CCJS602: COURTS AND SENTENCING
SPRING 2006
PROFESSOR
Brian D. Johnson, Ph.D.
2220K LeFrak Hall
Phone: (301) 405-4709
E-mail: bjohnson@crim.umd.edu
OFFICE HOURS
Wednesday 1:00 – 4:00;
By Appointment
MEETING TIME
Wednesday 4:00 – 6:45;
LeFrak 2207
COURSE DESCRIPTION
This graduate seminar focuses on the role that criminal courts play in the meting out of
punishment in society. It examines courtroom decision making from an interdisciplinary
perspective, drawing on research and theory from sociological, criminological and organizational
perspectives. Specific topics examined include empirical research and theorizing on prosecutorial
discretion, plea-bargaining practices, sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimums and truth-insentencing reforms. Particular attention will be devoted to the study of racial, gender and class
disparities in sentencing.
COURSE EXPECTATIONS
The primary goal of this course is to provide a general overview of criminal court sentencing
systems. Students should become familiar with the different decision-making points in the
sanctioning process and should gain a nuanced understanding of contemporary theoretical
perspectives and empirical research in the field. Students will be expected to attend class ready to
discuss assigned readings. The course will rely heavily on student participation in addition to
class lectures and ultimately the success of the course will depend on student contributions.
TEXTBOOKS
Eisenstein, James, Roy Flemming and Peter Nardulli. 1999. The Contours of Justice:
Communities and Their Courts. University Press of America.
Stith, Kate and Jose Cabranes. 1998. Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal
Courts. University of Chicago Press.
Tonry, Michael. 1998. Sentencing Matters. Oxford University Press.
Spohn, Cassia. 2002. How Do Judges Decide? Sage Publications. (Optional)
Frankel, Marvin. 1973. Criminal Sentences: Law without Order. Hill and Wang (Recommended)
COURSE ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING
Your grade in this course will be determined by a variety of assignments designed to further your
understanding of the criminal sentencing process. These include 1) leading classroom discussion
2) writing a final research paper 3) an in-class final examination and 4) class participation.
1) Each student will be expected to lead class discussions for one week, presenting an in-depth
look at several aspects of that week’s topic. These presentations should include the most relevant
empirical research to provide answers to questions posed for that week. Be sure to back up
factual statements with relevant empirical evidence. The class presentations are intended to serve
as a focus for classroom discussion, to bring additional materials into the classroom discussion,
and to help you improve your ability to evaluate empirical research. Each presenter should make
copies of the bibliography they develop in their classroom presentations and circulate these
references to all class members. Grades for the classroom presentations will be based on a 20point scale with 50% of the grade made by the instructor and 50% from the students present
during the presentation. I will pass out “score sheets” for this purpose early in the class.
2) Each student will be expected to write a final research paper in the area of courts and
sentencing. This paper is designed to simulate an MA, Ph D or professional grant research
proposal. Students should choose the specific form of the proposal that is most appropriate for
their own career trajectory. The main goal of this assignment is for students to produce a
proposal that can (perhaps with some modification) later be submitted to an MA or PhD
committee for review, or serve as the basis of an empirical research paper for later publication.
The proposal should include 1. an introduction and problem statement, 2. literature review, 3.
data and methods, and 4. expected significance of findings. Research proposals should be 20-30
double-spaced pages and include references (use Criminology as a guide for references).
Proposals will be due on Wednesday, April 5th.
3) The final part of your grade will consist of a 3 hour, in-class, closed-book, final examination.
It will be designed to simulate the courts and sentencing portion of the general comprehensive
qualifying examination in the Criminology Department at the University of Maryland. This exam
will be given on the last day of class, Wednesday, May 10th.
4) A graduate seminar cannot succeed without the active participation of its students. Therefore
your class attendance, participation and effort will be reflected in your final grade.
GRADING BREAKDOWN
FINAL GRADE DISTRIBUTION
PARTICIPATION
LEADING DISCUSSION
RESEARCH PROPOSAL
FINAL EXAMINATION
90% and up
80% to 89.9%
70% to 79.9%
60% to 69.9%
15%
20%
30%
35%
=A
=B
=C
=D
COURSE SCHEDULE: (SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS NECESSARY)
Week 1 :
INTRODUCTION (1/25)
The mood and temper of the pubic with regard to the treatment of crime and
criminals is one of the most unfailing testes of the civilization of any country.
~Winston Churchill~
TOPICS/READINGS
SYLLABUS
GUEST SPEAKER: FABRIANNA SCHMIDT – THE FEDERAL COURT EXPERIENCE
Week 2:
THE CHANGING CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM (2/1)
Thirty year ago…the word “sentencing” generally signified a slightly mysterious
process which…involved individualized decisions that judges were uniquely
qualified to make. The situation today is much more complex…
~Cassia Spohn~
TOPICS/READINGS
Gary LaFree et al. 2000. “The Changing Nature of Crime in America,” Criminal
Justice 2000, 1: 1-50: http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02front.pdf) (recommended)
Doris MacKenzie et al. 2001. “Corrections and Sentencing in the 21st Century:
Evidence-based Corrections and Sentencing” The Prison Journal 81(3): 299-313.
