Comparing Between-Judge Disparities in Imprisonment Decisions Across Sentencing Regimes in Ohio

Abstract

Empirical studies of judicial effects on the use of imprisonment have yet to estimate changes in these effects under more-structured sentencing schemes. Findings are presented from a multilevel analysis of whether the implementation of Ohio's presumptive guidelines in 1996 was effective for reducing inter-judge differences in the distribution of non-suspended prison sentences and in defendant-level effects on imprisonment. These data for seven urban courts provide a unique opportunity to estimate changes in judicial effects across sentencing regimes. Results suggest that Ohio's guidelines were successful for reducing judicial effects on sentencing based on judges' tenure on the bench, prosecutorial experience, and caseload composition.S cholarly interest in judicial effects on sentencing (such as whether the use of imprisonment for convicted defendants varies by a judge's sex, race, years on the bench, etc.) has generated a number of studies on the subject (e.

Examining the Interaction of Race and Probationer Noncompliance on Sanctioning Decisions

“…Probationers in front of Judges B and C were less likely to be sanctioned, regardless of the nature and extent of noncompliance. These results are not surprising, considering the evidence of inter-judge disparity in sentencing decisions, yet it suggests that judges may view their role as agents of accountability differently (Anderson & Spohn, 2010; Kim, Spohn, & Hedberg, 2015; Wooldredge, Griffin, & Thistlethewaite, 2013).…”

Inter‐judicial differences in approaching technical violations: Examining the interaction of judge and compliance issue for domestic violence probationers

“…These studies have demonstrated mixed findings in variations of sentencing practices across judges. Some have found that judges of color sentence more leniently (Johnson, 2006; Johnson & DiPietro, 2012) and others find no difference (Wooldredge et al., 2013). Similarly, a few studies find sex differences in sentencing practices of judges, while others find no effect (Johnson & DiPietro, 2012; Wooldredge et al., 2013).…”

“…Some have found that judges of color sentence more leniently (Johnson, 2006; Johnson & DiPietro, 2012) and others find no difference (Wooldredge et al., 2013). Similarly, a few studies find sex differences in sentencing practices of judges, while others find no effect (Johnson & DiPietro, 2012; Wooldredge et al., 2013). One study found that older judges tend to sentence more leniently (Johnson, 2006).…”

“…One study found that older judges tend to sentence more leniently (Johnson, 2006). Finally, fewer studies have examined other background and case processing factors for judges, demonstrating limited support for the influence of years on the bench (Johnson, 2006; Wooldredge et al., 2013 prior to guidelines) and proportion of violent and drug cases (Johnson, 2006; Wooldredge et al., 2013 prior to guidelines).…”

On getting inside the judge’s mind.

“…For instance, past research has found that judicial decisions are affected by a myriad of extra-legal factors such as those related to the personal characteristics of the defendant or plaintiff including his/her gender, race and age (e.g., Doerner & Demuth, 2010;Manning, Carroll, & Carp, 2004;Mitchell, 2005;Rachlinski, Johnson, Wistrich, & Guthrie, 2009;Robbennolt, 2002;Turner & Johnson, 2006). Judges' own gender, race and age have also been found to influence their decisions (e.g., Wooldredge, Griffin, & Thistlethwaite, 2013;Chew & Kelley, 2008;Coontz, 2000;Kulik, Perry, & Pepper, 2003;Martin & Pyle, 2004;Peresie, 2004). Studies have also demonstrated that judicial decisions are distorted by cognitive illusions such as framing effects, anchoring, and hindsight bias (e.g., Englich, Mussweiler, & Strack, 2006;Guthrie, Rachlinski, & Wistrich, 2001;Hastie & Viscusi, 1998;Rachlinski, Guthrie, & Wistrich, 2011) and biased by non-cognitive factors such as hunger (Danziger, Levav, & Avnaim-Pesso, 2011).…”