DISPARITY IN CONTEXT: JUDGES’ PERSPECTIVES ON DISPARITIES IN A SENTENCING GUIDELINE SYSTEM

Authors

Justin M. Smith, University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Abstract

"Unwarranted disparity in sentencing continues to be a problem in criminal courts. Sentencing, a final step in the multi-stage process of criminal justice, is seen as such an important component of ensuring consistency that legislative policy has created guidelines to control judicial decision-making. Nonetheless, research shows that disparity under sentencing guidelines persists due to influences external to the law - referred to as substantive rationality. Sentencing research overwhelmingly utilizes quantitative analysis of official court data to produce its conclusions about the influences of disparity. The current study builds upon past research by using qualitative analysis of interviews with 20 judges in Michigan. The recent shift from mandatory to advisory sentencing guidelines and the scope of disparity in Michigan make it a substantively rich site for investigation. This analysis found several themes in judges’ perspectives on causes of disparity, including: (1) localization, organizational resources, and court policy; (2) individual judicial philosophy and decision-making, (3) influence from pre-sentencing reports and appellate courts."

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.

Recommended Citation

Smith, Justin M. (2020) "DISPARITY IN CONTEXT: JUDGES’ PERSPECTIVES ON DISPARITIES IN A SENTENCING GUIDELINE SYSTEM," Qualitative Criminology (QC): Vol. 8: No. 2, Article 2.
Available at: https://dc.swosu.edu/qc/vol8/iss2/2