Michael Tonry. 1997. Sentencing Matters. Chpt 1: pgs 3-24.
Kate Stith and Jose Cabranes. Fear of Judging. Chpt 1: 9-37.
Cassia Spohn. 2002. How do Judges Decide? Chpt. 6 pgs 219-239 (optional)
James Eisenstein, Roy Flemming and Peter Nardulli. Contours of Justice Chpts 1,
2. pgs 1-54.
Discussion Questions: Each student should come to class with several potential discussion
questions from the readings. We will use these as the basis of our in-class discussion of the
material.
Additional Readings:
Abraham, David, 1994; Persistent Facts and Compelling Norms: Liberal Capitalism, Democratic
Socialism and the Law; Law and Society Review: Vol. 28, pg. 939.
Jaocb, Herbert, 1997; The Governance of Trial Judges; Law & Society Review; 31: 3.
Knight, Jack; Epstein, Lee, 1996; On the Struggle for Judicial Supremacy; Law & Society
Review; Vol. 30, pg. 87.
Heinz, John P; Manikas, Peter M, 1992; Networks Among Elites In a Local Criminal Justice
System; Law & Society Review; Vol. 26, pg. 831.
Mather, Lynn 1990; Dispute Processing and a Longitudinal Approach to Trial Courts; Law &
Society Review: Vol. 24, pg. 357.
Week 3:
THE ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR (2/8)
Most extant and proposed determinant sentencing systems have ignored
prosecutorial discretion in charging and plea-bargaining practices.
~Terence Miethe~
OVERVIEWS:
William McDonald. 1979. “The Prosecutor’s Domain” in W.F. McDonald The
Prosecutor. Sage pgs 15-51.
Brian Forst. 2002. “Prosecution” in J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia, eds. Crime. pgs
509-36.
Carole DeFrances. 2002. “Prosecutors in State Courts, 2001.” BJS Report at:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/psc01.pdf (recommended)
Caroline Harlow. 2000. “Defense Counsel in Criminal Cases.” BJS Report at:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/dccc.pdf (recommended)
RESEARCH:
Celesta Albonetti. 1987. “Prosecutorial Discretion: The Effects of Uncertainty”
Law & Society Review 21(2): 291-314.
Miethe, Terence 1987. “Charging and Plea Bargaining under Determinate
Sentencing: An Investigation of the Hydraulic Displacement of Discretion.”
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 78 (1): 155–76.
Cassia Spohn, et al. 2001. “Prosecutorial Justifications for Sexual Assault Case
Rejection: Guarding the “Gateway to Justice”. Social Problems 48(2): 206-235.
(recommended)
Discussion Questions: Assess the current state of research on prosecutors in the United States.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of this research? What do we know for sure about
prosecutors? What theoretical perspectives (if any) have been useful for understanding the role of
the prosecution? What needs to be done next in terms of research in this area? What are some of
the key challenges to doing research on prosecutors? What are the key policy issues with regard to
the role of the prosecutor in the US criminal justice system?
Additional Readings:
Spears, Jeffrey W; 1997; The Effect On Evidence Factors And Victim Characteristics On
Prosecutors' Charging Decisions In Sexual Assault Cases; Justice Quarterly (14):501
Celesta Albonetti and John Hepburn. 1996. “Prosecutorial Discretion to Defer Criminalization.”
Journal of Quantitative Criminology 12(1): 63.
Frohmann, Lisa, 1997; Convictability and Discordant Locales: Reproducing Race, Class, and
Gender Ideologies in Prosecutorial Decision Making; Law & Society Review: 31: 531.
John Wooldredge and Timothy Griffin. 2005. “Displaced Discretion under Ohio Sentencing
Guidelines” Journal of Criminal Justice 33(4): 301.
Carolyn Ramsey. 2002. “The Discretionary Power of ‘Public’ Prosecutors in Historical
Perspective.” American Criminal Law Review 39(4): 1309.
Week 4:
PLEA-BARGAINING AND SENTENCE BARGAINING (2/15)
If criminals wanted to grind justice to a halt, they could do it by banding together
and all pleading not guilty
~Dorothy Wright Wilson~
Overviews
Alschuler, Albert. 1979. “Plea Bargaining and Its History” Law and Society
Review 13(2): 211-245.
Padgett John. 1985. “The Emergent Organization of Plea Bargaining” American
Journal of Sociology 90(4): 753-800.
Sudnow, David. 1965. “Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code.”
Social Problems 12 (4): 255–64.
