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 II
Research on Sentencing:
The Search for Reform
Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, Susan E. Martin,
and Michael H. Tonry, Editors
Pane} 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.
Prepared under grant #80-IJ-CX-0067 from the National Institute of Justice, U.S. De-
partment of Justice. Points of view do not necessarily represent the official position or
policies of the U. S. Department of Justice.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Research on sentencing.
Bibliography: v. 2, 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 0-309-03383-7
Available from
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418
Printed in the United States of America
First Printing, July 1983
Second Printing, June 1984
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
·~e
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
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, Law School, University of Michigan
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 WIRE, Department of Economics, University of North Carolina
MARVIN E. WOLFGANG, Department of Criminology, University of
Pennsylvania
v
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
Contents
PREFACE
X1
1 MAKING SENSE OF SENTENCING: A REVIEW AND 1
CRITIQUE OF SENTENCING RESEARCH
John Hagan, Department of Sociology and Faculty of Law,
University of Toronto
Kristin Bumiller, Department of Sociology, University of
Wisconsin
2 DISCRIMINATION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTE M: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF
THE LITERATURE
Steven Klepper, Department of Statistics, Carnegie-Mellon
University
Daniel Nagin, Pennsylvania Department of Revenue,
Harrisburg
Luke-Jon Tierney, Department of Statistics
Carnegie-Melton University
·e
V11
55
OCR for page R8
Contents
3 THE ROLE OF EXTRALEGAL FACTORS IN
DETERMINING CRIMINAL CASE DISPOSITION
Steven Garber, School of Urban and Public Affairs,
Carnegie-Mellon University
Steven Klepper, Department of Statistics, Carnegie-Mellon
University
Daniel Nagin, Pennsylvania Department of Revenue,
Harrisburg
· ·e
V111
129
4 EMPIRICALLY BASED SENTENCING GUIDELINES 184
AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Franklin M. Fisher, Department of Economics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Joseph B. Kadane, Department of Statistics,
Carnegie-Mellon University
5 THE CONSTRUCTION OF SENTENCING
GUIDELINES: A METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE
Richard F. Sparks, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers
University
THE POLITICS OF SENTENCING REFORM:
SENTENCING GUIDELINES IN PENNSYLVANIA AND
MINNESOTA
Susan E. Martin, National Research Council
194
265
7 SENTENCING REFORMS AND THEIR IMPACTS 305
Jacqueline Cohen, School of Urban and Public Affairs,
Carnegie-Mellon University
Michael H. Tonry, School of Law, University of Maryland
8 THE IMPACT OF CHANGES IN SENTENCING POLICY
ON PRISON POPULATIONS
Alfred Blumstein, School of Urban and Public Affairs,
Carnegie-Mellon University
460
OCR for page R9
1
Contents
Volume
PREFACE
SUMMARY
Introduction
Determinants of Sentences
Structuring Sentencing Decisions
Assessment of the Effects of New Sentencing Policies
Sentencing Policies and Prison Populations
Research Agenda
1 INTRODUCTION: SENTENCING PRACTICES AND THE
SENTENCING REFORM MOVEMENT
The Processes That Constitute Sentencing
The Goals of Criminal Sanctions
American Sentencing in Comparative and Historical Perspective
Scope of This Report
2 DETERMINANTS OF SENTENCES
Issues
Findings
Conclusion
1X
OCR for page R10
x
Contents
STRUCTURING SENTENCING DECISIONS
The Variety of Innovations
Developing Guidelines: Modeling and Data Issues
Developing Guidelines: Policy and Technical Choices
The Processes of Developing, Implementing, and Enforcing New
Sentencing Standards
4 SENTENCING REFORMS AND THEIR EFFECTS
Compliance With Sentencing Reforms
Adaptive Responses to Sentencing Reforms
The Use and Severity of Sanctions
Conclusions
5 SENTENCING POLICIES AND THEIR IMPACT ON PRISON
POPULATIONS
Changes in Prison Populations and Their Implications
Projection of Prison Populations: Need, Technology, and
Uses
Alternative Strategies for Handling Increasing Prison
Populations
6 RESEARCH AGENDA FOR THE STUDY OF
SENTENCING
General Research Strategy
Determinants of Sentences
Structuring Sentencing Decisions
Effects of Sentencing Reforms
Sentencing Policy and Prisons
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: Participants, Conference on Sentencing
Research
APPENDIX B: Biographical Sketches, Panel Members and Staff
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 re-
search, to indicate how the application of research techniques could be
improved, and to suggest directions for future research, 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 approaches, and operational exper-
tise in the criminal justice system.
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
Panel on Research on Rehabilitative Techniques and the Panel on Research
Xl
OCR for page R12
xli
Preface
on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects had recently reviewed the re-
search in their respective areas and identified directions for future research.
Sentencing also involves many complex philosophical questions relating
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 considera-
tions, 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 have 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 contributions. The
panel commissioned several papers to synthesize the research in some
areas that were particularly extensive, to explicate important method-
ological 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, Massachu-
setts, on July 27-29, 1981. The discussion of those papers provided an
important contribution to the panel's deliberations, and a number of the
commissioned papers, revised in response to the panel's suggestions,
constitute this volume. These 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 sentencing
research.
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,
and addressed many of the sociological issues involved in the work of the
panel. As a consultant, Jacqueline Cohen of Carnegie-Mellon University
had a primary responsibility for addressing the analytical issues in the
research reviewed, but her skills and commitment resulted in many im-
portant contributions throughout the report. Michael Tonry of the Uni-
versity of Maryland School of Law, also as a consultant, contributed
valuable perspectives on the many legal and philosophical considerations
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 Commission on Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education, and their editorial skills are much
appreciated. Diane Goldman at the National Research Council provided
OCR for page R13
Preface
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 Institute
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 sentencing research.
ALFRED BLUMSTEIN, Chair
Panel on Sentencing Research
xiii
OCR for page R14
OCR for page R15
Research on Sentencing
The Search for Reform
OCR for page R16