Places in the Heartland: Departure Jurisprudence after Koon

Bowman, Frank O.

doi:10.2307/20639943

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

A Standards Of Review For Departures1

The Guidelines Mandatory Minimums and Standards Of Review1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

1997

2012

Publication Types

Select...

Article3

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent3

Authors

Journals

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was substantial debate regarding the actual holding in Koon. Some commentators interpreted Koon as a major doctrinal change, granting substantially more discretion to district judges (e.g., Bowman 1996;Clott 1996;Vigeland 1996). Others, however, interpreted the holding in Koon to be more limited (e.g., Stith 1996;Lee 1997;Johnson 1998).…”

Section: A Standards Of Review For Departuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Racial Disparities under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimums

Fischman

Schanzenbach

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: A Standards Of Review For Departuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Racial Disparities under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimums

Fischman

Schanzenbach

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There was substantial debate regarding the actual holding in Koon . Some commentators interpreted Koon as a major doctrinal change, granting substantially more discretion to district judges (e.g., Bowman ; Clott ; Vigeland ). Others, however, interpreted the holding in Koon to be more limited (e.g., Stith ; Lee ; Johnson ).…”

Section: The Guidelines Mandatory Minimums and Standards Of Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Racial Disparities Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimums

Fischman¹,

Schanzenbach²

2012

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines restrict judicial discretion in part to reduce unwarranted racial disparities. However, judicial discretion may also mitigate disparities if judges use discretion to offset disparities emanating from prosecutorial discretion or sentencing policies that have a disparate impact. To measure the impact of judicial discretion on racial disparities, we examine doctrinal changes that affected judges' discretion to depart from the Guidelines. We find that racial disparities are either reduced or little changed when the Guidelines are made less binding. Racial disparities increased after recent Supreme Court decisions declared the Guidelines to be advisory; however, we find that this increase is due primarily to the increased relevance of mandatory minimums, which have a disparate impact on minority offenders. Our findings suggest that judicial discretion does not contribute to, and may in fact mitigate, racial disparities in Guidelines sentencing.

show abstract

Departures for Family Ties and Responsibilities after Koon

Shoenberg¹

1997

Federal Sentencing Reporter

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Places in the Heartland: Departure Jurisprudence after Koon

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Racial Disparities under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimums

Racial Disparities under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimums

Racial Disparities Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimums

Departures for Family Ties and Responsibilities after Koon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About