Emmelmon, Debra. 1996. Trial by Plea Bargain: Case Settlement as a Product of
Recursive Decision Making.” Law and Society Review. 30: 335-360. (optional)
Research on Modes of Conviction
Gary LaFree, 1985. “Adversarial and Nonadversarial Justice: A comparison of
Guilty Pleas and Trials, Criminology 23:289-312.
Brian Johnson. 2003 “Racial and Ethnic Disparities across Modes of Conviction”
Criminology 41(2): 449-489.
Douglas Smith. 1986. “The Plea-Bargaining Controversy” Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology 77(3): 949-968. (recommended)
Class discussion: Assess the current state of research on plea bargaining in the United States.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of this research? What do we know for sure about plea
bargaining? What theoretical perspectives (if any) have been useful for understanding the way plea
bargaining functions and its role in the US criminal justice system? What needs to be done next in
terms of research? What are some of the key challenges to doing research on plea bargaining?
What are the key policy issues with regard to the role of plea bargaining in the US criminal justice
system? Should plea-bargaining be abolished?
Additional Readings:
Nardulli, Peter F, et al, 1988; The Tenor of Justice: Criminal Courts and the Guilty Plea Process;
University of Illinois Press. Chicago: Ill.
Douglas Guidorizzi, 1998. “Should we Really ‘Ban’ Plea Bargaining? The Core Concerns of Plea
Bargaining Critics.” Emory Law Journal 47: 753-783.
Friedman, Lawrence. 1979. “Plea Bargaining in Historical Perspective” Law and Society Review
13(2): 247-259.
Rubinstein and White. 1979. “Alaska’s Ban on Plea Bargaining” Law and Society Review 13(2):
367-383.
Worden, Alissa Pollitz, 1995; The Judge’s Role in Plea-Bargaining: An analysis of Judges’
Agreement with Prosecutors’ Sentencing Recommendations; Justice Quarterly: Vol. 12 257
King et al. 2005. Prosecutorial Discretion and its Challenges. When Process Affects Punishment:
Differences in Sentences after Guilty Plea, Bench Trial and Jury Trial in 5 Guideline States. CLR
13:55:959.
Week 5
THE JURY (2/22)
A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer
~Anonymous~
OVERVIEW
Valerie Hans and Neil Vidmar, 1986. Judging the Jury, Plenem, Chpts 2, 3.
Steele and Thornburg. 2004. Jury Insturctions. A Persistent Failure to
Communicate. In Mays and Gregware Courts and Justice: A Reader. Waveland
Press Ill (recommended)
EMPIRICAL STUDIES
King, Nancy and Rosevelt Nobel. 2004. “Felony Jury Sentencing in Practice: A
Three State Study” Vanderbilt Law Review 57(3): 883-962.
Frank, J. and Applegate, B. K. (1998). Assessing juror understanding of capitalsentencing instructions. Crime & Delinquency 44(3): 412-433. (optional)
Class discussion: Assess the current state of research on juries in the United States. What are the
strengths and weaknesses of this research? What do we know for sure about juries and the way
they make decisions? What theoretical perspectives (if any) have been useful for understanding the
way juries function and their role in the US criminal justice system? What needs to be done next in
terms of research on juries? What are some of the key challenges to doing research on juries?
What are the key policy issues with regard to the role of juries in the US criminal justice system?
Should juries be abolished or limited to certain types of cases?
Additional Readings:
Blankenship, Michael et al. 1997. “Jurors’ Comprehension of Sentencing Instructions: A Test of the
Death Penalty Process in Tennessee.” Justice Quarterly, 14(2), 325-351.
Pizzi, William (1999). Trials without Truth: Why Our System of Criminal Trials Has Become an
Extensive Failure and What we Need to do to Rebuild it. New York: NYU Press.
Saks, Michael J. (1996). The Smaller the Jury, the greater the unpredictability. Judicature, 77(5),
236-239, 281-282.
Abramson, J. (1994). We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. New York,
NY: BasicBooks.
Babcock, B.A. (1997). A unanimous jury is fundamental to our democracy. Harvard Journal of
Law and Public Policy 20(2): 469-474.
Diamond, S.S. and Levi, J.N. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury
instructions. Judicature 79(5):224-232.
Fisher, G. (1997). The jury’s rise as lie detector. Yale Law Journal 107(3): 575-714
Guinther, J. (1988). The Jury in America. New York, NY: Facts on File Publications.
Himelein, M.J., Nietzel, M.T., and Dillehay, R.C. (1991). Effect of prior juror experience on jury
sentencing. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 9(1): 97-106.
Heuer, L. and Penrod, S. (1996). Increasing juror participation in trails through note taking and
question asking. Judicature 79(5): 256-262.
Langbein, J. H. (1992). On the myth of written constitutions: The disappearance of criminal jury
trial. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 15(1): 119-127.
Week 6
GOALS AND THEORIES OF SENTENCING (3/1)
Deciding how much to punish is an agonizing process in which conflicting
aspirations compete.
