| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Items in cart [0]
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
VOLUME I
Research on Sentencing:
The Search for Reform
Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, Susan E. Martin
and Michael H. Tonry, Editors
Panel on Sentencing Research
Committee on Research on Law Enforcement
and the Administration of Justice
Commission on Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1983
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing
Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils
of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the
Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were
chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
The report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures
approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in
1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's
purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council
operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the au-
thority of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private,
nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council has become the principal
operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy
of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and
the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of
Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Research on sentencing.
Bibliography: v. 1, p.
1. Sentences (Criminal procedure) United States.
2. Sentences (Criminal procedure) United States-
States. I. Blumstein, Alfred. II. National Research
Council (U.S.~. Panel on Sentencing Research.
KF9685.R38 1983 345.73'0772 83-4048
347.305772
International Standard Book Number 0-309-03347-0
Available from
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
PANEL ON SENTENCING RESEARCH
ALFRED BLUMSTEIN (Chair), School of Urban and Public Affairs,
Carnegie-Mellon University
SYLVIA BACON, Superior Court of the District of Columbia
RICHARD A. BERK, Department of Sociology, University of California,
Santa Barbara
JONATHAN D. CASPER, Department of Political Science, University
of Illinois, Urbana
JOHN C. COFFEE, JR., School of Law, Columbia University
SHARI S. DIAMOND, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois,
Chicago Circle
FRANKLIN M. FISHER, Department of Economics, Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology
DON M. GOTTFREDSON, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers Univer-
sity
JOSEPH B. KADANE, Department of Statistics, Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity
NORVAL MORRIS, Law School, University of Chicago
DAVID J. ROTHMAN, Department of History, Columbia University
RUTH L. RUSHEN, Department of Corrections, Sacramento, California
JAMES Q. WILSON, Department of Government, Harvard University
SUSAN E. MARTIN, Study Director
DIANE L. GOLDMAN, Administrative Secretary
JACQUELINE COHEN, Consultant, School of Urban and Public Affairs,
Carnegie-Mellon University
MICHAEL H. TONRY, Consultant, School of Law, University of Mary-
land
· ~—
OCR for page R4
COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH ON LAW ENFORCEMENT
AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
ALFRED BLUMSTEIN (Chair), School of Urban and Public Affairs,
Carnegie-Mellon University
LEE P. BROWN, Chief of Police, Houston, Texas
JOSEPH B. KADANE, Department of Statistics, Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity
SAMUEL KRISLOV, Department of Political Science and Law School,
University of Minnesota
RICHARD LEMPERT, School of Law, Cornell University
NORVAL MORRIS, Law School, University of Chicago
RICHARD D. SCHWARTZ, College of Law, Syracuse University
LEE B. SECHREST, Center for Research in the Utilization of Social
Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan
JUNE STARR, Department of Anthropology, State University of New
York, Stony Brook
JACK B. WEINSTEIN, U.S. District Court, Brooklyn, New York
JAMES Q. WILSON, Department of Government, Harvard University
ANN WINCE, Department of Economics, University of North Carolina
MARVIN E. WOLFGANG, Department of Criminology, University of
Pennsylvania
iv
OCR for page R5
Contents
PREFACE
SUMMARY
Introduction 1
Determinants of Sentences 7
Structuring Sentencing Decisions 21
Assessment of the Effects of New Sentencing Policies
Sentencing Policies and Prison Populations 32
Research Agenda 36
INTRODUCTION: SENTENCING PRACTICES AND THE
SENTENCING REFORM MOVEMENT
The Processes That Constitute Sentencing 41
The Goals of Criminal Sanctions 47
American Sentencing in Comparative and Historical Perspective 52
Scope of This Report 67
X1
1
39
2 DETERMINANTS OF SENTENCES
Issues 69
Findings 80
Conclusion 123
v
69
OCR for page R6
vi
3 STRUCTURING SENTENCING DECISIONS
The Variety of Innovations 126
Developing Guidelines: Modeling and Data Issues 143
Developing Guidelines: Policy and Technical Choices 151
The Processes of Developing, Implementing, and Enforcing New
Sentencing Standards 174
4 SENTENCING REFORMS AND THEIR EFFECTS
Compliance With Sentencing Reforms 186
Adaptive Responses to Sentencing Reforms 196
The Use and Severity of Sanctions 203
