The "Liberation" of Federal Judges' Discretion in the Wake of the Booker/Fanfan Decision: Is There Increased Disparity and Divergence between Courts?

Justice Quarterly

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 799-837

  Ulmer, Jeffery ^a   Light, Michael T ^a   Kramer, John ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing   (United States)

Author keywords

federal courts; judicial discretion; sentencing; U.S. V. Booker decision; U.S. V. Gall decision

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858625345     PISSN: 07418825     EISSN: 17459109     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2011.553726     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Agresti, A. and Finlay, B. 2009. Statistical models for the social sciences, (4th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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 & 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 Sociology of crime, law, and deviance, Edited by: Ulmer, J. T. (vol. 1), 3-48. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
4. Allison, P. 2005. Fixed effects regression methods for longitudinal data, Cary, NC: SAS Publishing.
5. Anderson, A. and Spohn, C. 2010. Lawlessness in the federal sentencing process: A test for uniformity and consistency in sentencing practices. Justice Quarterly, 27(3): 362-393.
6. Berk, R. 1983. An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48: 386-398.
7. Bowman, F. O. III. September 23 2003. Only suckers pay the sticker price: The effect of "Fast Track" programs on the future of the sentencing guidelines as a principled sentencing system, September 23, Washington, DC: Testimony before the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
8. Britt, C. L. 2000. Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Quarterly, 17: 707-732.
9. Bushway, S., Johnson, B. and Ann Slocum, L. 2007. Is the magic still there? The relevance of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23: 151-178.
10. Bushway, S. D. and Piehl, A. M. 2007. Social science research and the legal threat to presumptive sentencing guidelines. Criminology & Public Policy, 6: 461-482.
11. Charlton, P. September 23 2003. Charging, plea, and early disposition policies, September 23, Washington, DC: Testimony before the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
12. Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E. and Haritou, A. 1995. Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100: 1261-1293.
13. DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.
14. Doerner, J. K. and Demuth, S. 2010. The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27: 1-27.
15. Engen, R. 2009. Assessing determinate and presumptive sentencing: Making research relevant. Criminology and Public Policy, 8: 323-335.
16. Engen, R. and Gainey, R. R. 2000. Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: The rules have changed. Criminology, 38: 1207-1230.
17. Engen, R. L., Gainey, R. R., Crutchfield, R. D. and Weis, J. G. 2003. Discretion and disparity under Guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 38: 1207-1230.
18. Fearn, N. E. 2005. A multilevel analysis of community effects on criminal sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 22: 452-487.
19. Feldmeyer, B. and Ulmer, J. T. in press. Racial/ethnic threat and federal sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
20. Frase, R. 2007. The Apprendi-Blakely cases: Sentencing reform counter-revolution?. Criminology & Public Policy, 6: 403-432.
21. Hannon, L., Knapp, P. and DeFina, R. 2005. Racial similarity in the relationship between poverty and homicide rates: Comparing retransformed coefficients. Social Science Research, 34: 893-914.
22. Hartley, R., Maddan, S. and Spohn, C. 2007. Prosecutorial discretion: An examination of substantial assistance departures in federal crack-cocaine and powder cocaine cases. Justice Quarterly, 24: 382-407.
23. Hofer, P. J. 2007. United States v. Booker as a natural experiment: Using empirical research to inform the federal sentencing policy debate. Crime & Public Policy, 6: 433-460.
24. Holder, E. Remarks for the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice and Congressional Black Caucus Symposium "Rethinking Federal Sentencing Policy 25th Anniversary of the Sentencing Reform Act,". Washington DC. June 24.
25. Johnson, B. D. 2005. Contextual disparities in Guidelines departures. Criminology, 43: 761-797.
26. 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.
27. Johnson, B. D. and Betsinger, S. 2009. Punishing the "model minority:" Asian-American criminal sentencing outcomes in federal district courts. Criminology, 47: 1045-1090.
28. Johnson, B., Ulmer, J. and Kramer, J. 2008. The social context of Guideline circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46: 711-783.
29. Kalven, H. and Zeisel, H. 1966. The American Jury, Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
30. Kautt, P. M. 2002. Location, location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses. Justice Quarterly, 19: 633-671.
31. Kautt, P. M. 2009. Heuristic influences over offense seriousness calculations: A multilevel investigation of racial disparity under sentencing guidelines. Punishment & Society, 11: 191-218.
32. Klepper, S., Nagin, D. and Tierney, L.-J. 1983. "Discrimination in the criminal justice system: A critical appraisal of the literature". In Research on sentencing: The search for reform, Edited by: Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Martin, S. E. and Tonry, M. H. 55-128. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. Kramer, J. H. 2009. Mandatory sentencing guidelines: The framing of justice. Criminology and Public Policy, 8(2): 313-322.
