Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-5
Discretion and Disparity under Sentencing Guidelines Revisited: The Interrelationship between Structured Sentencing Alternatives and Guideline Decision-making
We argue that the reasons court actors conform to or depart from sentencing guideline recommendations likely vary depending on whether the decision involves an alternative sanction or incarceration and that these reasons may have consequences for ethnoracial disparities in the sentencing of defendants and how these disparities are understood.
Method:
We use recent (2012–2016) Pennsylvania sentencing data to examine (1) the relationship between defendant race/ethnicity and court actors’ decisions to depart downward and upward from the guidelines and (2) whether such relationships vary depending on whether they involve an alternative sanction, namely intermediate punishments (IPs).
Results:
We find that the association of defendant race/ethnicity with decisions to conform to the guidelines or to depart is greatly impacted by whether the sentence involves an IP. Blacks and, to a lesser extent, Latinos experienced greater disadvantage in guideline decision-making, whether conformity or departures, when the sentence involved an IP.
Conclusions:
Results suggest that the integration of IP into guideline systems may have (1) mobilized ethnoracial disparities in sentencing, (2) focused the location of sentencing disparities to sentences involving IP, and (3) changed the applicability of common interpretations of guideline decisions and disparities in their imposition.
AlbonettiCelesta A.1997. “Sentencing under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Effects of Defendant Characteristics, Guilty Pleas, and Departures on Sentence Outcomes for Drug Offenses, 1991-1992.” Law and Society Review31:789–821.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJames. 2003. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
3.
BoernerDavidLiebRoxanne. 2001. “Sentencing Reform in the Other Washington.” Crime and Justice28:71–138.
4.
BridgesGeorge S.SteenSara. 1998. “Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms.” American Sociological Review63:554–70.
5.
CirilloVincent A.1986. “Windows for Discretion in the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines.” Villanova Law Review31:1309–49.
6.
ClearTodd R.FrostNatasha A.. 2014. The Punishment Imperative. New York: New York University Press.
7.
EngenRodney L.GaineyRandy R.CrutchfieldRobert D.WeisJoseph G.. 2003. “Discretion and Disparity under Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Departures and Structured Sentencing Alternatives.” Criminology41:99–130.
8.
EwingSally. 1987. “Formal Justice and the Spirit of Capitalism: Max Weber’s Sociology of Law.” Law and Society Review21:487–512.
9.
FraseRichard S.2013. Just Sentencing: Principles and Procedures for a Workable System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
FraseRichard S.2019. “Forty Years of American Sentencing Guidelines: What Have We Learned?” Crime and Justice48:79–135.
11.
GaineyRandy R.SteenSaraEngenRodney. 2005. “Exercising Options: An Assessment of the Use of Alternative Sanctions for Drug Offenders.” Justice Quarterly22:488–520.
12.
HogarthJohn. 1971. Sentencing as a Human Process. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
13.
JohnsonBrian D.2003. “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Sentencing Departures across Modes of Conviction.” Criminology41:449–90.
14.
JohnsonBrian D. 2005. “Contextual Disparities in Guideline Departures: Courtroom Social Contexts, Guideline Compliance, and Extralegal Disparities in Criminal Sentencing.” Criminology43:761–96.
15.
JohnsonBrian D.DipietroStephanie M.. 2012. “The Power of Diversion: Intermediate Sanctions and Sentencing Disparity under Presumptive Guidelines.”Criminology50:811–50.
16.
JohnsonBrian DUlmerJeffery T.KramerJohn H.. 2008. “The Social Context of Guidelines Circumvention: The Case of Federal District Courts.” Criminology46:737–83.
17.
KaiserKimberly A.SpohnCassia. 2014 “‘Fundamentally Flawed?’ Exploring the Use of Policy Disagreements in Judicial Downward Departures for Child Pornography Sentences.” Criminology and Public Policy13:271–81.
18.
KingRyan D.LightMichael T.. 2019. “Have Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Sentencing Declined?” in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Vol. 48, edited by TonryM. H.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
KramerJohn H.SciricaAnthony J. 1986. “Complex Policy Choices: The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.” Federal Probation50:15–23.
20.
KramerJohn H.SteffensmeierDarrell. 1993. “Race and Imprisonment Decisions.” The Sociological Quarterly34:357–76.
21.
KramerJohn H.UlmerJeffery T.. 1996. “Sentencing Disparity and Departures from Guidelines.” Justice Quarterly13:81–106.
