Sentencing reforms and the war on drugs: An analysis of sentence outcomes for narcotics offenders adjudicated in U.S. District courts on the southwest border

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 437-461

  Hartley, Richard D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

Departures; Federal sentencing; Interdistrict disparity; Narcotics; Sentencing guidelines

Indexed keywords

EID: 53349145271     PISSN: 10439862     EISSN: 15525406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1043986208323264     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Albonetti, C.A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992. Law and Society Review, 31, 789-822.
2. Alshuler, A.W. (2005). Disparity: The normative and empirical failure of the federal guidelines. Stanford Law Review, 58, 85-117.
3. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
4. Beckett, K., & Sasson, T. (2000). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
5. Behre, K.D., & Ifrah, A.J. (2003). You be the judge: The success of fifteen years of sentencing under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The American Criminal Law Review, 40, 5-10.
6. Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
7. Bright, S.B., & Keenan, P.J. (1995). Judges and the politics of death: Deciding between the bill of rights and the next election in capital cases. Boston University Law Review, 73, 760-835.
8. Britt, C.L. (2000). Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Quarterly, 17, 707-732.
9. Bushway, S.D., & Piehl, A.M. (2007). Social science research and the legal threat to presumptive sentencing guidelines. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 461-482.
10. Caulkins, J.P. (1997). Mandatory minimum drug sentences: Throwing away the key or taxpayers' money? Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
11. Caulkins, J.P., Rydell, C.P., Schwabe, W.L., & Chiesa, J. (1998). Are mandatory minimum drug sentences cost effective ? Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 8-73.
12. Chiricos, T., & Bales, B. (1991). Unemployment and punishment: An empirical assessment. Criminology, 29, 701-724.
13. Cole, K. (1997). The empty idea of sentencing disparity. Northwestern University Law Review, 91, 1336-1337.
14. Daly, K. (1987). Structure and practice of familial-based justice in a criminal court. Law & Society Review, 21, 267-290.
15. Daly, K., & Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, race, and sentencing. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 201-252). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16. Doob, A. (1995). The United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines: If you don't know where you are going, you might not get there. In C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing reform (pp. 199-250). Oxford, UK: Clarendon-Oxford University Press.
17. Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
18. Engen, R.L., Gainey, R.R., Crutchfield, R.D., & Weis, J.G. (2003). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 41, 99-130.
19. Feeley, M. (1983). Court reform on trial. New York: Basic Books.
20. Freed, D.J. (1992). Federal sentencing in the wake of guidelines: Unacceptable limits on the discretion of sentencers. Yale Law Journal, 101, 1681-1754.
21. Frankel, M.E. (1972 a). Lawlessness in sentencing. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 41, I.
22. Frankel, M.E. (1972 b). Criminal sentences: Law without order. New York: Hill and Wang.
23. Frase, R. (1997). Sentencing guidelines are "alive and well" in the United States. In M. Tonry & K. Hatlestad (Eds.), Sentencing reform in overcrowded times (pp. 12-16). New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Gelacek, M.S., Nagel, I.H., & Johnson, B.L. (1996). Departures under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: An empirical and jurisprudential analysis. Minnesota Law Review, 81, 299-366.
25. Gruhl, J., Spohn, C., & Welch, S. (1981). Women as policymakers: The case of trial judges. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 308-322.
26. Hartley, R.D., Maddan, S., & Spohn, C. (2007). Prosecutorial discretion: An examination of substantial assistance departures in federal crack-cocaine and powder-cocaine cases. Justice Quarterly, 24, 383-407.
27. Hofer, P.J. (2007). United States v. Booker as a natural experiment: Using empirical research to inform the federal sentencing policy debate. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 433-460.
28. Hofer, P.J., Blackwell, K.R., & Ruback, R.B. (1999). The effect of the federal sentencing guidelines on inter-judge sentencing disparity. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90, 239.
29. Kautt, P. (2002). Location, location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses. Justice Quarterly, 19, 633-671.
30. Kautt, P., & Delone, M. (2006). Sentencing outcomes under competing but coexisting sentencing interventions: Untying the Gordian knot. Criminal Justice Review, 31, 105-131.
31. Kempf-Leonard, K., & Sample, L. (2001). Have federal sentencing guidelines reduced severity? An examination of one circuit. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 111-144.
32. Koons v. United States, 518 U.S. 96 (1996).
33. Kramer, J.H., & Ulmer, J.T. (1996). Sentencing disparity and departures from the guidelines. Justice Quarterly, 13, 81-106.
34. Kramer, J.H., & Ulmer, J.T. (2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court "corrections" to Pennsylvania's sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40, 897-931.
35. Langan, P.A. (1996). Sentence reductions for drug traffickers for assisting federal prosecutors. Unpublished manuscript. U.S. Department of Justice.
36. Maxfield, L.D., & Kramer, J.H. (1998). Substantial assistance: An empirical yardstick gauging equity in current federal policy and practice. Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
