MISDEMEANANT DISPOSITIONS IN LOWER COURTS - AN ANALYSIS OF SENTENCE DISPARITY (FROM SOUTHERN CONFERENCE ON CORRECTIONS - PROCEEDINGS, 1979, BY V FOX - SEE NCJ-59373)

• NCJ Number: 59376
• Author(s): L BRAITHWAITE
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 19 pages
• Corporate Author: Ctr for Professional Development and Public Service; Florida State University
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Conference Material
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

RESULTS OF AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE OF RATIONAL ANALYSIS EVIDENCED BY JUDICIAL FUNCTIONARIES IN ARRIVING AT THEIR SENTENCES ARE PRESENTED.

Abstract

THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED IN A MIDWESTERN COUNTY OF 200,000. RESPONDENTS CONSISTED OF SEVEN JUDGES AND NINE PROBATION OFFICERS FUNCTIONING WITHIN THREE SEPARATE MISDEMEANANT COURTS OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WITHIN THAT COUNTY. EACH OF THE 16 RESPONDENTS WAS EXPOSED TO 3 ACTUAL PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORTS, (PSI'S) AND ASKED TO MAKE A DISPOSITIONAL DECISION FOR EACH DEFENDANT. DEFENDANTS VARIED IN AGE, PREVIOUS RECORD, AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS. THREE INFORMATION BOARDS CONTAINING 41 COMPONENTS OF INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE PSI'S WERE CONSTRUCTED. RESPONDENTS WERE DIRECTED TO SELECT FOUR ITEMS OF THE INFORMATION WHICH WOULD BE MOST USEFUL IN ARRIVING AT A DECISION. THE FIRST 4 ITEMS SELECTED CONSTITUTED THE FIRST SET OF DATA, AND THE EXERCISE WAS REPEATED UNTIL 10 SETS OF DATA WERE OBTAINED. RESPONDENTS WERE THAN ASKED TO RELATE THEIR DECISION, ANY DIFFICULTY ENCOUNTERED IN REACHING THE DECISION, AND CONFIDENCE FELT REGARDING THE DECISION. SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS WERE FOUND TO EXIST BETWEEN JUDGES AND PROBATION OFFICERS IN TERMS OF RESPECTIVE SOCIAL STATUS, LENGTH AND TYPE OF EDUCATION, AND JOB EXPERIENCE. PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THESE ROLE DIFFERENTIATIONS, EACH PERCEIVED THEIR DECISION GOAL IN A WAY NOT SHARED BY OTHERS. SINCE CONSENSUS ON SENTENCE OBJECTIVES WAS ABSENT, DISPARITY IN DECISIONS OCCURRED. AS A RESULT, THE UTILITY OF PSI IS CALLED INTO QUESTION SINCE DATA OBTAINED THEREFROM WAS INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY. TO REDUCE DISPARITY IN SENTENCING DECISIONS, EACH COURT SHOULD FORMULATE POLICY DIRECTED TOWARD THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE DESIRED IN THAT COURT (I.E., RETRIBUTION, DETERRENCE, INTIMIDATION, INCAPACITATION, OR REFORMATION). STAFF CAN THEN COMPILE DATA WHICH RELATE TO REACHING THAT STATED GOAL, AND EXTRANEOUS DATA COULD BE EXCLUDED. UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS, DECISIONAL INCONGRUENCY AND SENTENCING DISPARITY MAY BE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE. TABULAR DATA, GRAPHS, AND FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (LWM)