Sentencing Councils in the Federal Courts - A Question of Justice

• NCJ Number: 75117
• Author(s): C D Phillips
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 164 pages
• Sale Source: Lexington Books
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This book reports on a study of the effectiveness of sentencing councils in reducing sentencing disparity in three U.S. district courts. The study compares data from these courts with those from similar courts having no council.

Abstract

The sentencing councils were a voluntary reform effort and involves formal consultations between a judge and his colleagues prior to sentencing every criminal defendant. The purpose of the councils is to increase uniformity of sentencing through nonbinding consultations among the judges. Data from three of the four districts using sentencing councils -- Detroit, Brooklyn, and Chicago included information on defendants' criminal background, demographic characteristics, and sentences received for selcected offenses. The level of inconsistency in sentences imposed for groups of offenders matched on offense and prior criminal record was plotted over time. Patterns of change in sentence length, length of supervision sentences, and the rates at which judges imprison offenders were examined for the time after the councils were introduced. There was evidence of decreased disparity in only a few areas of prison and supervision sentences in all three jurisdictions and some evidence of increased disparity. This could be attributed to the council's function of allowing judges to express sentencing philosophy, thereby unifying philosophy and behavior or mobilizing judges to react to opposing philosophies revealed to them for the first time in the councils. The results indicate that disparity may not result from a lack of communication among the judge and his colleagues, and in fact may be due to varying beliefs among judges for which the councils merely serve as a forum for debate. This inability of sentencing councils to favorably affect sentencing disparity points to the need for another remedy. A proposal for an alternative sentencing reform effort, a system of guideline sentences requiring judges to justify deviations from the norm, is presented. Study data and tables are appended. Footnotes, an index, 75 references are included. The study is preceded by discussions of the background and rationale of sentencing councils and of previous research on them.