Overall Recidivism Rates Across Four Measures

1
Assessing Consistency Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three
States Final Report
Project DirectorBrian Ostrom, Ph.D.National
Center for State Courts
2
Purpose of structured sentencing
The end is not the process in itself, but the
substantive goal that trial judges exercise
independent and deliberative judgment about each
sentencemaking these sentences more than an
algebraic equation and less than a Rorschach
test. Judge Jeffrey Sutton

Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
3
What is the research goal?
The degree to which a sentencing system
contributes to the maintenance of justice depends
in large measure on three central
issues Consistency--like cases are treated
alike Proportionality more serious offenders
are punished more severely Lack of
discriminationage, gender and race are
insignificant in who goes to prison and for how
long
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
4
Why these 3 states?
These states represent 3 distinct approaches to
structuring judicial discretion

• Well-respected systems
• Alternative design strategies
• Voluntary and presumptive
• Data is more readily obtainable

Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
5
What type of data analysis is used?

• Multivariate statistical analysis (various
  techniques)
• Reviewing all other state guideline systems, and
  assessing impact of recent supreme court
  decisions
• Review and comment by commission and staff

Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
6
Continuum of sentencing guidelines

• Enforceable rule related to guideline use
• Completion of guideline forms required
• Sentencing commission monitors compliance
• Compelling and substantial reason for departure
• Written reason required for departure
• Appellate review

Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
7
Produced scheme to assess each SG structure
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
8
Produced a State Guideline Continuum
Minnesota presumptive, determinate, and tighter
ranges Michigan presumptive, indeterminate, and
wider ranges Virginia voluntary and widest
ranges
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
9
Modeling strategy
Simulate the actual sentencing process by
modeling the content and form of information
received by the judge at the time of
sentencing Do the basic design features of the
guidelines serve to locate similarly situated
offenders in terms of location and duration? Do
the guidelines in operation provide clear-cut and
proportional distinctions between more serious
and less serious offenders? Is there evidence of
discrimination distinct from inconsistency in
sentencing?
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
10
Comparing Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
11
Concentrating on Virginia.

• Focus on these individual crime groups
• Assault
• Larceny
• Burglary
• Fraud
• Drugs
• Robbery
• Look at the decision making associated with
• Worksheet A to model prison/no prison decision
• Worksheet C to model prison sentence length
  decision

Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
12
Concentrating on Virginia.
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
13
Consistency
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
14
Consistency
As Point Values Increase, Months Of Sentence Also
Rises
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
15
Consistency
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
16
Proportionality
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
17
Proportionality
Note Above is a partial list of the prior
record factors that were examined.
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
18
Discrimination.
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
19
Comparing Outstate and Southeast Michigan
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
20
Comparing Outstate and Hennepin Co. Minnesota
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
21
Conclusions

• Consistency achieved in all three guideline
  systems
• A challenge for all systems lies in
  proportionality
• Virginia guidelines have successfully eliminated
  any evidence of systematic discrimination
• Sex
• Race
• geography

Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
22
Status of Project

• Peer review complete
• NIJ reviewing report
• 2008 NASC conference

Assessing Consistency and Fairness in
Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States