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

Abstract

Courts as communities theory emphasizes the sentencing differences that can arise between localities within a single state. The results of published studies have highlighted how local differences emerge based on informal sociological and political processes defined by the communities perspective. The findings from recent quantitative studies from South Carolina have revealed notably less county variation in sentencing than has been observed elsewhere. I use qualitative interviews with 13 South Carolina trial judges to investigate sentencing processes and to shed light on these findings. The interviews explore the state's legal structure and culture, including the practice of circuit rotation in which judges travel among counties holding court. The results suggest rotation serves as a centripetal force of sentencing culture, homogenizing what might otherwise be a more varied collection of county‐specific norms. Rotation leads to increased uniformity through judge shopping and the cross‐pollination of ideas and norms. Defendants can strategically judge shop and plead in front of a lenient judge—a process that gives rise to the term “plea judge,” which is a label for the most lenient judges who sentence a large number of defendants. Rotation also increases the interactions among judges and prosecutors, expanding networks and grapevines, and leading to cross‐pollination and the sharing of ideas.

Exploring the origin of sentencing disparities in the Crown Court: Using text mining techniques to differentiate between court and judge disparities

“…Comparing the disparities resulting from judges who were observed to rotate across courts against those who stayed in the same court, we found that judges working in multiple courts sentence a more heterogeneous and complex caseload, but do so more consistently than judges who stay in the same court. These results corroborate Hester (2017), who, based on qualitative interviews with thirteen judges from South Carolina, indicates that judicial rotation seems to facilitate the spread of norms and homogenize judicial sentencing practices. Indeed, exposure to other judges and court actors may support consistent sentencing practices.…”

“…Typically, variations in sentence length or type, stemming from any of the levels listed above, which cannot be explained by legitimate case characteristics (e.g., offence severity), are used as measures of inconsistency in sentencing. These studies are premised (implicitly or explicitly) on the 'court communities' perspective (Hester, 2017). This theory views courts as communities made up of actors such as prosecutors, judges, defence lawyers, and court staff (Eisenstein, Flemming and Nardulli 1988;Flemming, Nardulli and Eisenstein 1992;Ulmer 1997).…”

“…Importantly, recent qualitative evidence suggests that the practice of rotation might contribute to foster consistency in sentencing. Specifically, Hester (2017) suggests that the limited sentencing disparities detected in South Carolina (Hester, 2012;Hester and Sevigny, 2016) may be rooted in their practice of rotating judges between courts, which facilitates the spread of norms and encourages judges to harmonize their sentencing practices. Hence, accounting for the identity of the judge responsible for each sentenced case becomes essential to ensure accurate estimations of consistency, while allowing us to explore the role that different types of judges, and the practice of judicial rotation more generally, might have as a buffer or catalyst of unwarranted disparities.…”

Judicial Disparity, Deviation, and Departures from Sentencing Guidelines: The Case of Hong Kong

“…Inter‐judge disparity is a rich area of research, which has continued to grow to capture newly realized influences upon a judge's sentencing behavior (Anderson & Spohn 2010; Bushway et al 2012; Hester 2017; Krasnostein & Freiberg 2013; Marder & Pina‐Sánchez 2018; Myers 1988; Roberts & Ashworth 2016; Tonry 1996; Ulmer & Johnson 2017; Yang 2014). Early studies focused on seemingly biased treatment based on offenders’ traits, such as their race, gender, and socioeconomic status (the basis of focal concerns theory within sentencing that predominates in the criminology literature) (Steffensmeier 1980; Steffensmeier et al 1998).…”

“…Despite this, sentencing studies have underscored the prominence of inter‐judge disparity in sentence outcomes (Anderson & Spohn 2010; Bushway et al 2012; Hester 2017; Krasnostein & Freiberg 2013; Marder & Pina‐Sánchez 2018; Roberts & Ashworth 2016; Yang 2014). Inter‐judge disparity is defined as the relative differences in average sentence lengths for comparable caseloads assigned to different judges (Anderson et al 1999).…”