A considerable amount of previous research has examined the iatrogenic effects of mass imprisonment. This work has often considered the fact that the sentencing of people for low-level supervision violations is a contributing factor to the prison population. Relatively little work, however, has examined the factors which specifically influence the sentencing of probation and parole violators for technical and other low-level infractions. The present study analyzed over 44,000 cases of individuals who appeared in federal courts between 2013 and 2017 for relatively minor violations of federal community-based supervision. Using multilevel analysis to account for the nested quality of federal sentencing data, the study examined assorted individual-level legal and extra-legal effects on various sentencing outcomes. Effects were found for gender, having admitted to supervision violations, and predicate offense of conviction. Implications are presented.
AndersonA. L.SpohnC. (2010). Lawlessness in the federal sentencing process: A test for uniformity and consistency in sentence outcomes. Justice Quarterly, 27(3), 362–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902936683
2.
ApelR. A.BloklandA. J.NiuewbeertaP.van SchellenM. (2010). The impact of imprisonment on marriage and divorce: A risk set matching approach. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(2), 269–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-009-9087-5
3.
BurrowJ. D.Koons-WittB. A. (2004). Elderly status, extraordinary physical impairments and intercircuit variation under the federal sentencing guidelines. Elder Law Journal, 11(2), 273–312.
4.
BushwayS. D.RedlichA. D. (2012). Is plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial” a mirage?Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(3), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-011-9147-5
5.
BushwayS. D.RedlichA. D.NorrisR. J. (2014). An explicit test of plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial.”. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 52(4), 723–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12054
6.
CarsonE. A.AndersonE. (2016). Prisoners in 2015. U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 250229.
7.
ClearT. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press.
8.
ClearT. R.RoseD. R.WaringE.ScullyK. (2003). Coercive mobility and crime: A preliminary examination of concentrated incarceration and social disorganization. Justice Quarterly, 20(1), 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095451
9.
DaGrossaJ.AntonisonR.ChapmanS.CorporaM.MacAvoyJ.SullivanK. (2017, November). Factors influencing sentencing variations in U.S. District Courts. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Philadelphia.
10.
DirkzwagerA.NieuwbeertaP.BloklandA. (2012). Effects of first-time imprisonment on postprison mortality: A 25-year follow-up study with a matched control group. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 383–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811415534
11.
DoernerJ. K.DemuthS. (2010). The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in U. S. federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902926197
12.
DoernerJ. K.DemuthS. (2014). Gender and sentencing in the federal courts: Are women treated more leniently?Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(2), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412466877
13.
DrakeE. K.AosS. (2012). Confinement for technical violations of community supervision: Is there an effect on felony recidivism? (Document No. 12-07-1201). Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
14.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
15.
FarrellA. (2004). Measuring judicial and prosecutorial discretion: Sex and race disparities in departures from the federal sentencing guidelines. Justice Research and Policy, 6(1), 45–78. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.6.2.2004.45
HeckR. H.ThomasS. L.TabataL. N. (2012). Multilevel modeling of categorical outcomes using IBM SPSS. New York.
20.
HeckR. H.ThomasS. L.TabataL. N. (2014). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS (2nd ed.). Routledge.
21.
HedekerD. (2007). Multilevel models for ordinal and nominal variables. In de LeeuwJ.MeijersE. (Eds.), Handbook of multilevel analysis (pp. 341–376). Springer.
22.
HolzerH. J. (2009). Collateral costs: effects of incarceration on employment and earnings among young workers. In RaphaelS.StollM. A. (Eds.), Do prisons make us safer? (pp. 239-266).Russell Sage Foundation.
23.
JohnsonB. D.UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. H. (2008). The social context of guidelines circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 46(3), 737–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00125.x
24.
KaebleD.BonczarT. P. (2017). Probation and parole in the United States, 2015. Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 250230.
25.
KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (2009). Sentencing guidelines: lessons from pennsylvania. Lynne Rienner.
26.
LeeH.PorterL. C.ComfortM. (2014). Consequences of family member incarceration: impacts on civic participation and perceptions of the legitimacy and fairness of government. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 651(1), 44–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716213502920
27.
LinJ.GrattetR.PetersiliaJ. (2010). “Back-end” sentencing and reimprisonment: individual, organizational, and community predictors of parole sanctioning decisions. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 48(3), 759–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00201.x
28.
