skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 211006 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Displaced Discretion Under Ohio Sentencing Guidelines
Journal: Journal of Criminal Justice  Volume:33  Issue:4  Dated:July/August 2005  Pages:301-316
Author(s): John Wooldredge; Timothy Griffin
Date Published: July 2005
Page Count: 16
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 98-CE-VX-0015
Publisher: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/homepage.cws_home 
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis; Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This study examined whether Ohio's sentencing reform, which curtailed judicial sentencing discretion, resulted in significant changes in prosecutorial decisions related to indictment severity, dropped charges, charge reductions, and overall plea bargains.
Abstract: Ohio's 1996 sentencing reform under Senate Bill 2 provides for new presumptive sentencing guidelines designed to reduce disparity in sentences of imprisonment as well as in the length of imprisonment. The new scheme, however, still permits a wider range of judicial discretion, i.e., sentencing options, compared to other States with more structured sentencing, thus creating the possibility of broader discrepancies in the length of imprisonment compared to other States. The current analysis focused on whether the change in Ohio sentencing schemes under the reform corresponded with significantly lower odds of being indicted on first and second-degree felonies (levels for which prison sentences were mandated for second offenses and for which imprisonment was favored for first offenses). The analysis also tested whether the guidelines coincided with significant increases in the odds of all charges being dropped after indictment, guilty pleas with agreements from prosecutors, some charges being dropped between indictment and guilty plea, and reductions to lesser charges. The study encompassed 5,648 suspects from 24 Ohio counties, which included the 6 most urban counties in the State. This post-guideline sample included persons indicted between January 1 and December 31, 1997. Data were collected from prosecutors' and felony probation offices. The sentencing reform legislation apparently had a significant yet modest impact in increasing the likelihood of charge reduction, but there were no other indications that the reforms had resulted in substantive extra-legal disparities in case dispositions due to prosecutorial discretion. 7 tables, 42 references, and appended listing of legal measures and extra-legal measures considered
Main Term(s): Court procedures
Index Term(s): Judicial discretion; NIJ grant-related documents; Ohio; Prosecutorial discretion; Sentencing disparity; Sentencing guidelines; Sentencing reform
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=211006

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.