Excessive uniformity in federal drug sentencing

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 155-180

  Sevigny, Eric L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Drug sentencing; Excessive uniformity; Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities; Truncated regression

Indexed keywords

EID: 64749098301     PISSN: 07484518     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10940-009-9064-z     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. C Albonetti 1997 Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992 Law Soc Rev 31 4 789 822
2. C Albonetti 2002 The effects of the "safety valve" amendment on length of imprisonment for cocaine trafficking/manufacturing offenders: Mitigating the effects of mandatory minimum penalties and offender's ethnicity Iowa Law Rev 87 2 401 433
3. A Alschuler 1991 The failure of sentencing guidelines: A plea for less aggregation Univ Chicago Law Rev 58 901 951
4. RA Berk 1983 An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data Am Sociol Rev 48 3 386 398
5. Berk RA (2004) Regression analysis: a constructive critique. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA
6. RA Berk SC Ray 1982 Selection biases in sociological data Soc Sci Res 11 352 398
7. FO Bowman III M Heise 2002 Quiet rebellion II: An empirical analysis of declining federal drug sentences including data from the district level Iowa Law Rev 87 477 561
8. Breen R (1996) Regression models: censored, sample selected, or truncated data. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
9. Bureau of Justice Statistics and Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice (2000) Survey of inmates in state and federal correctional facilities, 1997 [computer file]. Compiled by Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) [producer and distributor], Ann Arbor, MI
10. SD Bushway AM Piehl 2001 Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing Law Soc Rev 35 4 733 764
11. SD Bushway BD Johnson LA Slocum 2007 Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology J Quant Criminol 23 151 178
12. Chambers R, Skinner CJ (2003) Analysis of survey data. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK
13. R Cong 1999 sg122: Truncated regression Stata Tech Bull 52 47 52
14. Department of Justice 1994 An analysis of non-violent drug offenders with minimal criminal histories Crim Law Rep 54 19 2101 2155
15. R Eisinga P Scheepers LV Snippenburg 1991 The standardized effect of a compound of dummy variables or polynomial terms Qual Quant 25 103 114
16. RS Everett RA Wojtkiewicz 2002 Difference, disparity, and race/ethnic bias in federal sentencing J Quant Criminol 18 2 189 211
17. K Feinberg 1993 Federal criminal sentencing reform: Congress and the United States Sentencing Commission Wake Forest Law Rev 28 291 304
18. Frankel M (1972) Criminal sentences: law without order. Hill and Wang, New York
19. J Froyd 2000 Safety valve failure: Low-level drug offenders and the federal sentencing guidelines Northwest Univ Law Rev 94 4 1471 1507
20. S Gaskins 2004 "Women of circumstance"-the effects of mandatory minimum sentencing on women minimally involved in drug crimes Am Crim Law Rev 41 4 1533 1554
21. A Gelman 2008 Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations Stat Med 27 2865 2873
22. General Accounting Office (2003) Federal drug offenses: departures from sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences, Fiscal Years 1999-2001. Washington, DC
23. Goodwin C (1992) Sentencing narcotics cases where drug amount is a poor indicator of relative culpability. Fed Sentenc Rep Jan/Feb:226-229
24. Groves RM, Fowler FJ Jr, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R (2004) Survey methodology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
25. RD Hartley S Maddan C Spohn 2007 Concerning conceptualization and operationalization: Sentencing data and the focal concerns perspective-a research note Southwest J Crim Justice 4 1 58 78
26. Hofer P (2001) What is the federal sentencing guideline for drug trafficking trying to do, and How Well is It Doing It? Paper presented at the 2001 American Society of Criminology annual meeting
27. P Hofer M Allenbaugh 2003 The reason behind the rules: Finding and using the philosophy of the federal sentencing guidelines Am Crim Law Rev 40 1 19 85
28. A Hrvatin 2002 Unconstitutional exploitation of delegated authority: How to deter prosecutors from using "substantial assistance" to defeat the intent of federal sentencing laws Golden Gate Univ Law Rev 32 117 167
29. Korn E, Graubard B (1999) Analysis of health surveys. John Wiley & Sons, New York
30. F Kreuter R Valliant 2007 A survey on survey statistics: What is done and can be done in Stata Stata J 7 1 1 21
31. Langan PA (1992) Federal prosecutor application of andatory sentencing laws: racially discriminatory? widely evaded? Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC
32. Lee ES, Forthofer RN (2006) Analyzing complex survey data, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
33. Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA
34. Long JS, Freese J (2001) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Stata Press, College Station, TX
35. K Lutjen 1996 Culpability and sentencing under mandatory minimums and the federal sentencing guidelines: The punishment no longer fits the criminal Notre Dame J Law Ethics Public Policy 10 1 389 466
36. Maddala GS (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY
37. McDonald D, Carlson K (1993) Sentencing in the federal courts: does race matter? Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC
38. M Miller DJ Freed 1994 The disproportionate imprisonment of low-level drug offenders Fed Sent Rep 7 1 3 6
39. I Nagel B Johnson 1994 The role of gender in a structured sentencing system: Equal treatment, policy choices, and the sentencing of female offenders under the United States sentencing guidelines J Crim Law Criminol 85 1 181 221
