Cross-Jurisdictional Disposition Variability Under Sentencing Guidelines

Abstract

The sentencing guidelines of different jurisdictions often have distinct objectives and approaches to sentencing. Drawing on the arguments of past research as well as focal concerns and populist punitiveness, the current research assesses whether or not differences in design and implementation of the sentencing guidelines of two systems (Pennsylvania and Oregon) influence the incarceration and sentence length decisions meted out to comparable sex offenders within these jurisdictions. The authors hypothesize that, despite having similar grid-based configurations, variations in the history and structure of these guidelines significantly influence predictors of sentencing outcomes across these jurisdictions. Using indecent assault and sexual abuse cases, this research explores how well the aforementioned orientations perform in explaining the incarceration and sentence length decisions within and across these two jurisdictions.

Contextual Influences on the Sentencing of Individuals Convicted of Sexual Crimes

“…While previous sentencing research has suggested that the context in which individuals are sentenced can influence the severity of punishment (Johnson, 2006; Kramer & Ulmer, 2009; Ulmer & Johnson, 2004), little scholarship has considered how these factors may influence the sentencing of persons convicted of sexual crimes. Existing research has typically focused on variation in focal concerns indicators of operational constraints across court communities (Ulmer & Johnson, 2004), while the societal reaction to individuals convicted of sexual crimes suggests that indicators of populist punitiveness may be salient for this group (Kautt & Mueller-Johnson, 2009). We sought to contribute to the literature on sentencing for sexual crimes by examining several years of data from the PCS.…”

“…Given their prominent role as a perceived threat to public safety and subject of condemnation (Harris & Socia, 2016; Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Sample & Bray, 2003), those convicted of sexual offenses may be especially vulnerable to certain contextual-level effects on sentencing. Although previous research has given attention to the effect of rational/bureaucratic processing concerns via court communities’ interpretations of the focal concerns of sentencing (Ulmer & Johnson, 2004), the response to persons convicted of sexual offenses may be depicted by the populist punitiveness perspective, which focuses on the political and societal reaction to these individuals (Kautt & Mueller-Johnson, 2009).…”

Sentencing consistency in the New Zealand District Courts

“…Some researchers (see for example Iles et al, 2011;Kautt, 2002) recognised the threat but made no correction as the risk of bias was limited because an overwhelming proportion of offenders were incarcerated. Others assembled models with and without correction factors and compared the results, and if the models were similar proceeded with the uncorrected model (e.g., Fearn, 2003;Kautt & Mueller-Johnson, 2009). In these studies the rationale for choosing the uncorrected model was the risk posed by collinearity between the correction factor and other variables in the model.…”