Is the offense serious axis free of extralegal influence?: Assessing the predictors of a 'legally relevant' guideline criterion

American Journal of Criminal Justice

Volumn 34, Issue 3-4, 2009, Pages 253-273

  Kautt, Paula M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Extralegal disparity; Offense seriousness; Sentencing guidelines

Indexed keywords

EID: 64749112583     PISSN: 10662316     EISSN: 19361351     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12103-008-9048-9     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Albonetti, C. A. (1986). Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: Theory of discretionary decision-making in felony.
2. Albonetti, C. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38, 247-266.
3. Albonetti, C. A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses. Law and Society Review, 31(4), 789-822.
4. AOUSC (2001). Court and community: The U.S. Probation and pretrial services system. In U. P. a. P. Services (Ed.), Administrative Office of the US Courts.
5. Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Stamford, CT: Wadsworth.
6. Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority group relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons Publishers.
7. Bridges, G., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 554-570.
8. Bushway, S. D., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law & Society Review, 35(4), 733-764.
9. Cosgrove, E. J. (1994). Robo-po: The life and times of a federal probation officer. Federal Probation, 58 (3), 29-30.
10. D'Anca, A. R. (2001). Role of the federal probation officer in the guidelines sentencing system. Federal Probation, 65(3), 20-23.
11. Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1981). Several tests for model specification in the presence of alternative hypotheses. Econometrica, 49(3), 781-793.
12. Dixon, J. (1995). The organizational context of criminal court sentencing. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1157-1198.
13. Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H. (1991). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
14. Engen, R. L., & Gainey, R. R. (2000a). Conceptualizing legally relevant factors under guidelines: A reply to Ulmer. Criminology, 38(4), 1245-1252.
15. Engen, R. L., & Gainey, R. R. (2000b). Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: The rules have changed. Criminology, 38(4), 1207-1230.
16. Engen, R., Gainey, R., Crutchfield, R., & Weis, J. (2003). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 41(1), 99-129.
17. Everett, R. S., & Nienstedt, B. C. (1999). Race, remorse, and sentence reduction: Is saying you're sorry enough? Justice Quarterly, 26(1), 99-122.
18. Fearn, N. E. (2005). A multilevel analysis of community effects on criminal sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 22(4), 452-487.
19. Frankel, M. E. (1973). Criminal sentences: Law without order. New York: Hill and Wang.
20. Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21. Harris, A. (2007). Diverting and abdicating judicial discretion: Cultural, political, and procedural dynamics in California juvenile justice. Law and Society Review, 41(2), 387-428.
22. Hofer, P. J., Loeffler, C., Blackwell, K., & Valentino, P. (2004). Fifteen years of guideline sentencing: An assessment of how well the federal criminal justice system is achieving the goals of sentencing reform. In U. S. S. Commission (Ed.) (pp. 246): United States Sentencing Commission.
23. Hoffman, P. D. (2003). History of the federal parole system (pp. 83): US Department of Justice.
24. Holleran, D., & Spohn, C. (2004). On the use of the total incarceration variable in sentencing research. Criminology, 42(1), 211-240.
25. Johnson, B. D. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology, 41(2), 449-490.
26. Kautt, P. (2002). Location, location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 633-671.
27. Kautt, P. M., & DeLone, M. A. (2006). Sentencing outcomes under competing but coexisting sentencing interventions: Untying the Gordian knot. Criminal Justice Review, 31(2), 105-131.
28. Kautt, P., & Spohn, C. (2002). Cracking down on black drug offenders? Testing for interactions between offender race, drug type, and sentencing strategy in federal drug sentences. Justice Quarterly, 19(1).
29. Kautt, P. M., & Spohn, C. C. (2007). Assessing blameworthiness and assigning punishment: Theoretical perspectives on judicial decision making. In D. E. Duffee, & E. R. Maguire (Eds.), Criminal justice theory: Explaining the nature and behavior of criminal justice (pp. 155-180). New York, NY: Routledge.
30. Klepper, S., Nagin, D., & Tierney, L. (1983). Discrimination in the criminal justice system-a critical appraisal of the literature. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, S. E. Martin, & M. H. Tonry (Eds.), Research on sentencing-the search for reform (pp. 55-128). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31. LaFree, G. D. (1985). Official reactions to Hispanic defendants in the southwest. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 213-237.
32. LaFrentz, C. D., & Spohn, C. (2006). Who is punished more harshly in federal court? The interaction of race/ethnicity, gender, age, and employment status in the sentencing of drug offenders. Justice Research and Policy, 8(2), 25-56.
