Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity

Abstract

Efforts to structure sentencing through guidelines involve a fundamental dilemma for the sociology of law—guidelines attempt to emphasize formal rationality and uniformity (Savelsberg, 1992) while allowing discretion to tailor sentences to fit situations and characteristics of individual defendants when courts deem it warranted (substantive rationality). This exercise of substantive rationality in sentencing based on “extralegal” criteria deemed relevant by local court actors risks the kind of unwarranted disparity that guidelines were intended to reduce. We view local courts as arenas in which two sets of sentencing standards meet—formal rational ones articulated by guidelines vs. substantive, extralegal criteria deemed relevant by local court actors. We use statistical and qualitative data from Pennsylvania, a state whose courts have operated under sentencing guidelines for over a decade. Our analysis examines extralegal differences in three county courts' sentencing outcomes, and then documents ways in which substantive rational sentencing criteria are intertwined with defendants' exercise of their right to trial and their race and gender.

The Impact of Gender, Offense Type, and Familial Role on the Decision to Incarcerate

“…A number of legal and process variables found to have an effect on sentencing decisions (e.g., Bickle & Peterson, 1991;Spohn, 1999;Spohn, & Beichner, 2000;Spohn et al, 1985;Steffensmeier et al, 1993;Steffensmeier et al, 1998;Ulmer & Kramer, 1996) were included as independent variables in the analysis. For offense severity, statistical controls were used to control for the type of offense, offense grade, and the number of charges at conviction.…”

Sentencing policy and disparity: Guidelines and the influence of legal and democratic subcultures

“…Strong theoretical traditions have been established by Albonetti (1991Albonetti ( , 1997 and Steffensmeier and several colleagues (Johnson, 2005;Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2001;Steffensmeier, Kramer, & Streifel, 1993;Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998;J. T. Ulmer & Kramer, 1996).…”

Locating the Judge within Sentencing Research

“…The dearth of available measures of judicial decision making is a source of frustration among researchers in this tradition, who are often left to theorise or speculate on the role, behaviour or attitudes of judges in the production of sentencing outcomes (Johnson and DiPietro 2012). For example, 'the absence of minority representation in a profession may permit decision makers to unobtrusively act on stereotypes and assumptions about race and criminality [emphasis in original]' (King et al 2010: 7; see also Ulmer and Kramer 1996). Similarly, a study of the use of non-custodial sentences concludes: 'These results are consistent with theoretical perspectives that emphasize increased perceptions [among sentencers] of culpability and dangerousness for young, male, and minority offenders' (Johnson and DiPietro 2012: 837).…”

“…Because recidivism is never fully predictable, and defendant character cannot be known entirely, court actors make assessments of dangerousness, blameworthiness or other relevant factors, partially based on attributions about the defendant according to their gender, employment status, family situation and race (Daly 1989;Light 2014;Steffensmeier and Demuth 2001;Steffensmeier et al 1998). Ulmer (2012) and Kramer and Ulmer (1996) argue that legal factors, such as criminal history and crime severity, are used informally by judges as heuristics to assess blameworthiness and risks to community protection.…”