37. Meierhofer, B.S. (1992). The general effect of mandatory minimum prison terms. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
38. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 261 (1989).
39. Mustard, D.B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. federal courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44, 1-30.
40. Nagel, I. (1997). Writing the federal sentencing guidelines. In P. H. Rossi & R. A. Berk (Eds.), Just punishments: Federal guidelines and public views compared (pp. 19-32). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
41. Nagel, I., & Schulhofer, S.J. (1992). A tale of three cities: An empirical study of charging and bargaining practices under the federal sentencing guidelines. Southern California Law Review, 66, 501-566.
42. Nardulli, P. (1978). The courtroom elite: An organizational perspective on criminal justice. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
43. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866.
44. Ruback, R.B., & Wroblewski, J. (2001). The federal sentencing guidelines: Psychological and policy reasons for simplification. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 739-775.
45. Spohn, C. (2002). How do judges decide: The search for fairness and justice in punishment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. Spohn, C., & Beichner, D. (2000). Is preferential treatment of female offenders a thing of the past? A multi-site study of gender, race, and imprisonment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 11, 149-184.
47. Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38, 281-306.
48. Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2001). Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice Quarterly, 18, 651-685.
49. Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts: Who is punished more harshly ? American Sociological Review, 65, 705-729.
50. Steffensmeier, D., Kramer, J., & Streifel, C. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31, 411-446.
51. Steffensmeier, D., & Motivans, M. (2000). Older men and older women in the arms of the criminal law: Offending patterns and sentencing outcomes. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 55B, 141-151.
52. Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763-797.
53. Stith, K., & Cabranes, J.A. (1998). Fear of judging: Sentencing guidelines in the federal courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54. Tonry, M. (1993). The failure of the U.S. sentencing commission's guidelines. Crime & Delinquency, 39, 131-149.
55. Tonry, M. (1994). Malign neglect. New York: Oxford University Press.
56. Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
57. Tonry, M. (2006). Criminology, mandatory minimums, and public policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 45-56.
58. Tonry, M., & Hatlestad, K. (1997). Sentencing reform in overcrowded times. New York: Oxford University Press.
59. Ulmer, J.T., & Johnson, B. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multi-level analysis. Criminology, 42, 137-177.
60. Ulmer, J.T., Kurlychek, M.C., & Kramer, J.H. (2007). Prosecutorial discretion and the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 427-458.
61. Ulmer, J.T., & Miller, L.L. (2002). Plea agendas in federal sentencing: Quantitative and qualitative evidence from four district courts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.
62. United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Compendium of federal justice statistics, 2003. Washington, DC: Author.
63. United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Compendium of federal justice statistics, 2006. Washington, DC: Author.
64. United States General Accounting Office. (1992). Sentencing guidelines: Central questions remain unanswered. Washington, DC: Author.
65. United States General Accounting Office. (2003). Federal drug offenses: Departures from sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences, fiscal years 1999-2001. Washington, DC: Author.
66. United States Sentencing Commission. (1991). The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A report on the operation of the guidelines system and short-term impacts on disparity in sentencing, use of incarceration, and prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining. Washington, DC: Author.
67. United States Sentencing Commission. (1995). Substantial assistance departures in the United States Courts. Washington, DC: Author.
68. United States Sentencing Commission. (1999). Federal sentencing guidelines manual. St. Paul, MN: West.
69. United States Sentencing Commission. (2003). Downward departures from the federal sentencing guidelines. Washington, DC: Author.
70. United States Sentencing Commission. (2004). Fifteen years of guidelines sentencing: An assessment of how well the federal criminal justice system is achieving the goals of sentencing reform. Washington, DC: Author.
71. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
72. Vincent, B.S., & Hofer, P.J. (1994). The consequences of mandatory minimum prison terms: A summary of recent findings. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
73. Walker, S. (1993). Taming the system: The control of discretion in criminal justice 1950-1990. New York: Oxford University Press.
74. Walker, T.G., & Barrow, D.J. (1985). The diversification of the federal bench: Policy and process ramifications. The Journal of Politics, 47, 596-617.
75. Weisselberg, C.D., & Dunworth, T. (1993). Inter-district variation under the guidelines: The trees may be more significant than the forest. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 6, 25-28.
76. Zimring, F., Hawkins, G., & Kamin, S. (2001). Punishment and democracy: Three strikes and you're out in California. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.