Prior criminal record is routinely cited as one of the primary determinants of sentencing, and the common view is that prior record was a leading factor in non-guidelines jurisdictions going back decades. Yet, recent findings from a non-guidelines state failed to conform to this account. This study uses interviews with judges from a non-guidelines state to understand the role of prior record in sentencing in an unstructured sentencing state. This study also reexamines some of the early sentencing guidelines formation literature and finds some indications that pre-guidelines, prior record was not universally an instrumental predictor of sentence length.
AlbonettiC. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38(2), 47–66.
2.
BoernerD. (1985). Sentencing in Washington: A legal analysis of the sentencing reform act of 1981. Butterworth Legal Publishing.
3.
BushwayS. D.ForstB. (2013). Studying discretion in the processes that generate criminal justice sanctions. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 199–222.
4.
CalpinJ. C.KressJ. M.GelmanA. M. (1982). Sentencing guidelines: Structuring judicial discretion: Volume II, Analytic bases for the formulation of sentencing policy. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
5.
CarrowD. M.FeinsJ.LeeB. N.OlingerL. (1985). Guidelines without force: An evaluation of the multi-jurisdictional sentencing guidelines field test. ABT Associates.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.
7.
DemuthS.SteffensmeierD. (2004). Ethnicity effects on sentence outcomes in large urban courts: Comparisons among White, Black, and Hispanic defendants. Social Science Quarterly, 85(4), 994–1011.
8.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.
9.
EngenR. L. (2009). Assessing determinate and presumptive sentencing—Making research relevant. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(2), 323–336.
10.
FraseR. S. (2009). What explains persistent racial disproportionality in Minnesota’s prison and jail populations? In TonryM. (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 38). University of Chicago Press.
11.
FraseR. S. (2019). Forty years of American sentencing guidelines: What have we learned?Crime and Justice, 48(1), 79–135.
12.
FraseR. S.HesterR. (2019). Criminal history enhancements as a cause of minority over-representation. In FraseR. S.RobertsJ. V. (Eds.), Paying for the past: The case against prior record sentence enhancements. Oxford University Press.
13.
FraseR. S.RobertsJ. V. (2019). Paying for the past: The case against prior record sentence enhancements. Oxford University Press.
14.
FraseR. S.RobertsJ. V.HesterR.MitchellK. L. (2015). Criminal history enhancements sourcebook. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice.
15.
GelmanA. M.KressJ. M.CalpinJ. C. (1978). Establishing a sentencing guidelines system: A methods manual. Criminal Justice Research Center.
16.
GottfredsonD. M.BallardK. B. (1965). The validity of two parole prediction scales: An eight year follow up study. California Medical Facility.
17.
GottfredsonD. M.BeverlyR. F. (1962). Development and operational use of prediction methods in correctional work. Institute for the Study of Crime and Delinquency.
18.
GottfredsonD. M.WilkinsL. T.HoffmanP. B.SingerS. M. (1974). The utilization of experience in parole decision-making. US Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
19.
GottfredsonD. M.HoffmanP. B.SiglerM. H.WilkinsL. T. (1975). Making paroling policy explicit. Crime & Delinquency, 21(1), 34–44.
20.
HesterR. (2019a). Prior record and recidivism risk. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(3), 353–375.
21.
HesterR. (2019b). Risk assessment at sentencing: The Pennsylvania experience. In de KeijserJ. W.RobertsJ. V.RybergJ. (Eds.), Predictive sentencing: Normative and empirical perspectives (p. 213). Hart Publishing.
22.
HesterR.FraseR. S.LaskorunskyJ.MitchellK. L. (2019). Rethinking the role of criminal history in sentencing. In SpohnC.BrennanP. (Eds.), Handbook on Sentencing Policies and Practices in the 21st Century. Routledge.
23.
HesterR.FraseR. S.RobertsJ. V.MitchellK. L. (2018). Prior record enhancements at sentencing: Unsettled justifications and unsettling consequences. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 47, 209–254.
24.
HesterR.HartmanT. K. (2017). Conditional race disparities in criminal sentencing: A test of the liberation hypothesis from a non-guidelines state. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(1), 77–100.
25.
HesterR.SevignyE. L. (2016). Court communities in local context: A multilevel analysis of felony sentencing in South Carolina. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39(1), 55–74.
