Extralegal factors and the sentencing of organizational defendants: An examination of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Piquero, Nicole Leeper; Davis, Jason

doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.08.001

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sentencing Commission developed mandatory sentencing guidelines as part of overall reform efforts. The goal of the guidelines was to: (1) remove bias from individual sentencing by specifying ranges of incarceration time based on the seriousness of the offense and defendant's criminal history, (2) implement so-called "truth in sentencing," whereby defendants would serve determinate periods of incarceration and/or community supervision, and (3) with regard to organizations, increase criminal fines levied against organizations found or pleading guilty to criminal offenses (Piquero & Davis, 2004). After the United States v. Booker decision in 2004, both individual and organizational sentencing guidelines became advisory rather than mandatory.…”

Section: The Debate On the Appropriateness Of Pretrial Agreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite this increase, there has been little empirical attention given to these agreements, and relatively few examinations of sentencing and punishment of organizational defendants more generally (Alexander & Cohen, 1999Calathes & Yeager, 2016;Cohen, 1989;Davis, 2008;Garrett, 2014;King & Lord, 2018;Markoff, 2013;Piquero & Davis, 2004). This makes sense given both the historical lack of available data and the relative rarity of corporate criminal prosecutions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Deterrent Effect of Federal Corporate Prosecution Agreements: An Exploratory Analysis

Homer

Maume

2022

Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we explore the potential deterrent effect of federal pretrial agreements by examining the extent of violations subsequent to an organization signing a pretrial agreement. More specifically, this research examines the subsequent criminal, civil, and regulatory violations of 161 publicly-traded firms that signed federal deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements between 2001 and 2020. Our analysis identified 87 recidivist companies with a total of 629 subsequent violations, eight of which were criminal violations. While most companies had only one subsequent violation, one company had 63 noted violations after signing the pretrial agreement. Our exploratory analyses reveal that companies paying larger penalties as part of the pretrial agreement were less likely to have subsequent violations, and, when examining U.S.-based companies only, that larger organizations were more likely to have subsequent violations. These preliminary results are important to understanding both corporate deterrence generally, and the use of pretrial agreements as a corporate deterrent specifically.

show abstract

Section: The Debate On the Appropriateness Of Pretrial Agreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Deterrent Effect of Federal Corporate Prosecution Agreements: An Exploratory Analysis

Homer

Maume

2022

Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Systemic, selective enforcement of the law based on extralegal factors has long shaped disparities in decisions about legal processes and outcomes, from granting bail to sentencing. In addition to gender (Doerner, 2012;Freiburger & Hilinski, 2010;Holtfreter, 2013;Rodriguez et al, 2006;Steffensmeier, 1980;Steffensmeier et al, 1993Steffensmeier et al, , 2017, extralegal factors such as race and ethnicity (Daly & Tonry, 1997;Demuth, 2002;Kautt & Spohn, 2002;Kramer & Steffensmeir, 1993;Rosich, 2007), age (Steffensmeier et al, 1995), family status (Bickle & Peterson, 1991), education level (Albonetti, 1997), and socioeconomic status (D'Alessio & Stolzenberg, 1993;Lofstrom & Raphael, 2016;Piquero & Davis, 2004;Siegel & Bartollas, 2011) have been shown to impact sentencing outcomes.…”

Section: Prior Research On Prosecutorial and Judicial Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and Criminal Justice Responses to Terrorism in the United States

Jackson

Ratcliff

Gruenewald

2021

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generally, women receive more lenient treatment by the criminal justice system compared to men. Prior research on how gender shaped prosecutorial decision-making and sentencing outcomes has focused on conventional forms of crime, while less is known about how it operates in terrorism-related cases. This is a critical gap in a growing body of research on justice disparities given that women continue to make up a significant portion of terrorism defendants in the U.S. Utilizing data from the American Terrorism Study, we seek to answer how legal and extralegal case attributes of federal terrorism cases vary across gender, how gender shapes federal terrorism case outcomes, and how combinations of relevant case attributes uniquely impact court outcomes for males and females.

show abstract

“…Some legal studies in the area have treated cases as data from which scholars can obtain non-legal variables, such as profile of plaintiff and defendant, nature of evidence presented, and results obtained (Piquero and Davis 2004). Such variables are then quantitatively analyzed.…”

Section: Redefining Legal Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%