Have Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparities Increased in an Advisory Guidelines Regime? Evidence from Booker
نویسنده
چکیده
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were promulgated in response to concerns of widespread disparities in sentencing. After almost two decades of determinate sentencing, the Guidelines were rendered advisory in United States v. Booker. How has greater judicial discretion affected interjudge disparities, or differences in sentencing outcomes that are attributable to the mere happenstance of the sentencing judge assigned? This Article utilizes new data covering almost 400,000 criminal defendants linked to sentencing judges to undertake the first national empirical analysis of interjudge disparities after Booker.
منابع مشابه
Sentencing Commissions and Their Guidelines
Sentencing commissions, administrative agencies charged to develop and promulgate standards for sentencing, were first proposed early in the 1970s and first established in 1978. Of four recent major sentencing reform approaches-the others being parole guidelines, voluntary sentencing guidelines, and statutory determinate sentences-only sentencing commission systems continue to be created. Despi...
متن کاملJudicial Attributes and Sentencing - Deviation Cases : Do Sex , Race , and Politics Matter ?
Most scholars focus on whether the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines effectively constrain judges or result in disparate decisions based on a court’s or defendant’s location. With few exceptions, studies of the effect of judicial attributes on federal-district-court-sentencing cases have been stymied by the United States Sentencing Commission’s refusal to release judges’ names in their databases of se...
متن کامل”Reasonably Predictable:” The Reluctance to Embrace Judicial Discretion for Substantial Assistance Procedures
In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, yet still instructed sentencing courts to continue to advise the Guidelines. In light of this expanded judicial discretion, post-Booker cooperation, or 5K1.1, motions made by the government are of particular interest because it can have the potential to increase the court’s power w...
متن کاملDEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND An Empirical Analysis of Health and Safety in Employment Sentencing in New Zealand
Apparent inconsistency in criminal sentencing at District Court level in New Zealand (NZ) might also be expected for health and safety in employment (HSE) offences. We review relevant legislation and the guidelines established in the de Spa appeal case, and estimate a model of HSE sentencing variability distinguishing the de Spa criteria (and a subset similar to those used in the formal U.S. cr...
متن کاملStrategic Judging Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines: Positive Political Theory and Evidence
We present a positive political theory of criminal sentencing and test it using data from the United States Sentencing Commission. Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, judges can use “offense-level adjustments” (fact-based decisionmaking) to lengthen or shorten the Guidelines’ presumptive sentences. Judges also can use “departures” from the Guidelines (law-based decisionmaking) to lengthen or ...
متن کامل