State court sentencing of convicted felons, 2000

Durose, Matthew R.; Langan, Patrick A.

doi:10.1037/e571622010-001

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nationwide, the average state sentence after bench trial for drug possession is about 34 months prior to parole eligibility, about half as long as the mean sentence for the same offense after jury trial. The average bench discount for robbery is about three years, which is the difference between the average 138 months for bench tried defendants and the average 172 months for jury tried defendants (Durose & Langan 2003;see also Cohen 2004;LaFree 1985a;Souryal & Wellford 1997;Uhlman & Walker 1980). So long as jury sentencing is limited to resourceintensive jury trials, those who must expend these resources have an incen- King and Noble 335 3 Although Arkansas law allows a defendant who pleads guilty to be sentenced by a jury specially empanelled for that purpose with the consent of the prosecutor and judge, judges and lawyers interviewed from Arkansas reported that jury sentencing after a guilty plea is exceedingly rare (King & Noble 2004).…”

Section: B Examining Differences In Severitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further research comparing sentences after trials and pleas in judicial sentencing states could explore whether the sentence discounts observed here for the waiver of jury or trial are significantly higher or lower than they are in judicial sentencing states. Nationwide sentencing statistics show the average sentence imposed in state court after bench trial for drug possession is approximately 34 months prior to parole eligibility, about half as long as the mean sentence for the same offense after jury trial (Durose & Langan 2003). In Arkansas and Virginia, the average sentence for drug possession imposed after jury trial in each state is about triple the average bench trial sentence.…”

Section: Additional Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Jury Sentencing in Noncapital Cases: Comparing Severity and Variance with Judicial Sentences in Two States

King

Noble

2005

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, commentators have championed sentencing by jury as more democratic and better suited to current theories of punishment than sentencing by judge alone. Yet discussions of noncapital jury sentencing either fail to address empirical questions or rely on outdated and incomplete studies. This study is the first to present basic information on the comparative severity and variance of jury and judge sentencing as practiced in the 21st century. We use archival sentencing data from two of the six states that authorize jury sentencing—Arkansas and Virginia. In both states, voluntary sentencing guidelines govern judicial sentencing after bench trial or guilty plea, but juries select sentences after jury trial. Regression analyses evaluated sentences of incarceration for individual offenses, and included as independent variables available offense, offender, and case characteristics associated with sentence severity. For most of the offenses examined, jury sentences after jury trial were both more varied and more severe than sentences selected by judges after bench trial. The findings also suggest that these disparities may be deliberately maintained by judges and prosecutors, and facilitated by state law that restricts the sentencing options and information provided to juries as compared to judges.

show abstract

Section: B Examining Differences In Severitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Additional Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jury Sentencing in Noncapital Cases: Comparing Severity and Variance with Judicial Sentences in Two States

King

Noble

2005

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the first 200 Innocence Project exonerees (almost all of whom were convicted of murder and/or rape), 11% were younger than age 18 and 62% were African American. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Durose & Langan, 2005), of convictions for U.S. murders in 2002, persons younger than 20 years accounted for 8% (note that this rate includes 18 and 19 year olds and is still lower) and African Americans accounted for 51%. Similarly, of forcible rape convictions in 2002, persons younger than 20 years accounted for 8% and African Americans accounted for 33%.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Defendants By Plea Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Alford pleas in the age of innocence

Redlich

Özdoğru

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1970, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in North Carolina v. Alford that has since allowed defendants who do not wish to risk their fates at trial to plead guilty while simultaneously asserting their innocence. Although "Alford pleas" have remained unexamined by researchers, the increasing number of identified wrongful convictions of those factually innocent highlights the need for an in-depth examination of them. In the present study, using the Department of Justice 2004 State Survey of Inmates in Correctional Facilities dataset, we examined the likelihood of entering Alford pleas over traditional guilty, no contest, and not guilty pleas for those convicted of murder/manslaughter. Although we generally found few differences between the three guilty plea types, interesting differences between Alford and not guilty pleas emerged. Implications for actual innocence are discussed.

show abstract

“…Today, more than 90 percent of cases are resolved via the plea bargaining process, making the prosecutor that much more influential. 106 Although recent Supreme Court decisions have reshaped federal sentencing law to reduce the effect of the sentencing guidelines, in the vast majority of cases judges continue to sentence according to the guidelines or depart only when a prosecutor brings a motion to do so. 107 Shifting prosecutorial priorities to include focusing on reducing the numbers of people sent to prisons could have a dramatic impact.…”

Section: A Prosecutor's Role In Reducing Imprisonmentmentioning

confidence: 99%