Factors Explaining Sentencing Variations in U.S. District Courts

• In Event: Judicial Actions at Sentencing

Abstract

Much previous work has examined the effects of extra-legal factors such as offender age, race and gender on sentencing. However, due to limitations in the available data, much less work has failed to consider the influence of additional offender characteristics, such as level of education, mental health needs and familial obligations. Similarly, much of the prior research has not accounted for the influence of higher-order constructs, such as variation between judicial districts. This study analyzes a robust data set gleaned from sentences imposed in U.S. District Courts between 2013 and 2015. Unlike much previous work utilizing federal sentencing data, this study considers sentences imposed subsequent to the Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in U.S. v. Booker, which invalidated mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines and opened the door to greater use of judicial discretion in the fashioning of federal criminal sentences. It explores reasons for variations in sentences from the proscribed guidelines, considering an assortment of legal and extra-legal factors utilizing multilevel analysis. Implications for researchers, attorneys and judicial officers alike are discussed.

Authors

• Joseph A. DaGrossa, U.S. Probation Office

• Richard Antonison, U.S. Probation Office

• Shavaughn M. Chapman, U.S. Probation Office

• Mark E. Corpora, U.S. Probation Office

• Thomas A. Leakan, U.S. Probation Office

• Joshua R. MacAvoy, U.S. Probation Office

• Kelly M. Sullivan, U.S. Probation Office