Sentencing Outcomes Under Competing But Coexisting Sentencing Interventions: Untying The Gordian Knot

Abstract

The latest evolutionary phase of criminal sentencing is a return to determinate sentencing structures. However, the concurrent application of sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum statutes in various jurisdictions often distorts and convolutes evaluations of such interventions’ effectiveness. To remedy this problem, the effects of such distinct reforms must be separated from one another. Previous research has been unsuccessful in accomplishing this task. The authors attempt to remedy this deficiency by using 1997-1998 federal sentencing data to isolate the effects of the minima from those of the guidelines and assessing how the predictors and conditioners of sentencing outcomes vary between them. The authors find several significant and some unexpected differences in the effect of predictors across models of incarceration and sentence length for the two intervention types.

Recent Developments and New Directions in Sentencing Research

“…Other researchers have found that minority males are sentenced more severely conditional on sentencing policy options such as mandatory minimums (Kautt & Delone, 2006;Kautt & Spohn, 2002) and the federal guidelines safety valve provision (Albonetti, 2002), and more research along these lines is needed to illuminate how sentencing policies might mobilize or dampen disparities.…”

“…Also, studies have examined the imposition of mandatory minimums, which are tightly linked to prosecutorial discretion (e.g. Bjerk, 2005;Farrell, 2003;Kautt & DeLone, 2006;Ulmer, Kurlychek, & Kramer, 2007), habitual offender designations (Crawford, 2000; see also Crawford, Chiricos, & Kleck, 1998), adjudication waivers (Bontrager, Bales, & Chiricos, 2005), first time offender waivers and special sex offender sanctions (Engen et al, 2003), and types of sentencing guideline departures (e.g. Albonetti, 1998;Engen et al, 2003;Johnson, Ulmer, & Kramer, 2008;Kramer & Ulmer, 2002Mustard, 2001).…”

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

“…In addition, mandatory minimums can have pronounced effects on sentencing outcomes (Kautt and DeLone, 2006;Rehavi and Starr, 2014). Thus, we included mandatory minimum as a binary indicator identifying the 34 offense codes which carried a non-suspendable mandatory prison term.…”

Is the Offense Serious Axis Free of Extralegal Influence?: Assessing the Predictors of a ‘Legally Relevant’ Guideline Criterion

“…This supplies ample reason to question whether the FSG, which rely heavily on offense seriousness calculations, can produce sentencing outcomes that are equitable, consistent within and between probation offices as well as free of undue extralegal influence (Ruback and Wroblewski 2001). Unfortunately, extralegal factors repeatedly have been found to influence FSG sentences (Albonetti 1997;Kautt and Spohn 2002;Kautt and DeLone 2006;LaFrentz and Spohn 2006) and multilevel analysis indicates significant district and circuit variation in both sentences and the factors predicting sentencing outcomes (Kautt 2002), which is partially explained by the decentralized organization of the Federal Courts (Ulmer 2005). 7 Notably, like the Federal courts, the organizational structure and lack of central governance in the US Pretrial and Probation Services implies there will be similar variation in offense seriousness calculations.…”