~Andrew von Hirsch~
GOALS OF PUNISHMENT
Spohn Cassia. 2002. How Do Judges Decide? Chpt 1. (recommended)
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
Eisenstein, James, Roy Flemming and Peter Nardulli. 1988. Contours of Justice
Chpts. 3-7 (skim for basic ideas) Read Chpts 8, 9, 10
Dixon, Jo. 1995. “The organizational context of criminal sentencing.” American
Journal of Sociology 100: 1157–1198.
Albonetti, Celesta. 1991. “An Integration of Theories to Explain Judicial
Discretion.” Social Problems 38:247–266.
Bridges, George, and Sara Steen. 1998. “Racial Disparities in Official
Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes as a Mediating
Mechanism.” American Sociological Review 63(4):554-570.
Steffensmeier, Darrell, Jeffery Ulmer, and John Kramer. 1998. “The Interaction of
Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: the Punishment Cost of Being
Young, Black, and Male.” Criminology 36(4).
Class discussion: Assess the current state of research on one or more of the following philosophies
of punishment (rehabilitation, deterrence or incapacitation) in the United States. What are the
strengths and weaknesses of this research? What do we know for sure about each sentencing
philosophy and its success? What are the major theoretical perspectives used to explain criminal
sentencing? How do they differ from one another? How are they similar? How might these
perspectives be integrated into one collective theory of sentencing? What might such a theory look
like? What needs to be done next in terms of research on sentencing philosophies and theoretical
perspectives? What are some of the key challenges to doing research in this area?
Additional Readings:
Bernard, Thomas, and Robin Engels. 2001. “Conceptualizing Criminal Justice Theory.” Justice
Quarterly. 18(1): 1-30.
Francis Cullen and Paul Gendreau, “Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy Practice and
Prospects,” Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 3: 109-17: www.ncjrs.org/resdocs.htm
Kathleen Auerhahn, “Selective Incapacitation and the Problem of Prediction,” Criminology
37:703-734 (1999).
Gottfredson, Stephen D. and Don M. Gottfredson 1994 Behavioral prediction and the problem of
incapacitation. Criminology 32(3):441-474.
Flemming, Nardulli, and Eisenstein. 1993. The Craft of Justice. Politics and Work in Criminal
Court Communities. U Penn Press.
Albonetti, Celesta. 1986. “Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: toward a theory
of discretionary decision-making in felony case processings.” Criminology 24:623-644.
Week 7
SENTENCING GUIDELINES (3/8)
Guidelines promulgated by commissions have altered sentencing patterns and
practices, have reduced sentencing disparities…and have shown that sentencing
policies can be linked to correctional resources.
~Michael Tonry~
THE SENTENCING COMMISSION
Frankel, M.E. (1972). “Lawlessness in Sentencing.” University of Cincinnati Law
Review 41:1-79.
STATE SENTENCING GUIDELINES
Frase, Richard. 2000. “Is Guided Discretion Sufficient? Overview of State
Sentencing Guidelines.” St. Louis Law Review 44: 425-449.
Miethe, Terence D., and Charles A. Moore. 1985. “Socioeconomic Disparities
under Determinate Sentencing Systems: A Comparison of Pre-guideline and Postguideline Practices in Minnesota.” Criminology 23 (2): 337–63.
Tonry, Michael. 1998. Sentencing Matters Chpt 2, 25-71 (recommended)
Class discussion: Assess the current state of research on state sentencing guidelines in the
United States. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this research? What do we know
for sure about sentencing guidelines and their effect on criminal justice decision making in
the United States? How do state sentencing guidelines differ from one another? How are
they the same? What are the different qualities or characteristics of different guideline
systems? What theoretical perspectives (if any) have been useful for understanding
sentencing guidelines and their role in the US criminal justice system? What needs to be
done next in terms of research on sentencing guidelines? What are some of the key
challenges to doing research on sentencing guidelines? What are the key policy issues with
regard to the role of sentencing guidelines in the US criminal justice system? Should
sentencing guidelines be abolished? Should they be expanded?
Additional Readings:
Frase, Richard. 2005. “State Sentencing Guidelines: Diversity, Consensus, and
Unresolved Policy Issues” Columbia Law Review 105: 1190-1232. (optional)
Stolzenberg and D’Alessio, “Sentencing and Unwarranted Disparity: An Empirical Assessment
of the Long-Term Impact of Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota,” Criminology (1994)
32:301-310.
Kramer, J.H. and R.L. Lubitz. (1985). “Pennsylvania’s Sentencing Reform: The Impact
of Commission-Established Guidelines.” Crime & Delinquency 31:481-500.
Savelsberg, J. 1992. “Law that Does not Fit Society: Sentencing Guidelines as a Neoclassical
Reaction to the Dilemmas of Substantivized Law,” American Journal of Sociology
97:1346-81.
