Abstract
Sentencing reforms are often presumed to be negatively received by the judiciary, although there is little research directly examining why this is the case. In this article, results from a survey of Ohio judges who recently experienced a major sentencing reform (Ohio's Senate Bill 2) are examined. A number of important findings emerge, including that a slight majority of judges favors the reform overall, despite opposition to specific features of the legislation. There is also evidence that judges who are personally unfavorable toward Senate Bill 2 assume that the majority of judges share their disfavor, whereas judges who favor the bill are more realistic in their perceptions of others' assessments. Chi-square analysis and principal components analysis show that general disfavor of Senate Bill 2 is associated with concerns about loss of judicial authority but that many judges who favor the bill believe it can promote greater equity in sentencing.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
