Recent studies of sentencing under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines suggest that unwarranted disparity has been reduced, but not eliminated. A number of studies conclude that legally irrelevant variables, including race/ethnicity and gender, continue to affect the sentences imposed on federal offenders. Research conducted at the state level also reveals that offender characteristics interact to create a punishment penalty for young, unemployed black and Hispanic male offenders. Our study builds on this research. Using data on drug offenders sentenced in three U.S. District Courts, we test for direct, indirect, and interactive effects of race and ethnicity on sentence severity. We find that gender, age, and employment status, but not race/ethnicity, have direct effects on sentencing, and that the effects of gender and employment status are conditioned by race/ethnicity. On the other hand, our results provide no support for our hypotheses that young black and Hispanic males and unemployed black and Hispanic males would pay a punishment penalty. We also find that the offender's gender and employment status have effects only in cases sentenced outside the guidelines.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbonettiC. A. (1997). Sentencing under the Federal Sentencing Guideline Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses. Law & Society Review, 31(4), 789–822.
2.
AlbonettiC. A. (2002). The joint conditioning effect of defendant's gender and ethnicity on length of imprisonment under the federal sentencing guidelines for drug trafficking/manufacturing offenders. Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, 6, 39–60.
3.
AlbonettiC. A. (2003). Model misspecification: Why aggregation of offenses in federal sentencing equations is problematic. Criminology, 41(4), 1149–1154.
4.
BerkR. A. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48, 386–398.
BridgesG., & SteenS. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63, 554–570.
7.
BrittC. L. (2000). Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Quarterly, 17, 707–732.
8.
BushwayS., & PiehlA. M. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law & Society Review, 35, 733–764.
9.
ChiricosT. G., & BalesW. D. (1991). Unemployment and punishment: An empirical assessment. Criminology, 29(4), 701–724.
10.
ChiricosT. G., & CrawfordC. (1995). Race and imprisonment: A contextual assessment of the evidence. In HawkinsD. (Ed.), Ethnicity, race, and crime: Perspectives across time and space. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
11.
EngenR., & GaineyR. (2000). Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: The rules have changed. Criminology, 38(4), 1207–1229.
12.
EverettR. S. & NienstedtB.C. (1999). Race, remorse, and sentence reduction: Is saying you're sorry enough?Justice Quarterly16, 99–122.
13.
EverettR. S., & WojtkiewiczR. A. (2002). Difference, disparity, and race/ethnicity bias in federal sentencing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(2), 189–211.
14.
FarrellA. (2004) Measuring judicial and prosecutorial discretion: Sex and race disparities in departures from the federal sentencing guidelines. Justice Research and Policy, 6(2), 45–78.
15.
HawkinsD. (1981). Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior, 1, 191–215.
16.
HoferP. J.BlackwellK. R., & RubackR. B. (1999). The effect of the federal sentencing guidelines on inter-judge sentencing disparity. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 90, 239–321.
17.
HolmesM. D.HoschH. M.DaudistelH. C.PerezD. A., & GravesJ. B. (1996). Ethnicity, legal resources, and felony dispositions in two southwestern jurisdictions. Justice Quarterly, 13, 11–30.
18.
KauttP. (2002). Location, location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 633–672.
19.
KauttP., & SpohnC. (2002). Cracking down on black drug offenders? Testing for interactions among offenders' race, drug type, and sentencing strategy in federal drug sentences. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 1–35.
20.
KennedyR. (1997). Race, crime, and the law. New York: Vintage Books.
21.
KnappK. A. (1984). The impact of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines: Three-year evaluation. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
22.
LaCasseC., & PayneA. A. (1999). Federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences: Do defendants bargain in the shadow of the judge?Journal of Law and Economics, XLII, 245–269.
23.
MustardD. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. federal courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 1–30.
24.
NobilingT.SpohnC., & DeLoneM. (1998). A tale of two counties: Unemployment and sentence severity. Justice Quarterly, 15(3), 401–427.
25.
PaskoL. (2002). Villain or victim: Regional variation and ethnic disparity in federal drug offense sentencing. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13(4), 307–328.
26.
PaternosterR.BrameR.MazerolleP., & PiqueroA. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859–866.
27.
Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. (1985). 1984 Report: Sentencing in Pennsylvania. State College, PA: Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.
28.
PetersonR. D., & HaganJ. (1984). Changing conceptions of race: Toward an an account of anomalous findings in sentencing research. American Sociological Review, 49, 56–70.
29.
SpitzerS. (1975). Toward a Marxian theory of deviance. Social Problems, 22(5), 638–651.
30.
SpohnC. (1992). An analysis of the “jury trial penalty” and its effect black and white offenders. The Justice Professional7(1), 93–110.
31.
SpohnC. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. In HorneyJ. (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Vol. 3. Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
32.
SpohnC. (2002). How do judges decide? The search for fairness and justice in punishment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
33.
SpohnC. (2005). Sentencing decisions in three U.S. District Courts: Testing the assumption of uniformity in the federal sentencing process. Justice Research and Policy, 7(2), 1–27.
34.
SpohnC., & DeLoneM. (2000). When does race matter? An analysis of the conditions under which race affects sentence severity. Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, 2, 3–37.
35.
SpohnC., & HolleranD. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38(1), 281–306.
36.
StaceyA.M., & SpohnC. (2006). Gender and the social costs of sentencing: An analysis of sentences imposed on male and female offenders in three U.S. District Courts. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 11(1), http://boalt.org/bjcl/index.htm (in press).
37.
SteffensmeierD., & DemuthS. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts: Who is punished more harshly?American Sociological Review, 65, 705–729.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ., & KramerJ. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763–797.
40.
StithK. & CabranesJ.A. (1998). Fear of judging: Sentencing guidelines in the federal courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
TonryM. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Oxford University Press
42.
UlmerJ. & JohnsonB. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42(1), 137–177.
43.
UlmerJ. & KramerJ. H. (1996). Court communities under sentencing guidelines: Dilemmas of formal rationality and sentencing disparity. Criminology, 34(3), 383–408.
44.
United States Sentencing Commission. (1999). Sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission.
45.
United States Sentencing Commission. (2004a). Fifteen years of guidelines sentencing: An assessment of how well the federal criminal justice system is achieving the goals of sentencing reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission.
46.
United States Sentencing Commission. (2004b). Federal sentencing guidelines manual. Washington, DC: West Group.
47.
Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (1992). A decade of reform: Washington and its guidelines, 1981–1991. Olympia, WA: Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
48.
WeisselbergC. D., & DunworthT. (1993). Inter-district variation under the guidelines: The trees may be more significant than the forest. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 6, 25.
49.
ZatzM. S. (2000). The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decision making: Looking toward the 21st century. In HorneyJ. (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Vol. 3. Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