Kramer, John H, 1989; Sentencing Guidelines: A Quantitative Comparison of Sentencing Policies
in Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Washington; Justice Quarterly: Vol. 6, pg. 565.
D’Alessio, Stewart J. and Lisa Stolzenburg 1993 Socioeconomical status and the sentencing of
the traditional offender. Journal of Criminal Justice 21:61-77.
D’ Allessio, S.J. and L. Stolzenburg. (1995). “The Impact of Sentencing Guidelines on
Jail Incarceration in Minnesota.” Criminology 33:83-302.
Week 8
FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES (3/15)
The guidelines developed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission…are the most
controversial and disliked sentencing reform initiative in U.S. history.
~Michael Tonry~
Happy the nation, where the knowledge of the law is not a science
~Cesar Beccaria
CLASS EVALS
OVERVIEWS
Tonry, Michael, 1998. Sentencing Matters Chpt 3 pgs. 72-99 (recommended)
Stith Kate and Jose Cabranes. 2002. Fear of Judging. Chpts 2-4, pgs. 38-142.
EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Albonetti, Celesta. 1997. “Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines:
An analysis of the effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures
on sentencing outcomes for drug offenses.” Law and Society Review 31:601-634.
Nagel, I., and S.J. Schulhofer. (1992). “A Tale of Three Cities: An Empirical Study
of Charging and Bargaining Practices Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Southern California Law Review 66:501-566. (optional)
Class discussion: Assess the current state of research on the federal sentencing guidelines
in the United States. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this research? What do we
know for sure about federal sentencing practices? How have the federal guidelines affected
federal criminal justice decision making in the United States? How do the federal
guidelines differ from state sentencing guidelines? Describe and discuss the background
and influence of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Blakely, Booker and Fanfan. What
impact have these decisions had on federal sentencing practices? What does future
research need to do to better study the impact of these decisions? What are some of the key
challenges to implementing this research? What are the key policy issues with regard to the
role of the federal guidelines in the US criminal justice system? Should the federal
guidelines be made mandatory again? Should they be abolished?
Additional Readings:
Ruback, R. Barry 1998 Warranted and unwarranted complexity in the U.S. sentencing guidelines.
Law and Policy 20: 357-382.
Nagel, I. (1997). “Writing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines”. In Rossi, P. H., & Berk,
R. A. (Eds.), Just Punishments: Federal Guidelines and Public Views Compared. New
York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Nagel, I.H., and B.J. Johnson. (1994). “The Role of Gender in a Structured Sentencing
System: Equal treatment, Policy Choices, and the Sentencing of female Offenders Under
the United States Sentencing Guidelines.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
85:181-221.
MacGillis, James C. 1996 The Dilemma of disparity: Applying the federal sentencing guidelines
to downward departures based on HIV infection. Minnesota Law Review 81: 229-262.
Tonry, M. (1993). “The Failure of the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines.”
Crime & Delinquency 39:131-149.
Week 9
MANDATORY PENALTIES AND THREE STRIKE LAWS (3/29)
The greatest gap between knowledge and policy in American sentencing concerns
mandatory penalties
~Michael Tonry~
OVERVIEWS
3 Strikes 10 year report (pdf at www.threestrikes.com)
Tonry, Michael. 1998. Sentencing Matters Chpts.5
Zimring, Hawkins and Kamin. 2001. Punishment and Democracy, Chpts 6-8 pgs
85-147.
EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Kovandzic et al. 2004. “Striking Out as Crime Reduction Policy: The Impact of 3
Strikes Laws on Crime Rates in U.S. Cities” Justice Quarterly 21(2): 207-239.
Crawford et al. 1998. “Race, Racial Threat, and Sentencing of Habitual Offenders”
Criminology 36(3): 481-511.
Class discussion: Assess the current state of research on mandatory penalties (including
three strikes laws) in the United States. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this
research? What do we know for sure about mandatory penalties and their effect on
criminal justice decision making in the United States? What theoretical perspectives (if
any) have been useful for understanding mandatory penalties and their role in the US
criminal justice system? What needs to be done next in terms of research on mandatory
penalties? What are some of the key challenges to doing research on mandatory penalties?
What are the key policy issues with regard to the role of mandatory penalties in the US
criminal justice system? Should mandatory penalties and three-strike type laws be
abolished?
Additional Readings:
Marvell and Moody (2001).
Bazemore, Gordon, 1994; Understanding the Response to Reforms Limiting Discretion: Judges’
View of Restrictions on Detention Intake; Justice Quarterly: Vol. 11, pg., 429.
Tyler, Tom R, 1997; Three Strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support
for punishing rule breakers; Law & Society Review: Vol. 31, pg. 237.
LeCroy, Craig Winston, 1993; juvenile Parole Policy In the United States Determinate Versus
Indeterminate Models; Justice Quarterly: Vol. 10, pg. 179.
