Trial penalties in federal sentencing: Extra-Guidelines factors and district variation

Justice Quarterly

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 560-592

  Ulmer, Jeffery T ^a   Eisenstein, James ^a   Johnson, Brian D ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Federal courts; Guilty pleas; Sentencing; Sentencing disparity; Sentencing Guidelines; Trials

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954154395     PISSN: 07418825     EISSN: 17459109     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07418820902998063     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Albonetti, C. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38, 247-266.
2. 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.
3. Albonetti, C. A. (1998). The role of gender and departures in the sentencing of defendants convicted of a white collar offense under the federal sentencing Guidelines. In J. T. Ulmer (Ed.), Sociology of crime, law, and deviance (Vol. 1, pp. 3-48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
4. Alschuler, A. (1978). Sentencing reform and prosecutorial power: A critique of recent proposals for fixed and presumptive sentencing. In Determinate sentencing: Reform or regression (pp. 59-84). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5. Barkan, S. E., & Cohn, S. F. (2005). Why whites favor spending more money to fight crime: The role of racial prejudice. Social Problems, 52, 300-314.
6. Beim, A., & Fine, G. A. (2007). The cultural frameworks of prejudice: Reputational images and the postwar disjuncture of Jews and communism. Sociological Quarterly, 48, 373-398.
7. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Martin, S., & Tonry, M. (Eds.). (1983). Research on sentencing: The search for reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. Bontrager, S., Bales, W., & Chiricos, T. (2005). Race, ethnicity, threat and the labeling of convicted felons. Criminology, 43, 589-622.
9. Brereton, D., & Casper, J. (1982). Does it pay to plead guilty? Differential sentencing and the functioning of criminal courts. Law and Society Review, 16, 45-70.
10. Britt, C. L. (2000). Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Quarterly, 17, 707-732.
11. Bushway, S., Johnson, B., & Slocum, L. A. (2007). Is the magic still there? The relevance of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(2), 151-178.
12. Bushway, S. D., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law and Society Review, 35, 733-764.
13. Bushway, S. D., & Piehl, A. M. (2007). Social science research and the legal threat to presumptive sentencing Guidelines. Criminology and Public Policy, 6(3), 461-482.
14. Curry, T. R., Lee, G., & Rodriguez, S. F. (2004). Does victim gender increase sentence severity? Further explanations of gender dynamics and sentencing outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 50, 319-343.
15. Demuth, S. (2003). Racial and ethnic differences in pretrial release decisions and outcomes: A comparison of Hispanic, black, and white felony arrestees. Criminology, 41, 873-908.
16. Demuth, S., & Steffensmeier, D. (2004). The impact of gender and race-ethnicity in the pretrial release process. Social Problems, 51, 222-242.
17. Dixon, J. (1995). The organizational context of criminal sentencing. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1157-1198.
18. Eisenstein, J., Flemming, R. B., & Nardulli, P. F. (1988). The contours of justice: Communities and their courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
19. Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
20. Emmelman, D. (2003). Justice for the poor: A study of criminal defense work. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
21. Engen, R. L., & Gainey, R. R. (2000). Conceptualizing legally relevant factors under Guidelines: A reply to Ulmer. Criminology, 38, 1245-1252.
22. Engen, R. L., Gainey, R. R., Crutchfield, R. D., & Weis, J. G. (2003). Discretion and disparity under Guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 38, 1207-1230.
23. Engen, R. L., & Steen, S. (2000). The power to punish: Discretion and sentencing reform in the war on drugs. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1357-1395.
24. Farr, K. A. (1984). Maintaining balance through an institutionalized plea negotiation process. Criminology, 22, 291-319.
25. Fearn, N. E. (2005). A multilevel analysis of community effects on criminal sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 22, 452-487.
26. Flemming, R. B., Nardulli, P. F., & Eisenstein, J. (1992). The craft of justice: Politics and work in criminal court communities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
27. Griffin, T., & Wooldredge, J. (2006). Sex-based disparities in felony dispositions before and after sentencing reform in Ohio. Criminology, 44, 893-924.
28. Hagan, J. (1975). The social and legal construction of criminal justice: A study of the presentence process. Social Problems, 22, 620-637.
29. Hannon, L., Knapp, P., & DeFina, R. (2005). Racial similarity in the relationship between poverty and homicide rates: Comparing retransformed coefficients. Social Science Research, 34, 893-914.
30. Hofer, P. J., & Blackwell, K. (2001, November). What are we learning from multiple regression studies of federal sentencing decisions? Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
31. Holmes, M., Daudistel, H., & Taggart, W. (1992). Plea bargaining policy and state district court caseloads: An interrupted time series analysis. Law and Society Review, 26, 139-159.
32. Johnson, B. D. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology, 41, 449-490.
33. Johnson, B. D. (2005). Contextual disparities in Guidelines departures. Criminology, 43, 761-797.
34. Johnson, B. D. (2006). The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: Integrating judge and county level influences in the study of courtroom decision making. Criminology, 44, 259-298.
35. Johnson, B., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (2008). The social context of Guideline circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46, 711-783.
36. Kautt, P. M. (2002). Location, location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses. Justice Quarterly, 19, 633-671.
37. King, N., Soule, D., Steen, S., & Weidner, R. (2005). When process affects punishment: Differences in sentences after guilty plea, bench trial, and jury trial in five Guideline states. Columbia Law Review, 105, 960-1009.
