Socioeconomic Disparities Under Determinate Sentencing Systems: A Comparison of Preguideline and Postguideline Practices in Minnesota*

Abstract

After a brief review of determinate sentencing systems, this study examines the impact of Minnesota's determinate sentencing law on various presentence and sentencing outcomes. Using comparable pre-and postguideline measures, the results of this study suggest that Minnesota's reform effort was largely successful in reducing disparity within the scope of the new guidelines. However, although the direct impact of socioeconomic attributes of the offender diminished, these characteristics continued to influence sentencing decisions indirectly through various presentence decisions and case attributes not governed by the guidelines Different models of charge bargaining and sentence negotiations are also observed when pre-and postguideline models are compared. Yet, the determinants of these time-specific models are not consistent with the assumptions of a circumvention argument. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research evaluating the impact of determinate sentencing systems on achieving social neutrality in the application of criminal sanctions.Few issues in the processing of criminal defendants have generated more controversy than the ongoing debate over the merits of various sentencing philosophies and policies. Yet, over the past two decades there has been a notable shift toward the development of explicit standards and guidelines specifying the type and amount of punishment to be imposed on convicted offenders. Although those determinate sentencing systems proposed and enacted in numerous states have taken various forms and reflect competing philosophies about the purpose of punishment, this move toward The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Kay A. Knapp for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript and for providing the data for this study from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. This project was supported in part by the

The Independent and Joint Effects of Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Age on Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts

“…Women are believed to be less dangerous, less blameworthy, less likely to recidivate, and more likely to be deterred than men (Spohn, 2002). Other previous research (Albonetti, 1991;Farrell & Swigert, 1978;Miethe & Moore, 1985;Zatz, 1984) has linked defendant's race/ethnicity to notions of dangerousness and recidivism.…”

Sentencing practices under the Arkansas sentencing guideline structure

“…Research in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Oregon revealed adoption of guidelines in these states led to reduced disparity and increased uniformity and consistency (Ashford & Mosbaek, 1991;Miethe & Moore, 1985;Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, 1985;Stolzenburg & D'Alessio, 1994;Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 1992). Research, however, also indicated severity in sentencing increased after guideline implementation in both Minnesota and Washington (Stolzenburg & D'Alessio, 1994), and the guidelines led to increased inmate populations and overcrowding in both prisons and jails (Spohn, 2002).…”

Cross-Jurisdictional Disposition Variability Under Sentencing Guidelines

“…For example, in some instances, guidelines moderate sentencing policy and rationalize it, bringing sentencing outcomes into closer alignment with sentencing goals than they were previously (Miethe & Moore, 1985), as was historically the case in Minnesota.…”

“…Here, a commission or other body representing both the legal system and general public develops standards for sentencing (von Hirsch & Greene, 1993). The resultant guidelines generally require legislative approval and can be advisory or presumptive, based on past sentencing practices, designed to change past policies or even reflect a new philosophy of sentencing (Miethe & Moore, 1985). Across the board, such initiatives were designed to standardize sentencing and promote uniformity (Lubitz & Ross, 2001).…”

“…For example, although the majority of U.S. guidelines employ a grid-based structure, rationales behind implementing guidelines are much less standardized. Justifications include minimizing sentence disparity by extralegal factors (Martin, 1984), controlling "unfettered" judicial discretion (Miethe & Moore, 1985), reducing escalating prison populations (Kirkpatrick, 1992), enhancing penalties, and becoming "tough on crime" (Truitt, Rhodes, Kling, & McMullen, 2001). Moreover, some systems have clear, unambiguous objectives, whereas others have multiple, conflicting goals (Wooldredge & Griffin, 2005).…”