Schmertmann, Carl, P., Adansi A. Amankwaa, and Robert D. Long (1998). “Three Strikes and
You’re Out. Demographic Analysis of Mandatory Prison Sentencing.” Demography 35,
(4): 445-463
Dhichor, David and Dale Sechrest 1996 Three Strikes and You’re Out: Vengeance as Public
Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stolzenberg, Lisa and Stewart J. D’Alessio 1997 “Three Strikes and You’re Out”: The impact of
California’s New Mandatory Sentencing Law on Serious Crime Rates. Crime and
Delinquency 43:467-469.
Turner, Michael G., Jody L. Stundt and Brandon K. Applegate 1995 “Three Strikes and You’re
Out” Legislation: A National Assessment. Federal Probation 59 (September): 16-35.
Vitiello, Michael 1997 Three Strikes: Can We Return to Rationality? The Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology 87 (Winter):395-481.
Weeks 10
RACE, GENDER AND CLASS DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING (4/5)
Racism goes beyond prejudicial discrimination and bigotry. It arises from
outlooks, stereotypes, and fears of which we are vastly unaware.
~Judge Clyde Cahill~
OVERVIEWS
Marjorie Zatz, “The Convergence of Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Class on Court
Decision making: Looking towards the 21st Century.” Criminal Justice 2000,
Volume 3: 503-552. Download: www.ncjrs.org/resdocs.htm
Zatz, Marjorie. 1987. “The Changing Forms of Racial/Ethnic Bias in Sentencing.”
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 24(1): 69-92.
EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Chiricos, Theodore G. and William D. Bales. 1991. “Unemployment and
Punishment: An Empirical Assessment.” Criminology 29: 701-724 (optional)
Daly, Kathleen, 1995; Sex Effects and Sentencing: An analysis of the statistical
Literature; Justice Quarterly: Vol. 12, pg. 141.
Steffensmeier, Darrell and Stephen DeMuth. 2000. “Ethnicity and sentencing
outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts: who is punished more harshly?” American
Sociological Review 65:705-729.
Spohn, Cassia and David Holleran. 2000. “The imprisonment penalty paid by young
unemployed black and Hispanic male offenders.” Criminology 38:281–306.
Class discussion: Assess the current state of research on courtroom discrimination based
on gender, race or class in the United States. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this
research? What do we know for sure about gender/race/class discrimination and its effect
on criminal justice decision making in the US? How have our conclusions on these issues
changed over time? What theoretical perspectives (if any) have been useful for
understanding gender/race/class discrimination in sentencing and courtroom decisionmaking in the US criminal justice system? What needs to be done next in terms of research
on discrimination in sentencing? What are some of the key challenges to doing research on
discrimination in sentencing? What are the key policy issues with regard to sentencing
discrimination in the US criminal justice system? Is the current US system of courts and
sentencing strongly biased in terms of gender, race and class? How can we separate
disparity from discrimination? What’s the difference?
Additional Readings:
Shawn Bushway and Anne Piehl. (2001). “Judging Judicial Discretion: Legal Factors and Racial
Discrimination in Sentencing.” Law and Society Review 35:733-764. (recommended)
Steffensmeier, Cramer and Streifel, “Gender and Imprisonment Decisions,” Criminology 1993,
pp.411-44.
Kramer, John H. and Darrell Steffensmeier. 1993. “Race and Imprisonment Decisions.” The
Sociological Quarterly 34:357-376.
Spohn, Cassia., John Gruhl, and Susan Welch. 1981-2. “The Effect of Race on Sentencing: A
Reexamination of An Unsettled Question.” Law and Society Review. 16: 71-81.
Kleck, Gary. 1981. “Racial Discrimination in Criminal Sentencing.” ASR 46(6): 783-805.
Week 11
CONTEXTUAL DISPARITIES AND GUIDELINE DEPARTURES (4/12)
Sentencing guidelines provide numerous “windows of discretion” that risk the
reintroduction of unwarranted disparities across courts
~Judge Cirillo~
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Savelsberg, Joachim. 1992. “Law that does not fit society: sentencing guidelines
as a neoclassical reaction to the dilemmas of substantivized law.” American
Journal of Sociology 97:1346–1381.
Eisenstein et al. 1988. Contours of Justice, Chpts 10, 11, pgs. 257-304.
EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Kramer, John and Jeffery T. Ulmer. 2002. “Downward Departures for Serious
Violent Offenders…” Criminology 40(4):601-636. (recommended)
Engen, R.L., R.R. Gainey, R.D. Crutchfield, and J.G. Weis. (2003). “Discretion
and Disparity under Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Departures and Structured
Sentencing Alternatives.” Criminology 41:99-130.
Ulmer Jeffery and Brian D. Johnson. 2004. “Sentencing in Context: A Multilevel
Analysis.” Criminology 41(1): 137-178.
