Judicial Discretion and Sentencing Behavior

This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data

Judicial Discretion and Sentencing Behavior

Author Info

Freeborn, Beth
Hartmann, Monica

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

This research studies the impact of changes to federal judicial discretion on criminal sentencing outcomes. The Feeney Amendment to the 2003 PROTECT Act restricted federal judges’ ability to impose sentences outside of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and required appellate courts to review downward departures. Using data on all federal sentences between 1999 and 2004, we examine the effect of the Feeney Amendment on the downward departures rate and prison sentence. We control for type of offense, district of sentencing, criminal history, and demographic characteristics of the offender, in order to isolate the changes in judicial sentencing due to the implementation of the Feeney Amendment. Our results suggest that the Feeney Amendment reduced the probability of a downward departure by 5% and increased prison sentences by two months. There is no evidence that judges adjust sentences in an effort to circumvent the intentions of the Feeney Amendment.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

Publisher Info
Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 13880.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 10 Jan 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:13880

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).

Find related papers by JEL classification:
K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General
K14 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Criminal Law

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

NEP-ALL-2009-03-14 (All new papers)
NEP-LAW-2009-03-14 (Law & Economics)

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

Bjerk, David, 2005. "Making the Crime Fit the Penalty: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion under Mandatory Minimum Sentencing," Journal of Law & Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(2), pages 591-625, October.
Other versions:
- David Bjerk, 2004. "Making the Crime Fit the Penalty: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion Under Mandatory Minimum Sentencing," Department of Economics Working Papers 2004-12, McMaster University. [Downloadable!]
Anderson, J.M. & Kling, J.R. & Stith, K., 1999. "Measuring Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity Before and After the Federal Sentencing Guidelines," Papers 207, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.

Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All the bibliographic data shown here has been contributed by volunteers, thereby helping to keep this service free.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-30.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.