The Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington was a landmark decision, ruling that juries must determine facts before judges can increase sentences above the sentencing guideline maximum—known as upward departures. Because one of the purposes of sentencing guidelines was to reduce discretion—and, thereby, unwarranted disparity—it is hypothesized extralegal factors will have less impact on upward departures after Blakely compared to before Blakely. Upward departures and their determinants were analyzed 27 months before and after Blakely, utilizing a disproportionate stratified random sample. Although the likelihood of upward departures was diminished after Blakely , extralegal factors did not incur differential effects. Both age and gender of the defendant were found to have statistically significant effects (p < .05) before and after Blakely. Although this study is only an explorative step, it is an important step to start addressing any potential effects of this landmark decision on sentencing reform efforts.
Albonetti, C. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38, 247-266.
2.
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
3.
Batiuk, M.E., Lahm, K.F., Mckeever, M., Wilcox, N., & Wilcox, P. (2005). Disentangling the effects of correctional education: Are current policies misguided? An event history analysis. Criminal Justice, 5, 55-74.
4.
Berman, D.A. (2005). Reconceptualizing sentencing. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2005, 1-53.
5.
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
6.
Bowman, F.O. (2004). Train wreck? Or can the federal sentencing system be saved? A plea for rapid reversal of Blakely v. Washington. American Criminal Law Review, 41, 217-265.
7.
Bushway, S., & Piehl, A.M. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law & Society Review , 35, 733-764.
8.
Champion, D.J. (2006). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
9.
Chiricos, T.G., & Bales, W.D. (1991). Unemployment and punishment: An empirical assessment . Criminology, 29, 701-723.
10.
Engen, R.L., Gainey, R.R., Crutchfield, R.D., & Weis, J.G. (2003). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 41(1), 99-130.
11.
Frase, R.S. (2007). The Apprendi-Blakely cases: Sentencing reform counter-revolution? Criminology and Public Policy, 6, 403-432.
12.
Hagan, F.E. (2005). Essentials of research methods in criminal justice and criminology. Boston: Pearson .
13.
Hofer, P.J., Loeffler, C., Blackwell, K., & Valentino, P. (2004). Fifteen years of guidelines sentencing: An assessment of how well the federal criminal justice system is achieving the goals of sentencing reform. Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
14.
Johnson, B.D. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology, 41, 449-489.
15.
Kramer, J.H., & Ulmer, J.T. (1996). Sentencing disparity and departures from guidelines . Justice Quarterly, 13, 81-105.
16.
Kramer, J.H., & Ulmer, J.T. (2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court corrections to Pennsylvania's sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40, 897-932.
17.
Leiber, M.J. (1993). The disproportionate overrepresentation of minority youth in secure facilities: A survey of decision makers and delinquents (Technical report). Des Moines, IA: Office of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning.
18.
Maxfield, M.G., & Babbie, E. (2008). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology (5th ed.). Stamford, CT: Thomson.
19.
McCoy, K.M. (2005). "What I have feared most has now come to pass": Blakely, Booker, and the future of sentencing. Notre Dame Law Review, 80, 1613-1614.
20.
McShane, M.D. (1987). Immigration processing and the alien inmate: Constructing a conflict perspective. Journal of Crime and Justice, 10, 171-194.
21.
Meeker, J.W., Jesilow, P., & Aranda, J. (1992). Bias in sentencing: A preliminary analysis of community service sentences. Behavioral Sciences and the Law , 10, 197-206.
Miethe, T.D. (1987). Charging and plea bargaining practices under determinate sentencing: An investigation of the hydraulic displacement of discretion. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, 155-176.
24.
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989).
25.
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866.
26.
Spohn, C. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. In Criminal Justice 2000 (Vol. 3, pp. 427-502). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
27.
Spohn, C.C. (2002). How do judges decide? The search for fairness and justice in punishment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Steffensmeier, D., & Britt, C.L. (2001). Judges' race and judicial decision making: Do Black judges sentence differently? Social Science Quarterly , 82, 749-764.
29.
Steffensmeier, D., Kramer, J., & Streifel, C. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31, 411-443.
30.
Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York : Oxford University Press.
31.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (consolidated with Fanfan).
32.
United States v. Fanfan, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (consolidated with Booker).
33.
Vogel, B.L., & Vogel, R.E. (2003). The age of death: Appraising public opinion of juvenile capital punishment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 169-183.
34.
Wool, J., & Stemen, D. (2004). Aggravated sentencing: Blakely v. Washington: Practical implications for state sentencing systems. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 17, 60-68.
