Sentence Disparity and the Judge-Jury Sentencing Debate: An Analysis of Robbery Sentences in Six Southern States

Abstract

Concern over sentence disparity has prompted several states in recent years to alter their sentencing strategy by removing sanctioning authority from juries and investing judges with this power. Little research, however, has examined the difference between sentences imposed by judges and those imposed by juries. This article reviews sentencing patterns in six southern states over a twenty-five year period from 1957-1982. Three states utilizing only judge sentencing, two states using solely jury sentencing, and one state which changedfrom jury to judge sentencing during this time period were examined. The data reveal that while states utilizing judge sentencing gave more consistent sentences from 1957 to 1977, recent trends indicate that the disparity in judge sentencing has risen to a level that approximates the disparity in jury imposed sentences. The data also indicate a substantial increase in the mean sentence given to robbery defendants during the past five years regardless of the sentencing authority.