38. Klepper, S., Nagin, D., & Tierney, L.-J. (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 Academy Press.
39. Koons-Witt, B. (2002). The effect of gender on the decision to incarcerate before and after the introduction of sentencing Guidelines. Criminology, 40, 297-328.
40. Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court "corrections" to Pennsylvania's sentencing Guidelines. Criminology, 40, 897-932.
41. Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (2009). Sentencing guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
42. Kurlychek, M. C., & Johnson, B. D. (2004). The juvenile penalty: A comparison of juvenile and young adult sentencing outcomes in criminal court. Criminology, 42, 485-515.
43. LaFree, G. (1985). Adversarial and nonadversarial justice: A comparison of guilty pleas and trials. Criminology, 23, 289-312.
44. Mather, L. (1979). Comments on the history of plea bargaining. Law and Society Review, 13, 281-285.
45. Meeker, J., & Pontell, H. (1985). Court caseloads, plea bargains, and criminal sanctions: The effects of section 17 P.C. in California. Criminology, 23, 119-143.
46. 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.
47. 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, 501-566.
48. Nardulli, P. F., Eisenstein, J., & Flemming, R. B. (1988). The tenor of justice: Criminal courts and the guilty plea process. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
49. Peterson, R. D., & Hagan, J. (1984). Changing conceptions of race: Towards an account of anomalous findings of sentencing research. American Sociological Review, 49, 56-70.
50. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Rhodes, W. (1979). Plea bargaining: Its effect on sentencing and convictions in the District of Columbia. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 70, 360-375.
52. Savelsberg, J. J. (1992). Law that does not fit society: Sentencing Guidelines as a neoclassical reaction to the dilemmas of substantivized law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1346-1381.
53. Schulhofer, S., & Nagel, I. H. (1989). Negotiated pleas under the federal sentencing Guidelines: The first fifteen months. American Criminal Law Review, 27, 231-288.
54. Smith, D. A. (1986). The plea bargaining controversy. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 949-968.
55. Spohn, C., Gruhl, J., & Welch, S. (1982). The effect of race on sentencing: A reexamination of an unsettled question. Law and Society Review, 16, 71-88.
56. Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young unemployed Black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38, 281-306.
57. Steen, S., Engen, R., & Gainey, R. (2005). Images of danger and culpability: Racial stereotyping, case processing, and criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43, 435-468.
58. 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.
59. Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2001). Ethnicity and judges' sentencing decisions: Hispanic-black-white comparisons. Criminology, 39, 145-178.
60. Steffensmeier, D., & Hebert, C. (1999). Women and men policymakers: Does the judge's gender affect the sentencing of criminal defendants? Social Forces, 77, 1163-1196.
61. Steffensmeier, D., Kramer, J. H., & Streifel, C. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31, 411-446.
62. 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, 763-798.
63. Stolzenberg, R. M., & Relles, D. A. (1997). Tools for intuition about sample selection bias and its correction. American Sociological Review, 62, 494-507.
64. Uhlman, T., & Walker, N. D. (1979). A plea is no bargain: The impact of case disposition on sentence. Social Science Quarterly, 60, 218-234.
65. Uhlman, T., & Walker, N. D. (1980). "He takes some of my time, I take some of his:" An analysis of judicial sentencing patterns in jury cases. Law and Society Review, 14, 323-341.
66. Ulmer, J. (2005). The localized uses of federal sentencing guidelines in four U.S. District Courts: Evidence of processual order. Symbolic Interaction, 28, 255-279.
67. Ulmer, J. T. (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentencing Guidelines. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
68. Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2006). Variation in trial penalties among serious violent offenses. Criminology, 44, 631-670.
69. Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42, 137-177.
70. Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (1996). Court communities under sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of formal rationality and sentencing disparity. Criminology, 34, 383-408.
71. Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (1998). The use and transformation of formal decision making criteria: Sentencing Guidelines, organizational contexts, and case processing strategies. Social Problems, 45, 248-267.
72. Ulmer, J. T., Kurlychek, M., & Kramer, J. (2007). Prosecutorial discretion and the imposition of mandatory minimums. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 427-458.
73. U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2006). Final report on the impact of United States v. Booker on federal Sentencing. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission.
74. Weidner, R. R., Frase, R. S., & Schultz, J. S. (2005). The impact of contextual factors on the decision to imprison in large urban jurisdictions: A multilevel analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 400-424.
75. Wooldredge, J. (1989). An aggregate level examination of the caseload pressure hypothesis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 5, 259-270.
76. Wooldredge, J., & Thistlethwaite, A. (2004). Bi-level disparities in court dispositions for intimate assaults. Criminology, 42, 417-456.
77. Wright, R. F. (2005). Trial distortion and the end of innocence in federal criminal justice. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154, 79-156.
78. Zatz, M. (1984). Race, ethnicity, and determinate sentencing: A new dimension to an old controversy. Criminology, 22, 147-171.
79. Zatz, M., & Hagan, J. (1985). Crime, time, and punishment: An exploration of selection bias in sentencing research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1(1), 103-126.