Cross-Jurisdictional Disposition Variability Under Sentencing Guidelines

Abstract

The sentencing guidelines of different jurisdictions often have distinct objectives and approaches to sentencing. Drawing on the arguments of past research as well as focal concerns and populist punitiveness, the current research assesses whether or not differences in design and implementation of the sentencing guidelines of two systems (Pennsylvania and Oregon) influence the incarceration and sentence length decisions meted out to comparable sex offenders within these jurisdictions. The authors hypothesize that, despite having similar grid-based configurations, variations in the history and structure of these guidelines significantly influence predictors of sentencing outcomes across these jurisdictions. Using indecent assault and sexual abuse cases, this research explores how well the aforementioned orientations perform in explaining the incarceration and sentence length decisions within and across these two jurisdictions.