IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v8y2011is1p222-238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Location, Location, Location: The Impact of Guideline Grid Location on the Value of Sentencing Enhancements

Author

Listed:
  • Shawn D. Bushway
  • Anne Morrison Piehl

Abstract

A long literature provides empirical estimates of differential treatment (by race and other factors) in the criminal justice system, taking sentencing rules as given. This article considers the disparate impact of the rules, rather than their implementation, by providing a quantitative assessment of the Maryland sentencing grid for person offenses using the distribution of defendants on the grid. The basic insight is that movement along the grid itself (either across rows or across columns) is nonlinear in sentence lengths (in both absolute magnitudes and percent terms). As a result, an additional point results in a different increase in the recommended sentence length depending on the other factors that are present. Because the distribution of factors is not random, factors like weapon use that appear to have equal weight in the formula developed by policymakers turn out to have very different weights in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Shawn D. Bushway & Anne Morrison Piehl, 2011. "Location, Location, Location: The Impact of Guideline Grid Location on the Value of Sentencing Enhancements," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(s1), pages 222-238, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:8:y:2011:i:s1:p:222-238
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01227.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01227.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01227.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Waldfogel, Joel, 1998. "Does inter-judge disparity justify empirically based sentencing guidelines?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 293-304, September.
    2. Emily G. Owens, 2009. "More Time, Less Crime? Estimating the Incapacitative Effect of Sentence Enhancements," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(3), pages 551-579, August.
    3. Mustard, David B, 2001. "Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 285-314, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chad M. Topaz & Shaoyang Ning & Maria-Veronica Ciocanel & Shawn Bushway, 2023. "Federal criminal sentencing: race-based disparate impact and differential treatment in judicial districts," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joshua Hall & Kaitlyn Harger & Dean Stansel, 2015. "Economic Freedom and Recidivism: Evidence from US States," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 21(2), pages 155-165, May.
    2. Steven Raphael, 2014. "The New Scarlet Letter? Negotiating the U.S. Labor Market with a Criminal Record," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number nsc, November.
    3. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2012. "The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(2), pages 1017-1055.
    4. Eduardo Gandelman & Nestor Gandelman & Julie Rothschild, 2008. "Diferencias entre los sexos en los procedimientos judiciales: Pruebas de campo de causas de vivienda en Uruguay," Research Department Publications 3251, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    5. Vadim Volkov, 2016. "Legal and Extralegal Origins of Sentencing Disparities: Evidence from Russia's Criminal Courts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 637-665, December.
    6. Bindler, Anna Louisa & Hjalmarsson, Randi & Machin, Stephen Jonathan & Rubio, Melissa, 2023. "Murphy's Law or luck of the Irish? Disparate treatment of the Irish in 19th century courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121339, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean Claude Ray, 2020. "Do sentencing guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity? Evidence from framed field experiment," Working Papers of BETA 2020-28, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    8. Ryon, Stephanie Bontrager & Chiricos, Ted & Siennick, Sonja E. & Barrick, Kelle & Bales, William, 2017. "Sentencing in light of collateral consequences: Does age matter?," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-11.
    9. Alessandro Barbarino & Giovanni Mastrobuoni, 2014. "The Incapacitation Effect of Incarceration: Evidence from Several Italian Collective Pardons," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 1-37, February.
    10. Simone Bertoli & Morgane Laouenan & Jérôme Valette, 2022. "Border Apprehensions and Federal Sentencing of Hispanic Citizens in the United States," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03818735, HAL.
    11. Mariagiovanna Baccara & Allan Collard-Wexler & Leonardo Felli & Leeat Yariv, 2010. "Gender and Racial Biases: Evidence from Child Adoption," CESifo Working Paper Series 2921, CESifo.
    12. Claudine Desrieux & Romain Espinosa, 2020. "Scale for capped damages in case of unfair dismissal: some empirical evidence [La Barémisation des indemnités pour licenciement abusif: Quelques Eléments d'Analyse Empirique]," Post-Print halshs-02307212, HAL.
    13. Eren, Ozkan & Mocan, Naci, 2020. "Judge Peer Effects in the Courthouse," IZA Discussion Papers 13937, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Lochner, L., 1999. "Education, Work, and Crime: Theory and Evidence," RCER Working Papers 465, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    15. Shawn D. Bushway & Emily G. Owens & Anne Morrison Piehl, 2012. "Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion: Quasi‐Experimental Evidence from Human Calculation Errors," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 291-319, June.
    16. Arbour, William & Lacroix, Guy & Marchand, Steeve, 2021. "Prison Rehabilitation Programs: Efficiency and Targeting," IZA Discussion Papers 14022, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Brendon McConnell & Imran Rasul, 2021. "Contagious Animosity in the Field: Evidence from the Federal Criminal Justice System," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(3), pages 739-785.
    18. Vickers, Chris, 2016. "Socioeconomic status and judicial disparities in England and Wales, 1870–1910," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 32-53.
    19. Sarah Marx Quintanar, 2011. "Do Driver Decisions in Traffic Court Motivate Police Discrimination in Issuing Speeding Tickets?," Departmental Working Papers 2011-13, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    20. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2010. "Jury Discrimination in Criminal Trials," Working Papers 671, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:8:y:2011:i:s1:p:222-238. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.