Split Sentencing in Florida: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Age, and the Mitigation of Prison Sentence Length

Lehmann, Peter; Gomez, Anna I.

doi:10.1007/s12103-020-09550-4

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…"Split-sentencing" is also the focus of a handful of recent articles using data from Washington, Michigan, and Florida. Engen et al (2003), Gainey et al (2005), and Lehmann and Gomez (2021) study the imposition of split sentences, which they characterize as an alternative to (longer) incarceration and a potential avenue for racial disparity in punishment. As with Talarico and Myers (1987) and the use of "split sentences" in the federal system, each of these samples consists of individuals sentenced to prison, rather than jail.…”

Section: Sentencing Studies and Consecutive Punishmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, “split sentence” describes both probation after incarceration, incarceration after probation, and a term of probation split into active supervision and administrative supervision in Florida (FL §948.012). Although Lehmann and Gomez (2021, p. 353) report that most instances of split sentences involve postincarceration probation, it is not clear whether all incarceration components are to prison versus jail.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stacking punishment: The imposition of consecutive sentences in Pennsylvania

Galvin

2022

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study introduces the decision to impose consecutive sentences as a "window of discretion" in modern sentencing regimes that has the potential to produce extreme and disparate punishment. Among cases sentenced in Pennsylvania between 2015 and 2019, consecutive sentences were present in more than 20% of all cases, including 35% of cases resulting in a primary sentence to prison and 39% of cases resulting in a primary sentence to jail. The length of consecutive incarceration and probation often exceed primary sentence length and substantially extend justice involvement.Policy Implications: In the absence of guidance, consecutive sentences undermine policy efforts at uniformity and correctional control. Further, relatively common use of (long) probation tails may contribute to "mass probation." Such decisions should be deserving of the same consideration as given the imposition of primary sentences, meaning the promulgation of guidance regarding imposition and reasonable limits for length.

show abstract

Section: Sentencing Studies and Consecutive Punishmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stacking punishment: The imposition of consecutive sentences in Pennsylvania

Galvin

2022

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following the introduction of presumptive sentencing guidelines in many jurisdictions, other studies have examined upward and downward departures from guideline recommendations (Johnson & Lee, 2013), with support emerging for the notion that extralegal disparities have not been entirely eliminated through such systems (Johnson, 2005;, 2002, 2009Mustard, 2001). Some work also has explored various so-called intermediate or alternative sanctions, reporting that minority defendants are less likely than Whites to receive intensive supervision, "split" sentencing, electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol treatment, and other less punitive, nontraditional forms of punishment (Gainey et al, 2005;Johnson & DiPietro, 2012;Lehmann & Gomez, 2021).…”

Section: Extralegal Disparities In Sentencing: An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generally, however, researchers have continued to find that race and Hispanic ethnicity influence the sentencing of female offenders, thus distinguishing White females as receiving the most lenient criminal penalties (Brennan, 2006;Steffensmeier et al, 1993). Further, when these two offender characteristics are considered in concert with age, Black and Hispanic males between ages 18 and 29 consistently have been identified as the race/gender/age subgroups that are most disadvantaged in criminal punishment (Doerner & Demuth, 2010;Franklin, 2015;Lehmann & Gomez, 2021;Spohn & Holleran, 2000;Steffensmeier et al, 1998Steffensmeier et al, , 2017Warren et al, 2012). This pattern has emerged across studies of varied sentencing systems, court communities, and punishment outcomes, thus suggesting that a consideration of race and ethnicity as independent from these two other attributes may be inappropriate.…”

Section: Extralegal Disparities In Sentencing: An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Racial, Ethnic, Gender, and Economic Sentencing Disparity

Lehmann

Gomez

2021

Handbook of Issues in Criminal Justice Reform in the United States

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presence of inequalities in criminal punishment according to defendants' race, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status arguably challenges the philosophical and moral foundations of the justice system. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence of disproportional representation according to these offender characteristics in US correctional populations. For this reason, much criminological research over the past 50 years, and especially within the past two decades, has been devoted to examining judicial decision-making at the sentencing stage of criminal justice processing. This chapter provides a brief overview of this literature, which consistently has shown that minority defendants, males, and those of lower socioeconomic status receive disparately harsh penalties, even after a host of other legal and extralegal factors are accounted for. Additionally, we discuss the research exploring the individual-and contextual-level conditions under which these inequalities appear to be more or less pronounced. Following this review, we present the theoretical frameworks which sentencing scholars most often have used to explain these patterns, and we emphasize in particular the potential role of implicit biases held and acted upon by criminal justice actors. We conclude by describing several areas where policy reform might reduce these disparities and ensure a more equitable system of punishment. Keywords Race and ethnicity • Gender • Socioeconomic status • Sentencing guidelines • Judicial discretionThe possibility that defendants convicted in criminal courts are subjected to punishments in ways that are patterned according to their race, gender, age, or socioeconomic status (SES) compromises the very foundation upon which the justice system is built (Franklin, 2018;Tonry, 1995). Indeed, Ulmer (2019, p. 1145) argues that "sentencing is a window into a society's, and a community's, cultural and social production of who and what is considered deserving of sanction," and thus the

show abstract

“…On the other hand, extralegal factors have also been examined, which should not have an impact on sentencing, such as the sex, race, and age 1 of the perpetrator (Bushway and Piehl 2001;Crow and Johnson 2008;Daly and Tonry 1997;Doerner and Demuth 2010;Everett and Wojtkiewicz 2002;Feldmeyer and Ulmer 2011;Feldmeyer et al 2015;Franklin and Henry 2020;Freiburger and Romain 2018;King and Light 2019;Koons-Witt 2002;Mustard 2001;Stacey and Spohn 2006;Steffensmeier and Britt 2001;Steffensmeier and Demuth 2006;Steffensmeier, Kramer, and Streifel 1993;Parks and Nowacki 2020;Lehmann and Gomez 2020;Cassidy and Rydberg 2020;Kramer and Ulmer 1996). There is no reason to differentiate sentencing according to the race, sex, or age of the perpetrator; however, research has shown statistical differences in sentences according to such factors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex, Age, Education, Marital Status, Number of Children, and Employment – the Impact of Extralegal Factors on Sentencing Disparities

Mamak

Dudek²,

Koniewski

et al. 2022

Eur.J. Crime Crim. Law Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Countries that have judicial discretion in their legal system usually struggle with sentencing disparities. This is no different in Poland. The current study examined whether extralegal factors such as age, sex, education, marital status, number of children, and having a job impact sentencing disparities. We examined court files from 13 district courts in Poland for two offenses: drug possession and drunk driving. Our findings show that sex, age, and number of children have no or little effect on outcomes, whilst marital status and employment status have small to medium effects on sentencing. The clearest result pattern to emerge from our analyses is that defendants with tertiary education are treated more leniently than those with primary or lower secondary education.

show abstract

Split Sentencing in Florida: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Age, and the Mitigation of Prison Sentence Length

Cited by 9 publications

References 95 publications

Stacking punishment: The imposition of consecutive sentences in Pennsylvania

Stacking punishment: The imposition of consecutive sentences in Pennsylvania

Racial, Ethnic, Gender, and Economic Sentencing Disparity

Sex, Age, Education, Marital Status, Number of Children, and Employment – the Impact of Extralegal Factors on Sentencing Disparities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About