Search

AbstractLife sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP) are an important feature of the modern American penal system, but relatively little research examines the factors that shape the imposition of these sentences. In the federal system, life sentences—all of which are LWOP sentences due to the abolition of federal parole—often result from mandatory minimum sentencing statutes that require life imprisonment. We use USSC data from 2010 to 2017 to investigate the imposition and circumvention of mandatory LWOP sentences in federal court. We consider the role of structural inequalities in defining who is convicted under statutes requiring life sentences and examine who ultimately receives these sentences. We also investigate the unique role that substantial assistance departures play in circumventing mandatory minimum penalties, examine how they potentially contribute to racial inequality in life imprisonment, and assess how these processes differ for drug and non-drug crimes. Our results indicate that almost half of all individuals convicted under statutes requiring LWOP did not receive the mandatory life sentence; moreover, almost all (95%) of those who avoided the mandatory sentence received a substantial assistance departure. We also find that Black, but not Hispanic, offenders are more likely than White offenders to be convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory life sentence, that Black offenders who are eligible for a mandatory life term are more likely than similarly-situated White defendants to actually receive it, and that Black mandatory life offenders are less likely than their White counterparts to benefit from downward departures for providing substantial assistance. We conclude that substantial assistance departures are an important mechanism that prosecutors and judges use to “demandatorize” life sentences and that both mandatory minimums and substantial assistance departures shape patterns of inequality in the federal sentencing process, but we find limited evidence to suggest that these differences are due to the sentencing of federal drug offenses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study builds on recent research assessing the decision to impose life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP), focusing on females convicted in US District Courts. Using USSC data from 2010 to 2017 and an intersectional approach, we described the characteristics of life-eligible and life-sentenced women and examined the factors that predict life eligibility among females and males. Black women faced higher odds of life eligibility than White or Hispanic women and life experiences and case processing factors affected life eligibility differently for women and men. These results highlight the importance of intersectionality for understanding gendered sentencing pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite its importance, the pretrial process has not been subjected to the type of scrutiny directed at judges' sentencing decisions. The goal of this project, which uses data on defendants released pretrial in four Arizona counties, was to identify the factors that predict failure to appear (FTA) for court hearings and to determine whether these predictors vary across defendants. We found that the likelihood of FTA was affected by a combination of defendant characteristics, case characteristics, and the jurisdiction where the case was adjudicated; the FTA prediction score, which is obtained from the risk assessment instrument used in all Arizona counties, also had a significant effect on the likelihood of FTA. Discussion focuses on inter-jurisdictional differences in FTA rates, the fact that the type of pretrial release did not predict FTA, and the fact that the defendant's race/ethnicity affected the FTA prediction score and most of the Public Safety Assessment factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research examining disparities in sentencing outcomes under federal sentencing guidelines has focused almost exclusively on aggregate national data. Although these studies contribute considerably to the criminological literature on sentencing disparity, their findings may have masked contextual variation in relation to case processing across jurisdictions. With data from the U.S. District Courts for Minnesota, Nebraska, and Southern Iowa for 1998 through 2000, this article assesses whether interdistrict variations in sentence outcomes exist and whether the factors that affect these outcomes vary across jurisdictions. It also attempts to determine whether disparities in sentence outcomes can be attributed to downward departures. The findings raise questions about the validity of the assumption of uniformity in the federal sentencing process and the use of aggregate data to study federal sentence outcomes. (Contains 8 notes and 5 tables.)

Although prior research has contributed to understanding of the factors that influence sexual assault case processing, it has primarily been viewed through the prosecutorial lens. The authors assert that a prosecutor's charging decision involves not only a decision to file or reject the charge but, assuming that the case is not rejected, also a decision regarding the charge that should be filed. Accordingly, they examined the congruence between the charge filed by police at arrest with the charge filed by the prosecutor. The results indicate that charging agreement between police and prosecutors in rape cases is governed by a legal sufficiency framework in Philadelphia, where a specialized charging unit receives cases after decisions to charge have been made, and a trial sufficiency framework in Kansas City, Missouri, where a specialized unit makes the decision to charge and uses vertical prosecution from screening through disposition. (Contains 1 table, 2 figures and 11 notes.)

The effect of legal and extralegal factors on felony sentence outcomes has been widely studied, typically using a total incarceration variable that defines sentence outcomes as incarceration or probation. Research conducted by Holleran and Spohn has called this into question, revealing that factors that affected jail sentences were different than those that affected prison sentences and demonstrating that the conclusions one would draw regarding the influence of extralegal offender characteristics such as race and ethnicity differ depending on the way in which sentence was defined. The authors replicate and extend the research conducted by Holleran and Spohn, using several operational definitions of the decision to incarcerate or not, focusing on sentence outcomes for offenders convicted of felonies in a jurisdiction with an indeterminate sentencing system. Results provide compelling evidence in support of Holleran and Spohn. (Contains 4 tables and 7 notes.)

The objective of this study was to examine the influence of type of counsel across race on juvenile court outcomes. Using data from a sample of juvenile court referrals from two midwestern juvenile courts, this study examined the interaction of race and type of counsel on disposition outcome. The results indicated that youth without an attorney were the most likely to have the charges dismissed, and this effect was more pronounced for non-White youth. In addition, non-White youth represented by a private attorney were significantly more likely than similar White youth to receive a secure confinement disposition. (Contains 5 tables and 9 notes.)

For decades, research has revealed a gender disparity in criminal case outcomes. This phenomenon was traditionally explained as a product of male court actors' protectiveness of women and the minimization of female threat. In the current study, we capitalize on the increasing gender diversity of courts to examine if the gender gap in punishment is explained by the gender composition of the decision-making body in criminal courts: the courtroom workgroup. Using a sample of felony cases from Florida's circuit courts in 2017 (N = 10,605), we measure workgroups as judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys assigned to the same division. We find that the gender diversity of the workgroup does not explain variations in court outcomes, nor does it explain the presence of gender disparities we observed in all but one of our case outcomes. As such, male protectionism is insufficient to explain the more lenient treatment of women in Florida's criminal courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]