Ethnic Disparities in Sentencing and the Washington Sentencing Reform Act: The Case of Yakima County

An important issue confronting the criminal justice system is sentencing disparity. Sentencing disparity involves inequitable sanctions imposed on individuals who have committed similar offenses. These inequalities in sentencing patterns have allegedly centered on group differences and may reflect an ethnic or racial bias

Sentencing Disparities in Yakima County: The Washington Sentencing Reform Act Revisited

This study expands upon an earlier exploration of sentencing disparity in the Yakima County, Washington judicial system. The Sentencing Reform Act was adopted in 1981, becoming effective in 1984, to end inequitable sentences imposed on individuals who are convicted of similar offenses. This work adds to the original study by including an investigation of exceptional sentences and offense type crime. Independent variables are defendants\u27 ethnicity (Hispanic, Native American, and White), age, and gender. The period of investigation includes fiscal years 1986 through 1991. Data was provided to the researchers by the Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission and was processed using a difference of means test (ANOVA program). The findings suggest that sentencing disparity, while not being widespread, does persist nearly a decade after the Sentencing Reform Act was adopted. Hispanic defendants who had no prior criminal history were apt to receive disproportionately more severe sentences for similar crimes than Native Americans or whites

Federal Sentencing Disparity: 2005-2012

Federal Sentencing Disparity, 2005-2012, examines patterns of federal sentencing disparity among white and black offenders, by sentence received, and looks at judicial variation in sentencing since Booker vs. United States, regardless of race. It summarizes U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, discusses how approaches of other researchers to the study of sentencing practices differ from this approach, defines disparity as used in this study, and explains the methodology. This working paper was prepared by Abt Associates for BJS in response to a request by the Department of Justice’s Racial Disparities Working Group to design a study of federal sentencing disparity. Data are from BJS’s Federal Justice Statistics Program, which annually collects federal criminal justice processing data from various federal agencies. The analysis uses data mainly from the U.S. Sentencing Commission

Wherefore Art Thou Guidelines? An Empirical Study of White-Collar Criminal Sentencing and How the Gall Decision Effectively Eliminated the Sentencing Guidelines

[Excerpt] “Until the passage of the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines in 1984, federal judges had relatively wide discretion in sentencing federal offenders up to the statutory maximum. This judicial discretion led to a disparity in the sentences of similarly situated offenders, particularly in white-collar cases. The Guidelines attempted to eliminate this disparity by establishing maximum and minimum sentences for certain offenses based on the characteristics of the crime. An important feature of the Guidelines system was its mandatory nature, which decreased and structured the judiciary‘s discretion within bounds set by Congress. The mandatory application of the Guidelines resulted in stiff sentences for white-collar criminals, effectively reducing the disparity in sentencing that had existed prior to implementation. However, in January of 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Booker that the Guidelines‘ mandatory use of enhancing factors not found by a jury was unconstitutional, and the proper remedy for this constitutional error was to sever the provisions from the statute that made the Guidelines mandatory, rendering the Guidelines advisory. Then, in December of 2007, the Court effectively eliminated the mandatory guideline sentencing entirely in Gall v. United States. Although the Gall decision impacts all sentencing within the federal court system, a significant group of criminal defendants that one should expect to be impacted are high-ranking corporate officers convicted of financial crimes. Theoretically, those defendants should now expect to receive lighter sentences, in part because of the subjective factors available to district court judges during sentencing which were expressly rejected by appellate courts prior to Gall. Additionally, because judges often articulate the view that white-collar crime lacks violence and identifiable victims — a belief that tends to obscure the severity of the harm caused by white-collar crimes — their personal views often influence white-collar defendants‘ sentences. Although one of the motivating factors behind Congress‘s passage of the Guidelines was the relatively light sentences given to white-collar criminals, recent trends demonstrate that judges have increasingly imposed more lenient sentences upon white-collar defendants since the Booker decision, a trend which Gall could help accelerate. This note will theoretically analyze why one should expect lighter sentences for defendants convicted of financial crimes, and it will test that theory by examining sentences imposed on Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) from 1998 to 2007.

