This paper capitalizes on information about firearm use available in a standard sentencing guideline worksheet to study who is ultimately convicted with a mandatory minimum firearm penalty in the state of Maryland. Findings show that the mandatory firearm penalty is applied in only 37% of all eligible cases, and it is associated with an additional 41 months of prison time. The penalty is not applied randomly, but appears to be part of an organized effort to punish more serious offenders convicted of more serious offenses. Race and gender are also significant predictors of being convicted under this penalty. It is possible that race and gender are only proxies for other unobserved characteristics, but this finding serves as an upper bound on the size of the gender and race effect in prosecutorial discretion, and demonstrates the potential for disparity in the charge bargaining stage of the sentencing process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Administrative Office of the Courts. (1987). Maryland Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Annapolis, MD: Author.
2.
BehaJ. A. (1977). “And nobody can get you out:” The impact of a mandatory prison sentence for illegal carrying of a firearm on the use of firearms and on the administration of criminal justice in Boston. Boston University Law Review, 57, 96–146 (pt. 1), 289–333 (pt. 2).
3.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1995). Guns used in crime: Firearms, crime, and criminal justice. (NCJ148201). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001). Firearm use by offenders. (NCJ189369). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
5.
BushwayS., & PiehlA. M. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law & Society Review, 35, 733–764.
6.
BynumT. S. (1982). Prosecutorial discretion and the implementation of a legislative mandate. In MorashM. (Ed.), Implementing criminal justice policies (pp. 47–59). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7.
CarlinJ. E., & HowardJ. (1965). Legal representation and class justice. University of California Los Angeles Law Review, 12, 381–431.
8.
CarlsonK. (1982). Mandatory sentencing: The experience of two states. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
9.
Federal Judicial Center. (1994). Planning for the future: Results of a Federal Judicial Center survey of United States judges. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
10.
HeumannM., & LoftinC. (1979). Mandatory sentencing and the abolition of plea bargaining: The Michigan felony firearm statute. Law & Society Review, 13, 393–430.
11.
HoferP. J. (2000). Federal sentencing for violent and drug trafficking crimes involving firearms: Recent changes and prospects for improvement. American Criminal Law Review, 37, 41–73.
12.
KnappK. A. (1984). The impact of the Minnesota sentencing guidelines — three year evaluation. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
13.
KramerJ. H., & UlmerJ. T. (2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court “corrections” to Pennsylvania's sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40, 897–931.
14.
LanganP. A. (1992). Federal prosecutor application of mandatory sentencing laws: Racially discriminatory? Widely evaded? Unpublished manuscript on file at the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
15.
LoftinC., & McDowallD. (1984). The deterrent effects of the Florida felony firearm law. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 75, 250–259.
16.
LoftinC.HeumannM., & McDowallD. (1983). Mandatory sentencing and firearms violence: Evaluating an alternative to gun control. Law & Society Review, 17, 287–318.
17.
LowenthalG. T. (1993). Undermining the effectiveness of determinate sentencing reform. California Law Review, 81, 61–123.
18.
Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy. (2002). 2002 annual report. College Park, MD: Author. [Also available online at www.msccsp.org].
19.
McDowallD.LoftinC., & WiersemaB. (1992). A comparative study of the preventative effects of mandatory sentencing laws for gun crimes. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 83, 378–94.
20.
PierceG. L., & BowersW. J. (1981). The Bartley-Fox gun law's short-term impact on crime in Boston. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 455, 120–132.
21.
ReitzK. R. (1998). Modeling discretion in American sentencing systems. Law & Policy, 20, 389–428.
22.
RossmanD.FroydP.PierceG. L.McDevittJ., & BowersW. J. (1979). The impact of the mandatory gun law in Massachusetts. Report to the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
23.
SampsonR. J., & LauritsenJ. L. (1997). Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United States. In TonryM. (Ed.), Ethnicity, crime, and immigration: Comparative and cross-national perspectives, crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 21, pp. 311–374). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
24.
SouryalC., & WellfordC. (1997). An examination of unwarranted sentencing disparity under Maryland's voluntary sentencing guidelines. Available online at www.msccsp.org/publications/disparity.html.
25.
TonryM. (1992). Mandatory penalties. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 16, pp. 243–273). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
TonryM. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (1991). Special report to Congress: Mandatory minimum penalties in the federal criminal justice system. Washington, DC: Author.
