(Un)anticipated Effects of Sentencing Reform on the Disparate Treatment of Defendants

Abstract

Despite concerns over racial disparities in imprisonment across the United States, little empirical attention has been paid to how changing the structure of sentencing might affect levels of disparity. This article examines whether Ohio's shift to determinate sentencing corresponded with significant changes in legal and extralegal effects on case outcomes, both generally and differentially for African American and white defendants. Bilevel analyses of felony defendants from 24 jurisdictions reveal relatively few substantive changes in these effects over time. Some changes involved reductions in race-related disparities (e.g., in the severity of charges convicted on), with others reflecting increased disparity (e.g., higher imprisonment likelihoods for African Americans). Findings underscore a modest link between restructured sentencing and actual case outcomes overall, with some relatively mixed effects on levels of disparity.Cons iderable academic attention has been given to the overrepresentation of African Americans in U.S. prisons relative to their representation in the general population, contributing to discussions about the magnitude and sources of race-related disparities in sentencing (Zatz 2000). As described by Mauer (1999), scholars have posed different possible explanations for the problem, including race group differences in crime rates, criminal histories, and treatment by prosecutors and judges, as well as the differential impact of changing sentencing policies. Extant research on the topic has focused primarily on race group differences in treatment

Driving racial profiling research forward: Learning lessons from sentencing research

“…Recent research in sentencing, for example, has begun to explore the impact of social context as a significant factor in sentencing decisions (Britt, 2000;Crow & Gertz, 2008;Kautt, 2002;Wooldredge, 2009;Wooldredge et al, 2005). Spohn (2005) examined three federal districts and concluded that there were significant differences across the districts regarding the sentence discount a defendant received for both downward and substantial assistance departures.…”

“…Crow and Gertz (2008) reported both direct and indirect effects of policy transformation on sentencing decisions; specifically, they find that legal and democratic cultures vary by jurisdiction and these subcultures may provide a context for why disparate outcomes exist. Wooldredge, Griffin, and Rauschenberg (2005) found that policy changes in Ohio were coupled with changes in how both legal and extralegal factors affected sentencing outcomes. Evidence suggests both reduced and increased disparity associated with structural changes in sentencing practices; for example, a shift to sentencing guidelines produced weaker race effects, stronger age effects, but no significant change in gender effects (Wooldredge, 2009).…”

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

“…In addition to examining environmental context, there is a need within the sentencing literature to analyze the impact of policy change. During the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, jurisdictions throughout the country enacted various versions of sentencing reforms (Tonry, 1996), yet relatively little is known about the effects of these changes (although, see Wooldredge, Griffin, & Rauschenberg, 2005). Within this context, Johnson (2005, p. 71) argued that "additional studies are needed that assess the consequences of changing guideline systems across time and place.…”

Locating the Judge within Sentencing Research

“…Court outcomes can mask subtle cumulative inequalities embedded in other processes such as police contact, arrests, prior imprisonment (Zatz 1987) courtroom decision-making processes [that] still presents important opportunities for variation in judicial sentencing to occur' (Johnson 2006: 267). Because presumptive sentencing guidelines 'are filtered through individual courtroom actor interpretations, however, and because they are coloured by informal, locally varying courtroom norms, it is not surprising that they have failed to eliminate judge and court variation in sentencing' (Johnson 2006: 291 Judicial subjectivity Some quantitative research on sentencing patterns attributes unacceptable disparities in large volumes of cases to judicial reliance on stereotypes or bias, which may be unconscious or unintentional (Albonetti 1991;Albonetti 1997;Hagan 1974;Steen et al 2005;Steffensmeier and Demuth 2001;Steffensmeier et al 1998;Wooldredge et al 2005). Judicial cognition and bias are theorised as producing the associations between the key variables in the aggregate sentencing decisions across a jurisdiction or over time.…”