22.
KramerJohn H.UlmerJeffery T.. 2002. “Downward Departures for Serious Violent Offenders: Local Court “Corrections” to Pennsylvania’s Sentencing Guidelines.” Criminology40:897–932.
MacKenzieDoris L.FarringtonDavid P.. 2015. “Preventing Future Offending of Delinquents and Offenders: What We Have Learned from Experiments and Meta-analyses?” Journal of Experimental Criminology11:565–95.
25.
MitchellOjmarrh. 2005. “A Meta-analysis of Race and Sentencing Research: Explaining the Inconsistencies.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology21:439–66.
26.
MooreCharles A.MietheTerence D. 1986. “Regulated and Unregulated Sentencing Decisions: An Analysis of First Year Practices under Minnesota’s Felony Sentencing Guidelines.” Law and Society Review20:253–77.
27.
MorrisNorvalTonryMichael. 1990. Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System. New York: New York University Press.
28.
MustardDavid B.2001. “Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts.” Journal of Law and Economics44:285–315.
29.
NagelIlene H.1990. “Structuring Sentencing Discretion: The New Federal Sentencing Guidelines.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology80:883–943.
30.
Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. 2012. Sentencing Guidelines Implementation Manual. 7th ed. State College, PA: Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.
31.
PhelpsMichelle. 2013. “The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration.” Law Policy35:51–80.
SavelsbergJoachim J.1992. “Law That Does Not Fit Society: Sentencing Guidelines as a Neoclassical Reaction to the Dilemmas of Substantivized Law.” American Journal of Sociology97:1346–81.
34.
SpohnCassia. 2000. “Thirty Years of Sentencing Reform: The Quest for a Racially Neutral Sentencing Process.” Criminal Justice: The National Institute of Justice Journal4:427–501.
35.
SpohnCassiaBrennanPauline K.. 2011. “The Joint Effects of Offender Race/Ethnicity and Gender on Substantial Assistance Departures in Federal Court.” Race and Justice1:49–78.
36.
SteffensmeierDarrellPainter-DavisNoah. 2018. “Focal Concerns Theory as a Conceptual Tool for Studying Intersectionality in Sentencing Disparities: Focus on Gender and Race along with Age.” Pp. 189–210 in Punishment Decisions: Locations of Disparity, the ASC Division on Corrections and Sentencing’s Handbook on Corrections and Sentencing. Vol. 2, edited by UlmerJ. T.BradleyM.. New York: Routledge.
37.
SteffensmeierDarrellUlmerJeffreyKramerJohn. 1998. “The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black, and Male.” Criminology36:763–97.
38.
SteffensmeierDarrellKramerJohnUlmerJeffrey. 1995. “Age Differences in Sentencing.” Justice Quarterly12:583–602.
39.
SteffensmeierDarrellPainter-DavisNoahUlmerJeffery. 2017. “Intersectionality of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Age on Criminal Punishment.” Sociological Perspectives60:810–33.
40.
TonryMichael. 1998. “Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines.” Crime and Justice23:199–253.
41.
TonryMichael. 2019. “Preface.” Pp. vii–viii in American Sentencing. What Happens and Why? Vol. 48. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
42.
UlmerJeffrey. 1997. Social Worlds of Sentencing: Court Communities under Sentencing Guidelines. Albany: State University of New York Press.
43.
UlmerJeffrey T.2012. “Recent Developments and New Directions in Sentencing Research.” Justice Quarterly29:1–40.
44.
UlmerJeffery T.2014. “Mismatch of Guidelines and Offender Danger and Blameworthiness Departures as Policy Signals from the Courts.” Criminology and Public Policy13:271–80.
45.
UlmerJeffery T.KramerJohn H.. 1996. “Court Communities under Sentencing Guidelines. Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity.” Criminology34:383–408.
46.
Von HirschAndrew. 1976. Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments. New York: Hill & Wang.
47.
WoodPeter B.MayDavid C.. 2003. “Racial Differences in Perceptions of the Severity of Sanctions: A Comparison of Prison with Alternatives.” Justice Quarterly20:605–31.
48.
WordDavid L.PerkinsColby R. 1996. “Building a Spanish Surname List for the 1990’s—A New Approach to an Old Problem.” Pp. i–25 in U. S. Bureau of the Census, edited by WordD. L.Colby PerkinsR.Jr. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau Technical Working Paper.
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.
