Sentencing practices under the Arkansas sentencing guideline structure

Hartley, Richard D.; Maddan, Sean; Walker, Jeffery T.

doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.09.004

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are some studies that utilize both felony and misdemeanors under the same analytic framework. For instance, Hartley et al (2006) took this approach in their analysis of Arkansas courts. Their findings illustrated extreme differences between getting a prison receipt (felony) or a jail receipt (misdemeanor).…”

Section: Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Misdemeanor Courts, Due Process, and Case Outcomes

Smith

Maddan

2020

Criminal Justice Policy Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Very little research on courts and sentencing outcomes focuses on misdemeanor courts despite the fact that most crime processed through the criminal justice system is misdemeanor in nature. In fact, the overwhelming empiricism in this area is on felony court outcomes at either the federal or state levels. This research utilized a mixed methodology approach, a combination of observation, survey, and secondary data, to explore misdemeanor court outcomes across the State of Florida. In particular, this research focused on the extent of due process afforded misdemeanor defendants and how this impacted case outcomes. Findings indicate an overall lack of due process and awareness of due process rights across the vast majority of cases. This study also explored sentencing outcomes via traditional metrics associated with contemporary sentencing research. Findings suggest that misdemeanor courts processing operate much differently than felony courts. The implications for future research and policy are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Combining felony and misdemeanor cases under the same analytic approach is likely not advisable (Hartley et al, 2006). It is tantamount to comparing apples and orange as felony and misdemeanor processing are qualitatively different in terms of substance and process.…”

Section: Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Misdemeanor Courts, Due Process, and Case Outcomes

Smith

Maddan

2020

Criminal Justice Policy Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…O’Neal and Spohn (2017) sought to expand the literature on intimate partner sexual assault (IPSA) by using focal concerns to investigate law enforcement and prosecutorial decision making in IPSA cases. Following Hartley et al (2007), the researchers used a mixed-method approach to develop an expanded operationalization of focal concerns to include a multitude of variables specific to decision making in IPSA (O’Neal & Spohn, 2017). O’Neal and Spohn (2017) found that when making decisions in IPSA cases, both law enforcement officers (arrest decision) and prosecutors (case filing decision) consider each focal concern: suspect blameworthiness, protection of the community, and practical constraints.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosecutorial Decision Making in Domestic Violence Cases: Are Prosecutors Holding Offenders Accountable?

Wagers

Pate

Busick

2022

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domestic violence (DV) continues is an ongoing costly issue for the criminal justice system, Research indicates the prosecutor’s filing decision is important to keeping DV victims safe, but there is little research examining prosecutorial filing decisions in DV cases. This study used focal concerns as a theoretical framework to explore which legal and extra-legal factors impact prosecutorial filing decisions in DV cases. The study utilized data collected from 731 misdemeanor and felony DV cases from an urban County in Florida between January 2017 – December 2018. Two binomial logistic regression models were used to predict the likelihood a DV case would be filed on any charge, filed on a DV specific charge or not filed. Results showed some support for focal concerns but findings suggest that factors impacting this decision vary based upon case severity (i.e. misdemeanor, felony). A weapon present decreased the filing likelihood for misdemeanor cases but victim requests not to prosecute and a public attorney decreased filing likelihood for felonies. The prosecutor’s decision to file charges is a powerful tool to keep victims safe and should be based on legal facts and risk of future harm, but here these factors had little to no impact on this decision.

show abstract

“…Many researchers have concluded that sentencing guidelines do reduce disparity (Frase, 2000; Gorton & Boies, 1999; Hartley, Maddan, & Walker, 2006; Hunt & Connelly, 2005; Kramer & Lubitz, 1985; Kramer & Ulmer, 2009; Miethe & Moore, 1985; Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 1984; Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, 1984; Stolzenburg & D’Alessio, 1994; Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 1992). However, some critics have argued that criminal justice reforms have merely displaced disparities away from the judge at the sentencing phase, to the prosecutor at the stages of charging and plea bargaining (Alschuler, 1978; Coffee & Tonry, 1983; Engen, 2008; Lagoy, Hussey, & Kramer, 1979; Nagel & Schulhofer, 1992; Savelsberg, 1992; Tonry & Coffee, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weighing the Value of the Bargain: Prosecutorial Discretion After Sentencing Guidelines

Vance

Richmond

Oleson

et al. 2017

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is little empirical research to indicate whether the introduction of sentencing guidelines displaces discretion from judges to prosecutors. In the handful of studies that examine the hydraulic displacement of discretion, discretion is usually measured by the rate of charge bargaining. The current study uses an alternative methodology—calculating the value of the bargain—to examine the effect of sentencing guidelines on prosecutorial discretion in the District of Columbia Superior Court. It measures the impact of charge bargaining on sentence length in a sample of 266 pre-guidelines sentences and 263 post-guidelines sentences, and finds that the rate of charge bargaining did not change after the introduction of guidelines, but that the impact of bargaining on sentence length increased slightly. Although the amount of displacement of discretion in the D.C. Guidelines was modest, the study demonstrates that alternative measures (value of the bargain) might reveal displacement of discretion when traditional measures (rate of the bargain) do not.

show abstract

Sentencing practices under the Arkansas sentencing guideline structure

Cited by 11 publications

References 33 publications

Misdemeanor Courts, Due Process, and Case Outcomes

Misdemeanor Courts, Due Process, and Case Outcomes

Prosecutorial Decision Making in Domestic Violence Cases: Are Prosecutors Holding Offenders Accountable?

Weighing the Value of the Bargain: Prosecutorial Discretion After Sentencing Guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About