Abstract
Judicial discretion in sentencing has historically produced disparities in criminal sentencing outcomes. In an effort to address disparity at the federal level, in 1984, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that led to the creation of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and subsequently the adoption of federal sentencing guidelines. Studies show that even among similarly situated defendants (in terms of offense score and criminal history category) disparities have persisted regardless of the sentencing guidelines. An understudied source of disparity is the combined and interactive role of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in the application of the guidelines and the statutory framework that informs sentencing. The current study examines sentencing for the federal offense of illegal reentry of removed aliens (8 U.S. Code §1326) in one division of a U.S. District Court. This study reports data from direct non-participant observation of sentencing hearings and publicly available court records. Findings reveal sources of sentencing disparity among similarly situated cases that are not readily illuminated by the yearly quantitative data provided by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The findings suggest that disparity in the sentencing of similarly situated illegal reentry defendants is influenced by differential judicial interpretation of and use of the tools made available to them in the sentencing guidelines and the statutory sentencing authority.
Highlights
Disparities in federal criminal sentences prompted the U.S Congress to pass legislation that led to the creation of the U.S Sentencing Commission, and subsequently the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
Offense score and criminal history category are used in conjunction with the federal sentencing table to determine the prescribed sentence guideline range in months that is advised by the U
Notions of disparity in criminal sentencing are predicated on the idea of situated offenders
Summary
Disparities in federal criminal sentences prompted the U.S Congress to pass legislation (the Sentencing Reform Act of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984) that led to the creation of the U.S Sentencing Commission, and subsequently the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (implemented in November of 1987). Under the federal guideline system, before each defendant is sentenced, unless it is waived, a U.S Probation Office prepares and presents to the court a presentence investigation report that includes a recommended sentence. The report contains an offense level score (based on specific behavioral aspects of offense conduct) and a criminal history category. The offense level score and criminal history category determinations are made after certain guideline-authorized adjustments are applied (factors which increase or decrease the offense conduct score). Offense score and criminal history category are used in conjunction with the federal sentencing table to determine the prescribed sentence guideline range in months that is advised by the U. See the image below for a partial reproduction of the federal sentencing table
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callMore From: Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology
Disclaimer: 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.
