Displaced discretion under Ohio sentencing guidelines

Is the Offense Serious Axis Free of Extralegal Influence?: Assessing the Predictors of a ‘Legally Relevant’ Guideline Criterion

“…In terms of complex offense seriousness calculation procedures such as those of the Federal system, it lends credence to the approach advocated by Kautt and Spohn (2002) of including both the final offense seriousness score and the factors that go into its calculation in any multivariate models of sentencing outcomes. For systems with much simpler and direct means of determining offense seriousness, such as that used in Ohio (Wooldredge and Griffin 2005), this may not be necessary. Still, it would be advisable to always describe how the offense seriousness measure is determined, who makes that determination and what factors go into it.…”

“…Additionally, research on how guidelines affect sentencing outcomes has long recognized that they can displace discretion from the judge to other court actors, most notably the prosecutor (Miethe 1987;Miller and Eisenstein 2005;Wooldredge and Griffin 2005). If such discretion is also employed by other actors, such as those making offense seriousness or criminal history determinations, it would considerably undermine the ability of guidelines to achieve sentencing uniformity and neutrality.…”

Racial Disparities in Pretrial Diversion

“…This focus can obscure earlier criminal legal decisions, which is striking, given the emerging consensus that prosecutorially controlled decisions have become increasingly important shapers of defendants' punishment outcomes, perhaps particularly in jurisdictions where judicial discretion has been limited through the implementation of sentencing guidelines (Albonetti, 1987;Krug, 2002;McKenzie, Stemen, & Coursen, 2009;Spohn, Beichner, & Davis-Frenzel, 2001;Wooldredge & Griffin, 2005).…”

Convicting and incarcerating felony offenders of intimate assault and the odds of new assault charges

“…A previous comparison of felony case outcomes before versus after Ohio's reform suggested that the immediate increases in felony conviction rates and prison commitments could have resulted from changes in the structure of legal decision-making where the odds of pleading guilty dropped significantly after the sentencing reform among defendants indicted on third degree felonies (Wooldredge & Griffin, 2005). Also, postguideline convictions in general related to less dramatic reductions in the severity and number of indicted charges compared to pre-guideline convictions (Wooldredge & Griffin, 2005). These processes could have contributed to the apparent increase in the severity of outcomes in cases of intimate assault.…”