Does Judicial Discretion increase Sentencing Disparity?

• In Event: Posters II

Abstract

Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA) sentencing guidelines were implemented to ensure honesty, proportionality and uniformity in federal sentencing practices. Essentially, the SRA removed judicial discretion in sentencing and racial, ethnic, gender disparities in sentencing declined. However, in 2005, the sentencing guidelines were rendered advisory under Booker v. U.S. Subsequently, judicial discretion in sentencing returned. Incorporating focal concerns theory, we hypothesize that with the return of judicial discretion, magistrates incorporate extra legal factors including race, ethnic and gender characteristics that will increase disparity in sentencing. In a sample of 649 cases of federal offenders derived from the federal Southern District of New York between 1999 and 2005, we assess whether there are significant differences in sentencing disparity before and after Booker. Our analytic procedures include bivariate and multivariate analysis primarily chi square, logistic and ordinary least squares regression. Critical measures used in the analysis include demographic extra legal factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, education and dependents. Case factors include offense severity, prior criminal history, pre-sentence report recommendation, sentence in months, and the presumptive sentence assigned from the sentencing guidelines. Results have implications for the role that extra legal factors play in disparities in sentencing.

Authors

• Frank Pezzella, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

• Kristy Defreitas, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

• Elijah Font, John Jay College of Criminal Justice