Conclusions 219
5 SENTENCING POLICIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON PRISON
POPULATIONS
Changes in Prison Populations and Their Implications 226
Projection of Prison Populations: Need, Technology, and
Uses 238
Alternative Strategies for Handling Increasing Prison
Populations 246
6 RESEARCH AGENDA FOR THE STUDY OF
SENTENCING
General Research Strategy 259
Determinants of Sentences 264
Structuring Sentencing Decisions 274
Effects of Sentencing Reforms 278
Sentencing Policy and Prisons 280
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: Participants, Conference on Sentencing
Research
Contents
126
184
225
259
283
309
APPENDIX B: Biographical Sketches, Panel Members and Staff 311
OCR for page R7
Tables and Figures
TABLES
Sentence Outcomes Characterized in Terms of Disparity and
Discrimination 9
2-1 Characterizing Sentence Outcomes in Terms of Disparity and
Discrimination 73
2-2 Distribution of Total U.S. Adult Arrests (Over 18) by Race
and Crime Type in 1979 90
2-3 Distribution of Studies With Findings on Racial Discrimination
by Control for Offense Seriousness and Prior Record and by
Time Period Considered 94
2-4 Direction of Biases When Incorrectly and Correctly Measured
Variables Are Correlated: The Case of Offense Seriousness
(Incorrectly Measured) and Race (Correctly Measured) 98
2-5 Comparison of Black Arrest Rates With White Arrest Rates
(Arrests per Population) by Age and Crime Type in 1970 for
U.S. Cities 100
2-6 Disposition of Felony Arrests 102
2-7 Nature of Sample Selection Biases in Estimates of the Deter-
minants of Sentences 104
3-1 Minnesota Sentencing Grid: Sentencing by Severity of Offense
and Criminal History 137
3-2 California Robbery Matrix 156
3-3 Ranges of Presumptive Sentences Under Massachusetts, Min-
nesota, and Washington Guidelines 164
·.
V11
OCR for page R8
·~.
V111
Tables and Figures
3-4 Hypothetical Application of Minnesota Guidelines to Preguide-
line Cases Sentenced in Fiscal 1978, Classified by Guideline
Categories 167
U.S. Parole Guidelines: Recommended Months of Incarcera-
tion Before Release on Parole for Adults 171
~1 Variations in Impact Evaluation Design: California Determi-
nate Sentencing Law 190
~2 Percentage of Cases Sentenced Consistently With Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines 192
~3 Percentage of Cases Sentenced Consistently With Presumptive
Sentences Within Selected Cells of Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines 193
4 4 Changes in Charge Reductions After Implementation of the
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines 202
~5 California Adult Prison Commitment Rate (Commitments/
100,000 Residents) 207
=6 Proportion of Convicted Offenders Sentenced to Prison in Cal-
ifornia Superior Courts 208
~7 Changes in Length of Prison Terms by Sex Based on Statewide
Data 214
~8 Shift in Prison Sentences From Property to Persons Offenses
Under Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines 216
=9 In/Out Departure Rates for Cases Sentenced Under Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines in 1980-1981 217
~10 Departure Rates Among Presumptive "Ins" and Presumptive
"Outs" (Under Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines) 218
5-1 State Prison Population Change by Region Between 1970 and
1978 227
FIGURES
2-1 Average Seriousness of Prior Arrests for Arrestees with Differ-
ent Prior-Record Lengths Washington, D.C., 1973 88
3-1 Dispositional Models Considered by the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines Commission 173
~1 Trends in the Timing of Guilty Pleas in California: Percent of
All Superior Court Guilty Pleas Entered at Initial
Appearance 201
~2 Prison Use in California 209
5-1 Annual Imprisonment Rate in the United States: 1930-
1981 228
OCR for page R9
Contents
Volume I}
MAKING SENSE OF SENTENCING: A REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF
SENTENCING RESEARCH John Hagan and Kristin Bumiller
DISCRIMINATION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:
A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE LITERATURE Steven Klepper,
Daniel Nagin, and Luke-Jon Tierney
3 THE ROLE OF EXTRALEGAL FACTORS IN DETERMINING CRIM-
INAL CASE DISPOSITION Steven Garber, Steven Klepper, and Daniel
Nagin
4 EMPIRICALLY BASED SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND ETHI-
CAL CONSIDERATIONS Franklin M. Fisher and Joseph B. Kadane
5 THE CONSTRUCTION OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES: A METH-
ODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE Richard F. Sparks
6 THE POLITICS OF SENTENCING REFORM: SENTENCING GUIDE-
LINES IN PENNSYLVANIA AND MINNESOTA Susan E. Martin
7 SENTENCING REFORMS AND THEIR IMPACTS Jacqueline Cohen
and Michael H. Tonry
8 THE IMPACT OF CHANGES IN SENTENCING POLICY ON PRISON
POPULATIONS Alfred Blumstein
ix
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Preface
The Panel on Sentencing Research is an outgrowth of the ferment that
significantly affected sentencing practice in the 1970s. That ferment is
reflected in a variety of sentencing "reforms," many of which had their
roots in research, much of which involved technical questions of some
complexity.
