Comparing Between-Judge Disparities in Imprisonment Decisions Across Sentencing Regimes in Ohio

Abstract

Empirical studies of judicial effects on the use of imprisonment have yet to estimate changes in these effects under more-structured sentencing schemes. Findings are presented from a multilevel analysis of whether the implementation of Ohio's presumptive guidelines in 1996 was effective for reducing inter-judge differences in the distribution of non-suspended prison sentences and in defendant-level effects on imprisonment. These data for seven urban courts provide a unique opportunity to estimate changes in judicial effects across sentencing regimes. Results suggest that Ohio's guidelines were successful for reducing judicial effects on sentencing based on judges' tenure on the bench, prosecutorial experience, and caseload composition.