Defending the Homeland: Judicial Sentencing Practices for Federal Immigration Offenses

Justice Quarterly

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 76-104

  Hartley, Richard D ^a   Tillyer, Rob ^a  

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

Author keywords

federal sentencing; immigration; judicial discretion

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858669824     PISSN: 07418825     EISSN: 17459109     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2011.585140     Document Type: Article

References (62)

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. Bibas, S. 2005. Regulating local variations in federal sentencing. Stanford Law Review, 58: 137-154.
4. Bolla, E. W. 2006. An unwarranted disparity: Granting fast-track departures in non-fast-track districts. Cardozo Law Review, 28: 895-930.
5. Bowman, F. O. 2008. Sentencing high-loss corporate insider frauds after Booker. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20: 167-173.
6. Bureau of Prisons. 2006. Inmate security designation and custody classification, Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement Washington, DC: United States Departments of Justice.
7. Bushway, S., Johnson, B. and Slocum, L. 2007. Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23: 151-178.
8. Bushway, S. D. and Piehl, A. M. 2001. Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law and Society Review, 34: 733-764.
9. Curry, T. R. and Corral-Camacho, G. 2008. Sentencing young minority males for drug offenses: Testing for conditional effects between race/ethnicity, gender and age during the US war on drugs. Punishment & Society, 10: 253-276.
10. Demleitner, N. V. 2006. Offenses involving immigration, naturalization, and passports: Model sentencing guidelines §§2l1, 2l2, 2l3, and 2l4. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 18: 351-358.
11. Demleitner, N. V. and Sands, J. M. 2002. Non-citizen offenders and immigration crimes: New challenges in the federal system. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14: 247-254.
12. Demuth, S. 2002. The effect of citizenship status on sentencing outcomes in drug cases. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14: 271-275.
13. Demuth, S. and Steffensmeier, S. 2004. Ethnicity effects on sentence outcomes in large urban courts: Comparisons among White, Black, and Hispanic defendants. Social Science Quarterly, 85: 994-1011.
14. Doerner, J. K. and Demuth, S. 2010. The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in US federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27: 1-27.
15. Engen, R. L. 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.
16. Frankel, M. E. 1972. Lawlessness in sentencing. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 41: I
17. Gorman, T. E. 2009. A history of fast-track sentencing. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21: 311-317.
18. Harrington, M. and Spohn, C. 2007. Do race, age, and sex matter in sentencing decisions? Use of the total incarceration variable in a non-guideline jurisdiction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44: 36-63.
19. Hartley, R. D., 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: 383-407.
20. Heckman, J. J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47: 153-161.
21. Holleran, D. and Spohn, C. 2004. On the use of the total incarceration variable in sentencing research. Criminology, 42: 211-240.
22. Huff, M. L. (2003). Testimony of Chief Judge Marilyn L. Huff, Southern District of California before the United States Sentencing Commission concerning fast track or early disposition programs. United States Sentencing Commission. Retrieved from http://www.ussc.gov/hearings/9_23_03/Huff.pdf.
23. Johnson, B. D. 2003. Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology, 41: 501-542.
24. Johnson, B. D. and Betsinger, S. 2009. Sentencing the model minority: Asian American stereotypes and disparities in criminal punishments. Criminology, 47: 1045-1090.
25. Jordan, S. D., (2005). Have we come full circle? Judicial sentencing discretion restored in Booker and FanFan. University of Pittsburgh School of Law Working Paper Series. Berkeley Electronic Press.
26. Kautt, P. M. and 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: 1-36.
27. Kempf-Leonard, K. and Sample, L. L. 2001. Have federal sentencing guidelines reduced severity? An examination of one circuit. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17: 111-144.
28. Kramer, J. H. and Steffensmeier, D. 1993. Race and imprisonment decisions. The Sociological Quarterly, 34: 357-376.
29. Logue, M. A. 2009. "The price of being Mexican": Sentencing disparities between noncitizen Mexican and non-Mexican Latinos in the federal courts. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31: 423-445.
30. Maxfield, L. D and Kramer, J. H. 1998. Substantial assistance: An empirical yardstick gauging equity in current federal policy and practice, Washington, DC: Sentencing Commission.
31. Mustard, D. B. 2001. Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the US federal courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44: 285-314.
32. Nardulli, P. F., Eisenstein, J. and Fleming, R. B. 1988. The tenor of justice: Criminal courts and the guilty plea process, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
33. Sabol, W. J., West, H. C. and Copper, M. 2009. Prisoners in 2008, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
34. Schmitt, G. R. 2009. Overview of federal criminal cases, fiscal year 2008, Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
35. Spohn, C. 2009. How do judges decide: The search for fairness and justice in punishment, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Spohn, C. and Fornango, R. 2009. US attorneys and substantial assistance departures: Testing for interprosecutor disparity. Criminology, 47: 813-842.
37. Spohn, C. 2000. Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice: Criminal Justice.
38. Spohn, C. and 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.
39. Spohn, C. and Holleran, D. 2000. The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38: 281-306.
40. Spohn, C. and 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.
41. Steffensmeier, D. and Demuth, S. 2000. Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in US federal courts: Who is punished more harshly?. American Sociological Review, 65: 705-729.
42. Steffensmeier, D. and Demuth, S. 2001. Ethnicity and judges sentencing decisions: Hispanic-black-white comparisons. Criminology, 39: 145-177.
43. Steffensmeier, D. 1980. Assessing the impact of the women's movement on sex-based differences in the handling of adult criminal defendants. Crime and Delinquency, 26: 344-357.
44. Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J. T. and Kramer, J. H. 1998. The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36: 763-797.
45. The Sentencing Project. 2005. Racial disparity in sentencing: A review of the literature, Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
46. Stolzenberg, R. M. and Relles, D. A. 1997. Tools for intuition about sample selection bias and its correction. American Sociological Review, 62: 494-507.
47. Ulmer, J. T. 2005. The localized uses of federal sentencing guidelines in four US District courts: Evidence of processual order. Symbolic Interaction, 28: 255-279.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Ulmer, J. T., & Light, M. T. (2009). Modeling sentencing in US federal courts: Competing methods for modeling presumptive sentencing guidelines. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Philadelphia, PA.
51. United States Sentencing Commission. 2010. Demographic differences in federal sentencing practices: An update of the Booker report's multivariate regression analysis, Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
52. United States Sentencing Commission. 2009. Overview of federal criminal cases fiscal year 2008, Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
53. United States Sentencing Commission. 2008. Sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics, Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
54. United States Sentencing Commission. 2006. Final report on the impact of United States v. Booker on federal sentencing, Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
55. United States Sentencing Commission. 2005. Federal sentencing guidelines manual, Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission.
56. 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: United States Sentencing Commission.
57. Wu, J. and Spohn, C. 2010. Interdistrict disparity in sentencing in three US district courts. Crime & Delinquency, 56: 290-322.
58. Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000). Supreme Court of the United States 530 US 466.
59. Blakely v. Washington. (2004). Supreme Court of the United States 542 US 296.
60. Gall v. United States. (2007). Supreme Court of the United States 552 US 38.
61. Kimbrough v. United States. (2007). Supreme Court of the United States 552 US 85.
62. United States v. Booker. (2005). Supreme Court of the United States 543 US 220.