skip navigation


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: 77559 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Sentence Decisionmaking - The Logic of Sentence Decisions and the Extent and Sources of Sentence Disparity
Journal: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology  Volume:72  Issue:2  Dated:(Summer 1981)  Pages:524-554
Author(s): K Clancy; J Bartolomeo; D Richardson; C Wellford
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 31
Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This national survey of Federal judges aimed to determine the extent of sentence disparity, examine the effect of specific case characteristics on sentence decisions, and determine the effect of judge and judicial environment attributes on decisions.
Abstract: Interviews were held in 1979 with 264 active Federal district judges. Analytic techniques included repeated measures of variance, interpolation and extrapolation, analysis of variance, micromodeling, and step-wise regression analysis. Results suggest a considerable need for guidelines, as disparity is widespread, with substantial dissensus among judges about the sentences which hypothetical cases should have received. The survey revealed that judges do not extemporize sentences each time they reach a sentence decision. Rather, disparities are anchored in patterned differences regarding overall value orientations about the functions of criminal sanctions, judgments about the appropriate goal of case-specific sentences, perceptions about the severity and the sentences themselves, predispositions to sentence in a relatively harsh or lenient fashion, and perceptions of the seriousness of particular attributes of a case. These patterns are related not just to the case of the offender who is being sentenced but also to the characteristics of the judge doing the sentencing. Thus, guidelines will yield two general consequences for the criminal justice system. First, disparity could be diminished by specifying the importance that each case and offender attribute should assume in arriving at a sentence. However, by enhancing the order and structure of these decisions as they relate to case or offender characteristics, guidelines will have an equal and opposite effect on the hidden order that characterizes current decisionmaking. Guidelines can thus be viewed broadly as a mechanism for replacing one type of order (created by the judge) with another (created by the sentencing commission). Footnotes and table are provided. (Author abstract modified)
Index Term(s): Judicial discretion; Sentencing commissions; Sentencing disparity; Sentencing guidelines; Sentencing reform
Note: Presented at the Symposium on the Policies and Legal Theories Underlying the Proposed Federal Criminal Code.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*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.