Location, Location, Location: The Impact of Guideline Grid Location on the Value of Sentencing Enhancements

A long literature provides empirical estimates of differential treatment (by race and other factors) in the criminal justice system, taking sentencing rules as given. This article considers the disparate impact of the rules, rather than their implementation, by providing a quantitative assessment of the Maryland sentencing grid for person offenses using the distribution of defendants on the grid. The basic insight is that movement along the grid itself (either across rows or across columns) is nonlinear in sentence lengths (in both absolute magnitudes and percent terms). As a result, an additional point results in a different increase in the recommended sentence length depending on the other factors that are present. Because the distribution of factors is not random, factors like weapon use that appear to have equal weight in the formula developed by policymakers turn out to have very different weights in practice.

[1]  Terance D. Miethe,et al.  SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITIES UNDER DETERMINATE SENTENCING SYSTEMS: A COMPARISON OF PREGUIDELINE AND POSTGUIDELINE PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA* , 1985 .

[2]  D. J. Harris,et al.  Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform , 1984 .

[3]  Robert J. Sampson,et al.  Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Crime and Criminal Justice in the United States , 1997, Crime and Justice.

[4]  R. Gainey,et al.  MODELING THE EFFECTS OF LEGALLY RELEVANT AND EXTRALEGAL FACTORS UNDER SENTENCING GUIDELINES: THE RULES HAVE CHANGED , 2000 .

[5]  J. Waldfogel.  Does inter-judge disparity justify empirically based sentencing guidelines? , 1998 .

[6]  David B. Mustard.  Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts* , 2001, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[7]  J. H. Kramer.  Rejoinder to Professor Ruback’s article: Warranted and Unwarranted Complexity in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines , 1998 .

[8]  Jeffrey R. Kling,et al.  Measuring Interjudge Sentencing Disparity: Before and After the Federal Sentencing Guidelines* , 1999, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[9]  Maryland Avenue.  An Examination of Unwarranted Sentencing Disparity Under Maryland's Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines , 1997 .

[10]  Richard S. Frase.  State Sentencing Guidelines: Diversity, Consensus, and Unresolved Policy Issues , 2005 .

[11]  Michelle Alexander,et al.  The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness A Case Study on the Role of Books in Leveraging Social Change , 2014 .

[12]  S. Bushway,et al.  Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion: Quasi‐Experimental Evidence from Human Calculation Errors , 2011 .

[13]  Rodney L. Engen.  Assessing determinate and presumptive sentencing—Making research relevant* , 2009 .

[14]  K. Reitz.  Modeling Discretion in American Sentencing Systems , 1998 .

[15]  Marjorie S. Zatz.  The Changing Forms of Racial/Ethnic Biases in Sentencing , 1987 .

[16]  Roxanne Lieb,et al.  Sentencing Reform in the Other Washington , 2001, Crime and Justice.

[17]  E. Owens,et al.  More Time, Less Crime? Estimating the Incapacitative Effect of Sentence Enhancements , 2008, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[18]  Anne Morrison Piehl,et al.  Judging Judicial Discretion: Legal Factors and Racial Discrimination in Sentencing , 2001 .

[19]  R. Ruback.  Warranted and Unwarranted Complexity in the U.S. Sentencing Guideline , 1998 .