Sentencing Departures, Subsequent Crime, and Public Safety 

• In Event: Sentencing Guidelines in Practice: Criminal History, Departures, and Reform Impacts in Minnesota

Abstract

Under sentencing guidelines systems, judges typically retain some capacity to depart from
presumptive sentences. This paper examines the public safety impact of such departures on
subsequent crime, directly comparing those sentenced to prison against a matched sample of
those convicted of the same offense who avoided prison due to a downward departure.
Analyzing Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission data for 1991-2023, we assess
reoffense both during and beyond the “departure window,” defined as the period in which the
defendant receiving a downward departure would have been incarcerated according to the
guidelines. This allows us to assess hypotheses regarding both (a) potential incapacitation
effects during the departure period, and (b) potential criminogenic effects after this period. We
observe slightly higher overall recidivism and slightly lower serious recidivism among those who
received departures, though this pattern varies by initial conviction offense. Among the most
common departure offenses, we find no significant differences between the departed and their
propensity-matched non-departed counterparts in severe recidivism, though those who received
departures for aggravated robbery and weapons convictions (but not for assault, drug sales, or
possession convictions) had somewhat higher reoffense rates during the departure window. We
thus find evidence that incarceration yields clear but relatively modest incapacitation effects
during the departure window but similarly modest criminogenic effects thereafter.

Authors

• Christopher Uggen, University of Minnesota

• Nick Dickens, University of Minnesota

• Julia Laskorunsky, Robina Institute, University of Minnesota Law School

• Aaron Sojourner, Upjohn Institute