40. I Nagel S Schulhofer 1992 A tale of three cities: An empirical study of charging and bargaining practices under the federal sentencing guidelines South California Law Rev 66 1 501 566
41. K O'Dowd 1999 The need to re-assess quantity-based drug sentences Fed Sent Rep 12 2 111 119
42. Office of National Drug Control Policy (1995-2002) Pulse check: trends in drug abuse. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President
43. P Oliss 1995 Mandatory minimum sentencing: Discretion, the safety valve, and the sentencing guidelines Univ Cincinnati Law Rev 63 4 1851 1892
44. M Osler 2007 More than numbers: A proposal for rational drug sentences Fed Sent Rep 19 326 328
45. RD Peterson J Hagan 1984 Changing conceptions of race: Towards an account of anomalous findings of sentencing research Am Sociol Rev 49 1 56 70
46. DJ Quivey 1993 Market-oriented approach to determining drug quantity under the federal sentencing guidelines Univ Illinois Law Rev 3 653 689
47. W Rhodes 1991 Federal criminal sentencing: Some measurement issues with application to pre-guideline sentencing disparity J Crim Law Criminol 81 4 1002 1033
48. DW Roncek 1992 Learning more from tobit coefficients: Extending a comparative analysis of political protest Am Sociol Rev 57 4 503 507
49. JA Roth 1994 Review of An Analysis of Non-Violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories Fed Sent Rep 7 1 18 21
50. S Schulhofer 1992 Assessing the federal sentencing process: The problem is uniformity, not disparity Am Crim Law Rev 29 833 873
51. S Schulhofer 1992 Excessive uniformity-and how to fix it Fed Sent Rep 5 3 169 173
52. S Schulhofer 1993 Rethinking mandatory minimums Wake Forest Law Rev 28 199 201
53. S Schulhofer I Nagel 1989 Negotiated pleas under the federal sentencing guidelines: The first fifteen months Am Crim Law Rev 27 2 231 288
54. R Scotkin 1990 The development of the federal sentencing guideline for drug trafficking offenses Criminal Law Bulletin 26 1 50 59
55. Semisch CR (2000) Differential sentencing outcomes for female federal drug traffickers: gender disparity or suitable sanctions? Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Sociology
56. M Simons 2002 Departing ways: Uniformity, disparity and cooperation in federal drug sentences Villanova Law Rev 47 4 921 963
57. Skinner CJ, Holt D, Smith TMF (eds) (1989) Analysis of complex surveys. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK
58. DA Smith R Brame 2003 Tobit models in social science research: Some limitations and a more general alternative Sociol Methods Res 31 364 388
59. StataCorp (2007a) Stata survey data reference manual: release 10. StataCorp LP, College Station, TX
60. StataCorp (2007b) Stata base reference manual: release 10. StataCorp LP, College Station, TX
61. Stith K, Cabranes J (1998) Fear of judging: sentencing guidelines in the federal courts. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
62. K Stith S Koh 1993 The politics of sentencing reform: The legislative history of the federal sentencing guidelines Wake Forest Law Rev 28 223 290
63. CJ Sullivan JM McGloin AR Piquero 2008 Modeling the deviant Y in criminology: An examination of the assumptions of censored normal regression and potential alternatives J Quant Criminol 24 4 399 421
64. T Tobin 1999 Drug couriers: A call for action by the U.S. Sentencing Commission George Mason Law Rev 7 4 1055 1096
65. United States Sentencing Commission (1990) Memorandum: role in the offense working group. Washington, DC
66. United States Sentencing Commission (1991a) 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, vol I. Washington, DC
67. United States Sentencing Commission (1991b) Special report to congress: mandatory minimum penalties in the federal criminal justice system. Washington, DC
68. United States Sentencing Commission (1992) Report of the drugs/role/harmonization working group. Washington, DC
69. United States Sentencing Commission (1995) Special report to congress: cocaine and federal sentencing policy. Washington, DC
70. United States Sentencing Commission (1997a) Guidelines Manual. Washington, DC
71. United States Sentencing Commission (1997b) 1997 sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics. Washington, DC
72. United States Sentencing Commission (2002) Special report to congress: cocaine and federal sentencing policy. Washington, DC
73. 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
74. United States Sentencing Commission (2007a) Special report to congress: cocaine and federal sentencing policy. Washington, DC
75. United States Sentencing Commission (2007b) Amendments to the sentencing guidelines, May 11, 2007. Washington, DC
76. Von Hirsch A (1985) Past or future crimes: deservedness and dangerousness in the sentencing of criminals. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ
77. Warner RM (2007) Applied statistics: from bivariate through multivariate techniques. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA
78. S Wasserman 1995 Sentencing guidelines: Toward sentencing reform for drug couriers Brooklyn Law Rev 61 643 656
79. I Weinstein 2003 Fifteen years after the federal sentencing revolution: How mandatory minimums have undermined effective and just narcotics sentencing Am Crim Law Rev 40 87 132
80. J Weinstein F Bernstein 1994 The denigration of mens rea in drug sentencing Fed Sent Rep 7 3 121 124
81. W Wilkins Jr P Newton J Steer 1993 Competing sentencing policies in a "war on drugs" era Wake Forest Law Rev 28 305 327
82. KA Wilmot C Spohn 2004 Prosecutorial discretion and real-offense sentencing: An analysis of relevant conduct under the federal sentencing guidelines Crim Justice Policy Rev 15 3 324 343
83. C Winship RD Mare 1992 Models for sample selection bias Annu Rev Sociol 18 327 350
84. Young D (1990) Rethinking the commission's drug guidelines: courier cases where quantity overstates culpability. Fed Sent Rep October:63-66