The Panel on Sentencing Research was established in September 1980
to review that research on sentencing and its impact. The panel was
created in response to a request from the National Institute of Justice
to the National Academy of Sciences as a panel of the Committee on
Research on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice of the
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the
National Research Council. The panel's task was to assess the quality
of the available research, to indicate how the application of research
techniques could be improved, and to suggest directions for future re-
search, especially that supported by the National Institute of Justice.
To address this range of issues, the panel was composed of specialists
representing a variety of academic disciplines, methodological ap-
proaches, and operational expertise in the criminal justice system (see
Appendix B for biographical sketches of panel members and staff).
The issue of sentencing is very broad, and so the panel very early had
to limit the scope of its work. Much of the public concern over sentencing
relates to its effects on crime, but those effects were explicitly excluded
from the panel's efforts because two other panels of the Committee on
Research on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice the
X1
OCR for page R12
xli
Preface
Panel on Research on Rehabilitative Techniques and the Panel on Re-
search on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects—had recently reviewed
the research in their respective areas and identified directions for future
research.
Sentencing also involves many complex philosophical questions re-
lating to the role of punishment in society, to the appropriate form of
punishment, and to the symbolic qualities of punishment. The panel
inquired into these areas to provide a background perspective for its
work but viewed their resolution to involve predominantly normative,
nonempirical considerations and thus to fall outside the panel's research-
related mandate. There are also many important issues surrounding the
question of the sentencing of juveniles; however, since most of the recent
sentencing research and reform has been directed at the adult criminal
justice system, that has been the focus of the panel's attention.
In addressing its task, the panel directed its major attention to those
issues on which a reasonable body of research already existed or for
which new research held promise of making important new contribu-
tions. The panel commissioned several papers to synthesize the research
in some areas that were particularly extensive, to explicate important
methodological issues that limited the validity of existing research, and
to identify particularly promising future research possibilities. These
papers were presented at a conference the panel organized at Woods
Hole, Massachusetts, on July 27-29, 1981 (see Appendix A for a list of
participants). The discussion of those papers provided an important
contribution to the panel's deliberations, and a number of the commis-
sioned papers, revised in response to the panel's suggestions, are con-
tained in Volume II. Those papers, which represent the views of the
individual authors rather than the panel, are published because the panel
believes they make a valuable contribution to the literature on sen-
tencing research.
The report of the panel is presented in this volume. It is the result of
vigorous debates and some compromises. Although some members of
the panel would have preferred greater emphasis given to certain issues
or arguments, the report represents the collective views of the panel.
The panel appreciates the constructive criticism and review the report
has received from others. A draft of the panel's report was sent for
review to all participants at the Woods Hole conference and to all
members of the Committee on Research on Law Enforcement and the
Administration of Justice.
The panel would like to express its deep appreciation for the extensive
contributions by its staff. Susan Martin of the National Research Council
served as study director and, as such, managed the affairs of the panel
OCR for page R13
Preface
·~.
X111
and addressed many of the sociological issues involved in the work of
the panel. As a consultant, Jacqueline Cohen of Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity had a primary responsibility for addressing the analytical issues
in the research reviewed, but her skills and commitment resulted in
many important contributions throughout the report. Michael Tonry of
the University of Maryland School of Law, also as a consultant, con-
tributed valuable perspectives on the many legal and philosophical con-
siderations involved throughout the work of the panel. A final editing
of the panel's report and the papers in Volume II was undertaken by
Eugenia Grohman and Christine McShane, respectively, of the Com-
mission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, and their
editorial skills are much appreciated. Diane Goldman at the National
Research Council provided major administrative and secretarial support
throughout the work of the panel, and her dedication was notable. Jane
Beltz provided comparable support at Carnegie-Mellon University.
We would also like to express our appreciation to the National In-
stitute of Justice. Robert Burkhart and Cheryl Martorana of the institute
attended most of the meetings of the panel and were most helpful in
providing advice and information on the institute's program on sen-
tencing research.
ALFRED BLUMSTEIN, Chair
Panel on Sentencing Research
OCR for page R14
OCR for page R15
Research on Sentencing:
The Search for Reform
OCR for page R16