Prosecutorial Discretion and Real-Offense Sentencing: An Analysis of Relevant Conduct under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Criminal Justice Policy Review

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 324-343

  Wilmot, Keith A ^a   Spohn, Cassia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA   (United States)

Author keywords

federal sentencing guidelines; prosecutorial discretion; real offense sentencing; relevant conduct

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992804695     PISSN: 08874034     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0887403403259434     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Albonetti, C. (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.
2. American College of Trial Lawyers. (1999). Report and proposal on Section 5K1.1 of the U.S. sentencing guidelines. Irvine, CA: American College of Trial Lawyers.
3. Berk, R. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48, 386-391.
4. Daly, K., & Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, race, and sentencing. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 201-252). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Engen, R., & Gainey, R. (2000). Conceptualizing legally relevant factors under guidelines: A reply to Ulmer. Criminology, 4, 1245-1252.
6. Hanushek, E., & Jackson, J. (1977). Statistical methods for social scientists. New York: Academic Press.
7. Heaney, G. (1991). The reality of guidelines sentencing: No end to disparity. American Criminal Law Review, 28, 161-232.
8. Heckman, J. (1974). Shadows prices, market wages, and labor supply. Econometrics, 42, 679-683.
9. Hofer, P., & Blackwell, K. (1999). Searching for discrimination in federal sentencing. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission.
10. Kennedy, E. (1979). Towards a new system of criminal sentencing: Law with order. American Criminal Law Review, 16, 353-381.
11. Lear, E. (1993). Is conviction irrelevant? UCLA Law Review, 40, 1179-1239.
12. McDonald, D., & Carlson, K. (1993). Sentencing in the federal courts: Does race matter? Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
13. Nagel, I., & Schulhofer, S. (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.
14. Reitz, K. (1993). Sentencing facts: Travesties of real-offense sentencing. Stanford Law Review, 45, 523-573.
15. Reitz, K. (1993). Sentencing facts: Travesties of real-offense sentencing. Stanford Law Review, 45, 523-573.
16. Stolzenberg, R., & Relles, D. (1990). Theory testing in a world of constrained research design: The significance of Heckman's censored sampling bias correction for nonexperimental research. Sociological Methods and Research, 4, 395-415.
17. Studenmund, A. (1992). Using econometrics: A practical guide. New York: HarperCollins.
18. Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. U.S. Sentencing Commission. (1995). Intensive study sample (ISS). Washington, DC: West Group.
20. U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2000). Federal sentencing guidelines manual. Washington, DC: West Group.
21. Wilkins, W., Jr. (1992). The federal sentencing guidelines: Striking an appropriate balance. U.C. Davis Law Review, 25, 571-586.
22. Wilkins, W., Jr., & Steer, J. (1990). Relevant conduct: The cornerstone of the federal sentencing guidelines. South Carolina Law Review, 28, 495-521.
23. Zatz, M. (1987). The changing form of racial/ethnic biases in sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25, 69-92.