| Popis: |
Court process outcomes tend to vary between legally similar defendants, and this has been linked to racial and ethnic sentencing disparities. These and other “unfairnesses” threaten the legitimacy of the legal system and, therefore, the degree that citizens are willing to comply. Furthermore, they call into question the utility of sentencing guidelines which are implemented with the goals of increasing proportionality, consistency, and fairness in court outcomes. Prior research and theory suggest variations in sentencing may arise, in part, via judicial discretion. Through the lenses of punishment philosophies, focal concerns theory, threat perspectives, organizational perspectives, and judicial acclimation, the present study considered the variation in sentencing between and within judges, and the drivers and impacts of this variation. Furthermore, it developed an integrated theoretical framework for the study of judicial acclimation effects on sentencing via socialization or desensitization.Employing data from the Florida Sentencing Guidelines Database (including all felony cases processed between 1994 and 2011) and other publicly available sources (e.g., U.S. Census, American Community Survey, Florida Division of Elections and Department of Corrections, Uniform Crime Reports, Annual Survey of Jails, law library reference materials, and court websites), the present study used multilevel modeling techniques to examine the judge, caseload, and county factors that explain variations in sentencing outcomes. Specifically, chapter two assessed the factors that contribute to punitiveness, chapter three assessed the factors that contribute to intrajudge consistency, and chapter four assessed the impacts of judicial "acclimation" (i.e., tenure) on punitiveness and consistency and their driving factors. Findings suggest that guideline-related factors (i.e., the legal characteristics of judges' caseloads) were consistently associated with sentencing, while other factors such as judge and county characteristics were less so. At the same time, extralegal influences such as those related to the racial and ethnic makeup of judges' caseloads also influenced sentencing outcomes even within a guidelines context. Furthermore, there was support for judicial “acclimation” in that judges in different stages of their careers appeared to sentence differently and be influenced by unique factors. The implications of these findings for theory, research, and policy regarding judicial discretion are discussed. |