MitchellO. (2005). A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(4), 439–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-005-7362-7
29.
MustardD. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: evidence from U.S. Federal courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285–314. https://doi.org/10.1086/320276
30.
NowackiJ. S. (2020). Gender equality and sentencing outcomes: An examination of state courts. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(5), 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419840804
31.
OrrickE. A.MorrisR. G. (2015). Do parole technical violators pose a safety threat? An analysis of prison misconduct. Crime & Delinquency, 61(8), 1027–1050. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712465585
32.
OstermannM. (2013). Active supervision and its impact upon parolee recidivism rates. Crime and Delinquency, 59(4), 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712470680
33.
PagerD. (2007). Marked: race, crime and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago, IL.
34.
PayneA. A. (1997). Does inter-judge disparity really matter? An analysis of the effects of sentencing reforms in three federal district courts. International Review of Law and Economics, 17(3), 337–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8188(97)00023-9
35.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of the research (pp. 281–335). University of Chicago Press.
36.
PettitB.SykesB.WesternB. (2009). Technical report on revised population estimates and NLSY79 analysis tables for the Pew public safety and mobility project. Harvard University.
37.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
38.
RehaviM. M.StarrS. B. (2014). Racial disparity in federal criminal sentences. Journal of Political Economy, 122(6), 1320–1354. https://doi.org/10.1086/677255
39.
RodriguezN.WebbV. J. (2007). Probation violations, revocations, and imprisonment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403406292956
40.
RoseD. R.ClearT. R. (1998). Incarceration, social capital and crime: examining the unintended consequences of incarceration. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 36(3), 441–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01255.x
SeiterR. P. (2003). Corrections: An introduction. Prentice Hall.
43.
Senate Report No. 98-225 (1983.
44.
SiehE. W. (2003). A theoretical basis for handling technical violations. Federal Probation, 67(3), 28–32.
45.
SpohnC. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. National institute of justice: criminal justice 2000. National Institute of Justice.
46.
SpohnC. (2009). How do judges decide? The search for fairness and justice in punishment (2nd ed.). Sage.
47.
SteffensmeierD.HerbertC. (1999). Women and men policymakers: does the judge’s gender affect the sentencing of criminal defendants?Social Forces, 77(3), 1163–1196. https://doi.org/10.2307/3005975
48.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 36(4), 763–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x
49.
UggenC.WakefieldS.WesternB. (2005). Work and family perspectives on reentry. In TravisJ.VisherC. (Eds.), Prison reentry and crime in America (pp. 209–243). Cambridge University Press.
50.
UlmerJ. T.EisensteinJ.JohnsonB. 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
51.
UlmerJ. T.LightM. T.KramerJ. (2011). Racial disparity in the wake of the booker/fanfan decision. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(4), 1077–1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00761.x
United States Sentencing Commission (2012). Report on the continuing impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing. Washington, DC.
54.
United States Sentencing Commission (2015). Results of 2104 Survey of United States District Judges: Modification and Revocation of Probation and Supervised Release.
55.
United States Sentencing Commission (2017). Demographic differences in Sentencing: An update to the 2012 Booker Report. Washington, DC.
56.
United States Sentencing Commission (2018). Guidelines manual 2018. Washington, DC.
VigoritaM. S. (2003). Judicial risk assessment: The impact of risk, stakes, and jurisdiction. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14, 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403403253722
WeaverV. M.LermanA. E. (2010). Political consequences of the carceral state. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 526–546.
61.
WelchS.CombsM.GruhlJ. (1988). Do black judges make a difference?American Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111313
62.
WesternB. (2008). Punishment and inequality in america. Russell Sage Foundation.
63.
WesternB.PettitB. (2010). Incarceration and social inequality. Daedalus – Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 139, 8–19.
64.
WodahlE. J.OgleR.HeckC. (2011). Revocation trends: A threat to the legitimacy of community-based corrections. Prison Journal, 91(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885511404356
65.
WoltmanH.FeldstainA.MacKayJ. C.RocchiM. (2012). An introduction to hierarchical linear modeling. Tutorials in Qualitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 52–69. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p052
66.
YangC. S. (2015). Free at last? Judicial discretion and racial disparities in federal sentencing. Journal of Legal Studies, 44(1), 75–111.
