Conditional Race Disparities in Criminal Sentencing: A Test of the Liberation Hypothesis From a Non-Guidelines State

Abstract

Objectives: To test the liberation hypothesis in a judicial context unconstrained by sentencing guidelines.Methods: We examined cross-sectional sentencing data (n = 17,671) using a hurdle count model, which combines a binary (logistic regression) model to predict zero counts and a zero-truncated negative binomial model to predict positive counts. We also conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations to demonstrate that the hurdle count model provides unbiased estimates of our sentencing data and outperforms alternative approaches.Results: For the liberation hypothesis, results of the interaction terms for race x offense severity and race x criminal history varied by decision type. For the in/out decision, criminal history moderated the effects of race: among offenders with less extensive criminal histories blacks were more likely to be incarcerated; among offenders with higher criminal histories this race effect disappeared. The race x offense severity interaction was not significant for the in/out decision. For the sentence length decision, offense severity moderated the effects of race: among offenders convicted of less serious crimes blacks received longer sentences than whites; among offenders convicted of crimes falling in the most serious offense categories the race effect became nonsignificant for Felony D offenses and transitioned to a relative reduction for blacks for the most serious Felony A, B, and C categories. The race x criminal history interaction was not significant for the length decision.Conclusions: There is some support for the liberation hypothesis in this test from a nonguidelines jurisdiction. The findings suggest, however, that the decision to incarcerate and the sentence length decision may employ different processes in which the interactions between race and seriousness measures vary.

Judicial Rotation as Centripetal Force: Sentencing in the Court Communities of South Carolina*

“…Given the heavy caseloads, plea bargaining is the predominant way of conducting business in South Carolina courtrooms. In 2001, more than 98 percent of offenders were sentenced after a guilty plea as opposed to after a trial (Hester and Hartman, ); this is consistent with the high plea rate in other U.S. jurisdictions (see Wang and Mears, ; Wright, ). Pleas in South Carolina take one of three forms: 1) a straight plea where the defendant pleads guilty with no recommendation from the prosecution, 2) a recommended plea where the prosecutor offers a recommendation that has no binding effect on the judge or outcome, and 3) a negotiated plea that is presented to the judge as an agreed‐to outcome by the parties that the judge must either accept or reject.…”

Cumulative impact: Why prison sentences have increased*

“…For instance, in their comparative study of Minnesota sentencing practices before and after guideline implementation, Miethe and Moore () showed a remarkably stable effect of the criminal history on the imprisonment decision . Furthermore, Hester and Hartman (), in their analysis of a nonguideline state (South Carolina), showed a strong effect of criminal history on the decision to imprison, leading the authors to state that the pattern of findings is “generally in keeping with recent studies from guidelines jurisdictions” (p. 89).…”

Criminal Sentencing by Preferred Numbers

“…In addition, the pattern of doses is logarithmic, meaning that the increments between doses are small for short sentences and become larger for longer sentences. This latter finding threatens the validity of research (especially that focusing on serious offenses that have wider sentencing scales) using linear regression models that assume sentences follow a linear pattern (for further critique, see Hester & Hartman ). Overall, the present findings are compatible with past research on preferred numbers and with Weber's law and Fechner's law.…”