Johnson, Brian. 2005. “Contextual Disparities in Guidelines Departures”
Criminology 43(3): 761-797.
Class discussion: Assess the current state of research on judicial departures and contextual
variations in sentencing. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this research? What do
we know for sure about disparities in departures and across social contexts? What
theoretical perspectives have been useful for understanding these sources of sentencing
disparity? What needs to be done next in terms of research in these two areas? What are
some of the key challenges to conducting this research? What are the key policy issues
with regard to contextual disparities and guidelines departures? How effective are current
U.S. sentencing policies in addressing each of these contemporary social problems?
Additional Readings:
Kramer, John H. and Jeffery T. Ulmer 1995 Sentencing disparity and departures from guidelines.
Justice Quarterly 13:81-105.
Albonetti, Celesta. 1998. “The Role of Gender and Departures in the Sentencing of Defendants
Convicted of a White Collar Offense Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.” Sociology
of Crime, Law, and Deviance 1:3-48.
Wooldredge and Thistleswaite 2004. Bi-Level Disparities in Court Dispositions for Intimate
Assaults. Criminology 42(2): 417.
Britt, Chester. 2000. “Social Context and Racial Disparities in Punishment Decisions.” Justice
Quarterly 17(4):707-732.
Kautt, Paula, M. 2002. “Location, Location, Location: Interdistrict and Intercircuit Variation in
Sentencing Outcomes for Federal Drug-trafficking Offenses.” JQ 19(4): 633-671.
David B. Mustard. “Racial, ethnic and gender disparities in Sentencing.” Journal of Law and
Economics 44:285-314.
Week 12
JUDICIAL DISPARITIES AND INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS (4/19)
The evidence is conclusive that judges of widely varying attitudes on sentencing …
mete out widely divergent sentences…explainable only by the variations among the
judges, not by material differences in the defendants or their crimes
~Marvin Frankle~
JUDICIAL DISPARITIES
Spohn, Cassia, 1990; The sentencing Decisions of Black and White Judges:
Expected and Unexpected Similarities; Law & Society Review: Vol. 24, pg. 1197.
(optional)
Steffensmeier, D., and Chris Herbert. (1999). “Women and Men Policymakers:
Does the Judge’s Gender Affect the Sentencing of Criminal Defendants?” Social
Forces. 77(3): 1163-1196. (optional)
Johnson, Brian D. 2006. “The Multilevel Context of Criminal Sentencing:
Integrating Judge and County Level Influences in the Study of Courtroom Decision
Making” Forthcoming Criminology (May).
INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS
Tonry, Michael. Sentencing Matters. Ch. 4, 100-133.
Petersilia, Joan. 1998. Ed. Community Corrections Chpt 2. pgs 68-110. (skim
Tonry)
Wood and May. 2003. Racial Perceptions of Severity of Intermediate Sanctions
Ulmer, Jeffery T. 2001. “Intermediate Sanctions: A Comparative Analysis of the
Probability and Severity of Recidivism.” Sociological Inquiry 71(2):164-193.)
Class discussion: Assess the current state of research on intermediate sanctions (including
diversion and treatment) in the United States. What are the strengths and weaknesses of
this research? What do we know for sure about intermediate sanctions/diversion and its
effect on recidivism and other measures of success? What theoretical perspectives (if any)
have been useful for understanding research how intermediate sanctions, diversion and
treatment operate? What needs to be done next in terms of research on intermediate
sanctions/diversion? What are some of the key challenges to doing research on
intermediate sanctions and diversion? What are the key policy issues with regard to the
role of intermediate sanctions/diversion in the US criminal justice system? Should the role
of intermediate sanctions be increased or reduced in the US system?
Additional Readings:
Wood and May 2003. Racial Differences in Perception of Severity of Intermediate Sanctions. JQ
Austin and Krisberg, “The Unmet Promise of Alternatives to Incarceration,” Crime and
Delinquency (1998) 374:409.
J. Byrne, A. Lurigio, and J. Petersilia. 1992. Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate
Sanctions. Sage.
Geerken and Hayes, “Probation and Parole: Public Risk and the Future of Incarceration
Alternatives,” Criminology (1993), 31:549-64.
MacKenzie et al. “Boot Camp Prisons and Recidivism in Eight States.” Criminology (1995) 33:
MacKenzie, Doris, 1995; Inmates’ Attitude Charge During Incarceration: A comparison of Boot
Camp With Traditional Prison; Justice Quarterly: Vol. 12, pg. 325.
Clear, Todd R, 1993; Probation Officers’ Roles in Intensive Supervision: Surveillance Verses
Treatment: Justice Quarterly: Vol. 10, pg. 441.
Week 13
SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS (4/26)
THE NEW PENOLOGY
Feeley, Malcolm and Jonathan Simon. 1991. “The New Penology: Notes on the
Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications.” Criminology 30(4):449-76.
