Judges' reactions to sentencing reform in Ohio

Crime and Delinquency

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 491-512

  Griffin, Timothy ^a   Wooldredge, John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24044511822     PISSN: 00111287     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0011128701047004001     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Alschuler, A. W., & Schulhofer, S. J. (1989). Judicial impressions of the sentencing guidelines. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 2, 94-99.
2. Cullen, F., & Gilbert, K. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
3. Diroll, D. (1997). Ohio adopts determinate sentencing. In M. Tonry & K. Hatlestad (Eds.), Sentencing reform in overcrowded times (pp. 110-114). New York: Oxford.
4. Diroll, D., Rauschenberg, F., Hawkins, C., & Ward, C. (1996). Felony sentencing manual. Columbus: Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission.
5. Federal Courts Study Committee. (1990). Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee. Washington, DC: Administrative Offices of the Federal Courts.
6. Federal Judicial Center. (1994). Planning for the future: Results of a 1992 Federal Judicial Center survey of United States judges. Washington, DC: Author.
7. Johnson, M. T., & Gilbert, S. A. (1997). The U.S. sentencing guidelines: Results of the Federal Judicial Center's 1996 survey. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
8. Kauder, N. B., Ostrom, B. J., Peterson, M., & Rottman, D. (1997). Sentencing commission profiles. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
9. Knapp, K. A. (1993). Allocation of discretion and accountability within sentencing structures. University of Colorado Law Review, 64, 679-705.
10. Knapp, K. A., & Hauptley, D. J. (1989). U.S. sentencing guidelines in perspective: A theoretical background and overview. In D. J. Champion (Ed.), The U.S. sentencing guidelines: Implications for criminal justice (pp. 3-17). New York: Praeger.
11. Loftin, C., & Heumann, M. (1979). Mandatory sentencing and abolition of plea bargaining: The Michigan Felony Firearms Statute. Law and Society Review, 13, 393-430.
12. Miethe, T. D., & Moore, C. A. (1988). Officials' reactions to sentencing guidelines. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25(2), 170-187.
13. Nagel, I. H., & Schulhofer, S. J. (1992). A tale of three cities: An empirical study of charging and bargaining under the federal sentencing guidelines. Southern California Law Review, 66, 501-566.
14. Norton, L. (1999). A comparison of 1996 and 1997 intake study findings. Columbus: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
15. Rauschenberg, F. (1999). Monitoring sentencing reform. Columbus: Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission.
16. Reitz, K. R. (1993). Sentencing reform in the states: An overview of the Colorado Law Review Symposium. University of Colorado Law Review, 64, 645-654.
17. Stith, K., & Cabranes, J. A. (1998). Fear of judging: Sentencing guidelines in the federal courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Oxford.
19. Tonry, M. H. (1987). Sentencing reform impacts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
20. United States Sentencing Commission. (1991). The federal sentencing guidelines: A report on the operations of the guidelines system and short term impacts on disparity in sentencing. use of incarceration, and prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining. Washington, DC: Author.
21. United States Sentencing Commission. (1998). Sentencing guidelines manual. Washington, DC: Author.
22. Wicharaya, T. (1995). Simple theory, hard reality: The impact of sentencing reforms on courts, prisons, and crime. Albany: State University of New York Press.