26.
HoffmanP. B.BeckJ. L. (1974). Parole decision-making: A salient factor score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2(3), 195–206.
27.
HyattJ. M.ChanensonS. L.BergstromM. H. (2011). Reform in motion: The promise and perils of incorporating risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis into Pennsylvania sentencing. Duquesne Law Review, 49, 707.
28.
KingR. D. (2019). Cumulative impact: Why prison sentences have increased. Criminology, 57(1), 157–180.
29.
KingR. D.JohnsonB. D. (2016). A punishing look: Skin tone and Afrocentric features in the halls of justice. American Journal of Sociology, 122(1), 90–124.
30.
KnappK. A. (1982). Impact of the Minnesota sentencing guidelines on sentencing practices. Hamline Law Review, 5, 237.
31.
KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (2009). Sentencing guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
32.
Lappi-SeppäläT. (2011). Sentencing and punishment in Finland: The decline of the repressive ideal. In TonryM. (Ed.), Why punish? How much?Oxford University Press.
33.
LevinM. A. (1972). Urban politics and policy outcomes: The criminal courts. Wadsworth Publishing.
34.
LynchM.BertenthalA. (2016). The calculus of the record: Criminal history in the making of US federal sentencing guidelines. Theoretical Criminology, 20(2), 145–164.
35.
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (1980). Report to the legislature, January 1, 1980. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
36.
MitchellO.CochranJ. C.MearsD. P.BalesW. D. (2017). Examining prison effects on recidivism: A regression discontinuity approach. Justice Quarterly, 34, 571–596.
37.
ParentD. G. (1988). Structuring criminal sentences: The evolution of Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines. Butterworth Legal Publishers.
38.
PiehlA. M.BushwayS. D. (2007). Measuring and explaining charge bargaining. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(2), 105–125.
39.
ReitzK. R.KlingeleC. M. (2019). Model penal code: Sentencing—Workable limits on mass punishment. Crime and Justice, 48(1), 255–311.
40.
RobertsJ. V. (2019). The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales. Crime and Justice, 48(1), 187–253.
41.
RobertsJ. V.SanchezJ. P. (2015). Paying for the past: The role of previous convictions at sentencing in the Crown Court. In RobertsJ. V. (Ed.), Exploring sentencing practice in England and Wales (pp. 154–172). Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
SpohnC. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. Criminal Justice: The National Institute of Justice Journal, 3, 427–501.
43.
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.
44.
TonryM. (1993). Sentencing commissions and their guidelines. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 17, 137–195.
45.
TonryM. (2010). The questionable relevance of previous convictions to punishments for later crimes. In RobertsJ. V.von HirschA. (Eds.), Previous convictions at sentencing. Hart.
46.
UlmerJ. T. (2012). Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Quarterly, 29(1), 1–40.
47.
UlmerJ. T. (2019). Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. Crime and Justice, 48(1), 483–522.
48.
UlmerJ. T.Painter-DavisN.TinikL. (2016). Disproportional imprisonment of Black and Hispanic males: Sentencing discretion, processing outcomes, and policy structures. Justice Quarterly, 33(4), 642–681.
49.
von HirschA. (1976). Doing justice. Northeastern University Press.
50.
von HirschA. (2010). Proportionality and the progressive loss of mitigation. Some further reflections. In RobertsJ. V.von HirschA. (Eds.), Previous convictions at sentencing. Oxford: Hart.
51.
WangX.MearsD. P. (2015). Sentencing and state-level racial and ethnic contexts. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 883–915.
52.
WangX.MearsD. P.SpohnC.DarioL. (2013). Assessing the differential effects of race and ethnicity on sentence outcomes under different sentencing systems. Crime & Delinquency, 59(1), 87–114.
53.
WelchS.SpohnC. (1986). Evaluating the impact of prior record on judges’ sentencing decisions: A seven-city comparison. Justice Quarterly, 3, 389.
54.
WilkinsL. T.KressJ. M.GottfredsonD. M.CalpinJ. C.GelmanA. M. (1978). Sentencing guidelines: Structuring judicial discretion. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, US Department of Justice.
55.
ZatzM. S. (1987). The changing forms of racial/ethnic biases in sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24(1), 69–92.