ASSESSING PUNISHMENTS
Auerhahn, Kathleen. 1999. “Selective Incapacitation and the Problem of
Prediction.” Criminology 37(4):703-734.
Gendreau, Paul, Tracy Little, and Claire Goggin. 1996. “A Meta-Analysis of the
Predictors of Adult Offender Recidivism: What Works!” Criminology 34(4):575608.
Spohn, Cassia and David Holleran. 2002. “The Effect of Imprisonment on
Recidivism Rates of Felony Offenders: A Focus on Drug Offenders.” Criminology
40(2):329-358.
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
John Braithwaite, “Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic
Accounts.” Crime and Justice (1999) 25:1-127.
Class discussion: Assess the current state of research on selective incapacitation, deterrence,
and actuarial sentencing methods. What does this research suggest about the effectiveness of
these theoretical perspectives for reducing recidivism? How does the framework of the “new
penology” better inform our understanding of these different sentencing perspectives? What
issues does this research literature raise for assessing the influence of sentencing decisions on
correctional populations? Where does restorative justice fit into this picture? What does
current research on restorative justice suggest about its effectiveness as a punishment
philosophy? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this research? What do we know its
effect on recidivism and other measures of success? What theoretical perspectives (if any) have
been useful for understanding restorative justice and how it operates? What needs to be done
next in terms of research on deterrence, incapacitation, actuarial sentencing and restorative
justice? What are some of the key challenges to doing research in these areas? What are the
key policy issues surrounding this research? Which perspective(s) should be broadened or
curtailed in the future?
Additional Readings:
Andrew van Hirsch, “The Ethics of Community Based Sanctions,” Pg. 189-198 in J. Petersilia, ed.
Community Corrections (1998).
Gottfredson and Barton, “Deinstitutionalization of Juvenile Offenders,” Criminology (1993) 31:
591-611.
Balanced and Restorative Justice. (1998). www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/bal.pdf
Braithwaite, John (1998). “Restorative Justice.” In Michael Tonry (ed.), The Handbook of Crime
and Punishment 12. New York: Oxford University Press.
Braithwaite, John (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. New York: Cambridge University Press
Bazemore, Gordon & Umbreit, M. S. (1998). Guide for Implementing the Balanced Restorative
Justice Model. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Bazemore, Gordon & Umbreit, M. S. (1994). Balanced and Restorative Justice Program Summary.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Marshall, T. (1998). Restorative Justice, an Overview. Restorative Justice Consortium. Social
Concern, London.
Week 14
THE FUTURE OF COURTROOM RESEARCH (5/3)
OVERVIEWS
Mears, Daniel P, 1998; The Sociology of Sentencing: Reconceptualizing DecisionMaking Processes and Outcomes; Law & Society Review: Vol. 32, pg. 667.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Holleran, D. and C. Spohn. (2004). “On the Use of the Total Incarceration Variable
in Sentencing Research.” Criminology 42(1):211-240. (recommended)
ORGANIZATIONAL INTERSECTIONALITY
Miller, Lisa and Jim Eisenstein. 2005. “The Federal/State Prosecution Nexus”
Law and Social Inquiry 30(2): 239 (optional)
JUVENILE WAIVER
Jeffery Butts and OJ Mitchell. 2000. “Brick by Brick: Dismantling the Border
Between Juvenile and Adult Justice” Criminal Justice 2000, 1: 167-213.
(Download: www.ncjrs.org/resdocs.htm) (recommended)
Megan Kurlychek and Brian Johnson. 2003. “The Juvenile Penalty: A Comparison
of Juvenile and Young Adult Sentencing Outcomes in Criminal Court.”
Criminology 42(2): 485.
CROSS CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
Tonry, Michael. 1998. Sentencing Matters Chpt 7
Lynch, James P, 1993: A Cross-National Comparison of the Length of Custodial
Sentences for Serious Crimes; Justice Quarterly: Vol. 10, pg. 639. (optional)
Class discussion: Assess the primary limitations of current research on courts and sentencing.
What are the conceptual limitations to extant research and what are the methodological
limitations? How has contemporary research attempted to address some of these issues? What
issues remain unaddressed? What do we know for sure about juvenile waivers to adult court?
What do we know about how they are treated once they are there? How has research typically
handled the intersection between the juvenile and adult systems? How has research handled the
intersection between local, state, and federal systems? What remains to be done in research on
juvenile justice, juvenile waiver, and the nexus between state and federal criminal justice?
What remains to be done in research on international differences in courts and punishment?
What are the strengths and weakness of each of these areas of research? What are the hurdles
that need to be overcome to improve modern sentencing research in each of these areas? What
other areas of research (beyond those covered in class) are there that that offer potentially
interesting research questions for the study of courts and sentencing?
Additional Readings:
Neil Hutton. 1995. “Sentencing, Rationality, and Computer Technology” Journal of Law
and Society 22(4): 549-570.
Week 15
Final Exam (5/10)