 45(2), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.2307/3097246

45.

Ulmer

J. T.

Light

M. T.

Kramer

J. H.

(2011). 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(6), 799–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.553726

46.

United States Sentencing Commission. (2006). Final report on the impact of United States v. Booker on federal sentencing. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/submissions/200603-booker/Booker_Report.pdf

47.

United States Sentencing Commission. (2012). 2012 report to the Congress: Continuing impact of United States v. Booker on federal sentencing. https://www.ussc.gov/research/congressional-reports/2012-report-congress-continuing-impact-united-states-v-booker-federal-sentencing

48.

Alleyne v. United States, 570 US 99, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013).

49.

Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296 (2004).

50.

Gall v. United States, 552 US 38 (2007).

51.

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 US 85 (2007).

52.

People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 365 n 1, 391-392 (2015).

53.

People v. Odom, 327 Mich App 297, 315-316 (2019).

54.

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2006 Ohio 856, 845 N.E.2d 470 (2006).

55.

United States v. Booker, 543 US 220 (2005).