Back to Basics: A Critical Examination of the Focal Concerns Framework from the Perspective of Judges

Abstract

The focal concerns framework is widely used in research on sentencing, although the empirical validity of the framework itself is seldom directly evaluated. To fill this gap, we use survey data from 134 trial court judges to examine two basic questions about the focal concerns framework: (1) How and to what extent do judges consider the original focal concerns of blameworthiness, community protection, and practical constraints in their sentencing decisions? ( 2) To what extent is perceived rehabilitation potential, or "redeemability," considered by judges and should it become a fourth focal concern? Results based on open-ended survey questions reveal that judges continue to rely on the original focal concerns, but they operationalize these concerns in a variety of ways. Results further show that most judges are concerned about the rehabilitation potential, or "redeemability," of defendants. Based on these results, we conclude that the focal concerns framework continues to be of value but that future research using the framework should consider adding redeemability/rehabilitation potential as a fourth focal concern. We caution, however, that some of the factors judges consider in connection with rehabilitation potential/redeemability could increase sentencing disparities.

The Focal Concerns of Stalking Victims: Examining Victims’ Decisions to Engage Civil and Criminal Legal Systems

“…Lynch, 2019). As a theory of legal decision-making, scholars have questioned the reliability and validity of FCT propositions when empirical tests do not account for courts as “inhabited institutions” (Ulmer et al, 2023, p. 485; see Hartley et al, 2007; M. Lynch, 2019).…”

“…The first consideration relates to judges’ assessment of the suspects’ culpability or blameworthiness. When asked directly, judges’ perceptions of blameworthiness embody the seriousness of the offense, victim harm, availability of evidence, and suspect culpability (Ulmer et al, 2023). Theoretically, a more blameworthy person engaging in crime (PEC) is more likely to be arrested, prosecuted, and sanctioned by the court.…”

“…Third, judges must also make decisions within the limits of practical constraints and considerations—the final focal concern. For example, these constraints may include alternatives to incarceration, correctional overcrowding, and/or the social support and health of the defendant, among others (Steffensmeier et al, 1998; Ulmer et al, 2023). Yet, because judges do not always have complete information in case processing decisions, the theory argues that decision-makers fall subject to perceptual shorthand to make sense of what happened and assess the risk of reoffending (Steffensmeier et al, 1998).…”

Police use of force and race: a focal concerns theoretical perspective

“…Practical constraints for sentencing judges are related to considerations that are pragmatic or realistic, such as courtroom caseload and jail space (Ulmer et al, 2023). A pragmatic concern for an officer related to their possible use of force is a call for service PIJPSM 47,1 received from the dispatcher.…”

“…Practical constraints for sentencing judges are related to considerations that are pragmatic or realistic, such as courtroom caseload and jail space (Ulmer et al. , 2023).…”