33. Lawrence, P. B., & Hofer, P. J. (1992). An empirical study of the application of the relevant conduct guideline. Federal Setencing Reporter, 4, 330-334.
34. Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1980). Applied regression: An introduction, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.
35. Lukacs, G. (1971). History and class consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. MacKinon, J., White, H., & Davidson, R. (1983). Tests for model specification in the presence of alternative hypotheses: Some further results. Journal of Econometrics, 21, 53-70.
37. Maveal, G. M. (1996). Federal presentence reports: Multi-tasking at sentencing. Seton Hall Law Review, 26, 544-596.
38. Miethe, T. (1987). Charging and plea-bargaining under determinate sentencing: The hydraulic displacement of discretion. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78(1), 155-176.
39. Miller, L. L., & Eisenstein, J. (2005). The federal/state criminal prosecution nexus: A case study in cooperation and discretion. Law and Social Inquiry, 30(2), 239-268.
40. Moerbeck, M. (2004). The consequence of ignoring a level of nesting in multilevel analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 129-149.
41. Moore, C. A., & Miethe, T. D. (1986). Regulated and unregulated sentencing decisions: An analysis of first year practices under Minnesota's felony sentencing guidelines. Law and Society Review, 20(2), 253-277.
42. Nagel, I. H., & 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(1), 501-566.
43. Parker, K. F., & Maggard, S. R. (2005). Structural theories and race-specific drug arrests: What structural factors account for the rise in race-specific drug arrests over time? Crime and Delinquency, 51(4), 521-547.
44. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, vol. 1 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
45. Ruback, R. B., Ruth, G. R., & Shaffer, J. N. (2005). Assessing the impact of statutory change: A statewide multilevel analysis of restitution orders in Pennsylvania. Crime and Delinquency, 51(3), 318-342.
46. Ruback, R. B., & Wroblewski, J. (2001). The federal sentencing guidelines: Psychological and policy reasons for simplification. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7(4), 739-775.
47. Rubin, A. B., & Bartell, L. B. (1989). Law clerk handbook (No. FJC-M-89-2). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
48. Sabol, W. J. (1989). Racially disproportionate prison populations in the united states: An overview of historical patterns and review of contemporary issues. Contemporary Crises, 13, 405-432.
49. Spohn, C., & Cederblom, J. (1991). Race and disparities in sentencing: A test of the liberation hypothesis. Justice Quarterly, 8(3), 305-327.
50. Spohn, C., Gruhl, J., & Welch, S. (1981-2). The effects of race on sentencing: A re-examination of an unsettled question. Law and Society Review, 16(1), 71-88.
51. Steen, S., Engen, R. L., & Gainey, R. R. (2005). Images of danger and culpability: Racial stereotyping, case processing and criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43(2), 435-467.
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(4), 763-798.
53. Thomas, R. L. (1982). Court-prosecutor-probation officer: When is discretion disparity in the criminal justice system? Federal Probation, 46, 57-62.
54. Tonry, M. H. (1987). Sentencing reform impacts. Washington, DC.: National Institute of Justice.
55. Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
56. Ulmer, J. T. (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentencing guidelines. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
57. Ulmer, J. T. (2000). The rules have changed-so proceed with caution: A comment on Engen and Gainey's method for modeling sentencing outcomes under guidelines. Criminology, 38(4), 1231-1243.
58. Ulmer, J. T. (2005). The localized uses of federal sentencing guidelines in four U.S. District courts: Evidence of processual order. Symbolic Interaction, 28(2), 255-279.
59. Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. (2004). Sentencing in context: Amultilevel analysis. Criminology, 42(1), 137-177.
60. USSC (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: US Sentencing Commission.
61. USSC (1999). United states sentencing commission, guidelines manual, §3e1.1 (nov. 1999). In U. S. S. Commission (Ed.).
62. USSC (2000). United states sentencing commission, guidelines manual, §3e1.1 (nov. 2000). In U. S. S. Commission (Ed.).
63. USSC (2001). United states sentencing commission, guidelines manual, §3e1.1 (nov. 2001). In U. S. S. Commission (Ed.).
64. USSC (2002). United states sentencing commission guidelines manual, §3e1.1 (nov. 2002). In U. S. S. Commission (Ed.).
65. Wilmot, K. A., & Spohn, C. (2004). Prosecutorial discretion and real-offense sentencing: An analysis of relevant conduct under the federal sentencing guidelines. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15(3), 324-343.
66. Wooldredge, J., & Griffin, T. (2005). Displaced discretion under Ohio sentencing guidelines. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(4), 301-316.