Indigenous disparity in lower court imprisonment decisions: a study of two Australian jurisdictions, 1998 to 2008

This paper reports findings from statistical analyses of Indigeneity and lower court sentencing in New South Wales and South Australia from 1998 to 2008. The aim was to explore the probability of Indigenous versus non-Indigenous defendants receiving a prison sentence over time, while controlling for other key sentencing determinates (ie sex, age, criminal history, seriousness of current offence, plea, bail status). Across the study period, results generally showed that Indigenous offenders were more likely to receive a prison term than similarly situated non-Indigenous offenders. However, the pattern of disparity over time differed by jurisdiction. In New South Wales, Indigenous offenders were more likely to receive a prison sentence throughout the entire period. By contrast, in the South Australian lower courts, disparity was found to have increased, with earlier years showing parity and leniency, before a trend towards a greater likelihood of a prison sentence for Indigenous offenders. Focal concerns theory is used to provide a possible explanation for the study’s finding of Indigenous lower court sentencing disparity

Pendekatan Logika Hukum sebagai Upaya Meminimalisir Disparitas Pidana dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana

In The Integrated Criminal Justice System (ICJS), a judge has an important role to optimize the purpose of special and general prevency. However, the judgments frequently remain disparity of sentencing. In addition, disparity of sentencing brings negative effects on the society in law enforcement, it creates the new crime and the failure of controlling the convicted criminals. Besides the law substance, the cause of disparity is personality of the judges which covers social background, education, religion, experience, social activity and other factors about dissimilarity concept of The Integrated Criminal Justice System. In fact, in system approach, the concept of disparity of sentencing is debatable because of some factors, such as environmental condition and economy class, so that the justice and benefit of law can be realized. Therefore, verisimilitude approach which applies logic of law is necessary to minimize disparity of sentencing. There is an opinion among jurists that there is a correlation between the law and the logic. Logical is special characteristic of law about its mutual correspondence, norms of law with logical principles. According to B. Arief Sidharta, law theories systematically can be divided into three branches, 1) Law theories, 2) Law and logic, 3) Methodology. Moreover, law and logic also discuss juridical argumentation, deontic logic, and the relation between law and language. Nevertheless, the thesis in the progressive law is people paradigm and in practical law is rule paradigm. Holmes stated that logic of rule is perfected with logic of experience. In the progressive law, a law is for human, but in the practical law, human is for law and logic of law. Progressive law enables to face disparity of sentencing so that the justice in sociologically and psychologically terms can be applied without ignoring the pure law. Logic of law approach enables to minimize criminal disparity of sentencing through having similarity perception of law and law enforcement which leads the definition of fallacies of law, comprehending logic of induction and deduction, forming and creating law, increasing supervision to the judges work, rising the function supervisor and observer judges in the penitentiary, having the similar perception of The Integrated Criminal System to control the convicted criminals in the penitentiary, and effort to support trust of the society to the law.Keywords: Logic of law, disparity of sentencing, the integrated criminal justice syste

FAKTOR PENYEBAB DISPARITAS PIDANA DALAM PERKARA PENCURIAN DI PENGADILAN NEGERI WONOSARI

Dispariy of sentencing has been experienced by almost all of countries in the same case, for exempale case of theft. The elememnts of theftand penal sanctions stipulated in law are considered by the judges in giving sentence. This case study of research was conducted at the District Court of Wonosari. This research aims at finding and analyzing data on factor causing disparity of sentencing in theft cases at The District Court of Wonosari. This is a normative research and data were analyzed qualitatively.the data were conducted by interviewing the judges and analyzing by some theft sentences. The research result indicated that factors influencing disparity of sentencing in theft cases are legal regulation, the direction of the judge, and internal or external factors of the judge. After analyzing the data, it can be conducted thet disparity of snetencing is not necessarily wiped out, because disparityof sentencing indicated the independence of the judge by considering some factors. The existences of the minimum and maximum of the penal sanctions for the occured can help the judge to determine the sentence for the occured. The goal of law is to give certainty, justice, and utility for the society. The disparity of sentencing reflects the goal of the law, that is justice for offender, justice for victims, adn justice for the society

2008 Presidential Candidates' Platforms on Criminal Justice

A guide to the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Platforms on Criminal Justice that provides information on a range of key criminal justice issues, including sentencing policy, reentry, death penalty, and felony disenfranchisement

The Reality of Racial Disparity in Criminal Justice: The Significance of Data Collection

Criminologists have long debated the presence of racial disparity at various places in the criminal justice system, from initial on-the-street encounters between citizens and police officers to the sentencing behavior of judges. What is new is the use of statistics designed to persuade the public, and not just other academics and researchers, that grave racial disparities exist in the system, and that these disparities necessitate significant policy changes