34. Kramer, J. H. and Ulmer, J. T. 2009. Sentencing guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
35. Mitchell, O. and MacKenzie, D. 2004. The Relationship between Race, Ethnicity, and Sentencing Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Sentencing Research: Final Report, Washington, DC: Submitted to the National Institute of Justice.
36. Mustard, D. 2001. Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. federal courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44: 285-314.
37. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazzerolle, P. and Piquero, A. 1998. Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36: 859-866.
38. Reitz, K. R. 1998. Modeling discretion in American sentencing systems. Law and Policy, 20: 389-428.
39. Reitz, K. R. 2005. The enforceability of sentencing guidelines. Stanford Law Review, 58: 155-174.
40. Richman, D. 2008. Federal Sentencing in 2007: The Supreme Court holds-The center doesn't. Yale Law Journal, 117: 1374-1418.
41. Richter, J. C. 2008. Deja Vu all over again: How post-booker sentencing threatens equal justice under the law. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20: 340-342.
42. 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.
43. Scott, W. R. 2008. Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
44. Shermer, L. O. and Johnson, B. 2010. Criminal prosecutions: Examining prosecutorial discretion and charge reductions in U.S. federal district courts. Justice Quarterly, 27(3): 394-430.
45. Smith, B. and Damphousse, K. 1998. Terrorism, politics, and punishment: A test of structural-contextual theory and the "liberation hypothesis.". Criminology, 36: 67-92.
46. Spohn, C. 2000. "Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process". In Policies, processes and decisions of the criminal justice system: Vol. 3. Criminal Justice 2000, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
47. Spohn, C. and Cederblom, J. 1991. Race and disparities in sentencing: A test of the liberation hypothesis. Justice Quarterly, 8: 305-327.
48. Spohn, C. and Fornango, R. 2009. U.S. attorneys and substantial assistance departures: Testing for interprosecutor disparity. Criminology, 47: 813-846.
49. Steffensmeier, D. and 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., Ulmer, J. and 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.
51. Stith, K. 2008. The arc of the pendulum: Judges, prosecutors, and the exercise of discretion. Yale Law Journal, 117: 1420-1497.
52. Stith, K. and Cabranes, J. 1998. Fear of judging, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
53. Thompson, S. G. 2006. The Booker Project: The future of federal sentencing. Houston Law Review, 43: 269-278.
54. Ulmer, J. T. 1997. Social worlds of sentencing: court communities under sentencing guidelines, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
55. Ulmer, J. T. 2005. The localized uses of federal sentencing guidelines in four U.S. district courts: Evidence of processual order. Symbolic Interaction, 28: 255-279.
56. Ulmer, J. T. and Bradley, M. S. 2006. Variation in trial penalties among serious violent offenses. Criminology, 44: 631-670.
57. Ulmer, J. T., Eisenstein, J. and Johnson, B. D. 2010. Trial penalties in federal sentencing: extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Quarterly, 27: 560-592.
58. Ulmer, J. T. and Johnson, B. 2004. Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42: 137-177.
59. Ulmer, J. T. and Kramer, J. H. 1996. Court communities under sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of formal rationality and sentencing disparity. Criminology, 34: 383-408.
60. Ulmer, J. T. and 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.
61. Ulmer, J. T. and Light, M. 2010. Federal case processing and sentencing before and after the Booker/Fanfan decision: Little has changed. Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, 14: 143-178.
62. Ulmer, J. T., Light, M. T. and Kramer, J. H. in press. Racial disparity in the wake of the Booker/Fanfan decision: An alternative analysis to the USSC's 2010 report. Criminology and Public Policy,
63. USSC. 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.
64. USSC. 2006. Final report on the impact of United States v. Booker on federal sentencing, Washington, DC: Author.
65. USSC. 2009. 2009 Sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics, Washington, DC: Author.
66. USSC. 2010. Demographic Differences in federal sentencing practices: An update of the Booker Report's multivariate regression analysis, Washington, DC: Author.
67. Walker, S. 1993. Taming the system: The control of discretion in criminal justice, New York: Oxford University Press.
68. Weidner, R. R., Frase, R. S. and 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.
69. Wooldredge, J. 2009. Short versus long term effects of Ohio's switch to more structured sentencing on extralegal disparities in prison sentences in an urban court. Criminology and Public Policy, 8: 285-312.
70. Wooldredge, J. and Thistlethwaite, A. 2004. Bi-level disparities in court dispositions for intimate assaults. Criminology, 42: 417-456.
71. Zatz, M. 2000. "The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decision making: Looking toward the 21st century". In Policies, processes and decisions of the criminal justice system: Vol. 3. Criminal Justice 2000, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.