Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:08 pm
Time: 12:08 pm
Results for sentencing disparities
10 results foundAuthor: Doob, Anthony N. Title: Concern with Leniency: An Examination of Sentencing Patterns in British Columbia Summary: There is no question that the topic of sentencing is controversial in Canada, generally, and in British Columbia in particular. As just one illustration of this issue, 69% of all Canadians and 74% of British Columbians indicated that they believed that sentences in criminal matters are too lenient. Such responses are best thought of as ‘beliefs’ since nobody in Canada has completely adequate data on which to evaluate such a statement since completely adequate data on this issue do not exist. The difference between there being some sentences that are demonstrably wrong and sentences generally being too lenient is, of course, important. ‘Fixing’ incorrect sentences is a routine activity of Courts of Appeal. It is most likely that if asked about evidence that sentences were too lenient, people would, at best, give a few examples of apparently lenient sentences rather than systematic data about sentencing patterns. British Columbians may believe sentences are too lenient in part because they, like most Canadians, undoubtedly believe that if the severity of sentences was ‘turned up’, rates of crime would decrease. Compared to the rest of Canada, British Columbia has a relatively high crime rate as measured by crimes reported to the police. However, it is important to note that victimization is not, uniformly, associated with the view that sentences are too lenient. Indeed, in British Columbia those who were victimized in the 12 months prior to being asked their views on the severity of sentences were less likely to say that sentences were too lenient than were those who had not been victimized. Nevertheless, British Columbians are more likely than people in other regions to hold relatively poor views of the criminal courts. However, British Columbians also appear less favourable about other criminal justice institutions - prisons and parole, and the police. It is possible that the special concern that British Columbians have about sentences reflects deeper distrust, in British Columbia than elsewhere in Canada, in the effects of public institutions. One likely explanation for people’s views that sentences are too lenient is that they may believe that judges, at sentencing, could reduce crime if they would only hand down harsher sentences. But there are other reasons. Given that close to three-quarters of Canadians think that sentences are too lenient, this view is seldom challenged. Indeed, in British Columbia, a statement in the Speech from the Throne in February 2008 may easily have been interpreted by the public as suggesting that sentences across all offence categories are more lenient in British Columbia than in other parts of Canada. Publicly available data (from Statistics Canada) certainly support the actual statement that appeared in the Throne Speech. However, if one looks at these data in detail – across all categories of offences – the measures of severity of sentences do not show such a consistent picture. More importantly, the measures that most people may think of when they think about sentence severity do not give an adequate picture of the complexity of the problem. We need to understand the nature of sentences being handed down before we can evaluate their severity. There is no doubt that there is what might be called ‘unexplained’ variation in sentences across judges, court locations, and provinces and territories. Part of the reason for this variability is that the sentencing structure contained in Canada’s Criminal Code does not lay out specific sentences that are appropriate for individual cases. Hence individual judges, interpreting the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, might well hand down different patterns of sentences. But there is another important consideration. People often talk about ‘short’ and ‘long’ sentences as if the only relevant dimension of sentences is the average (median or mean) length of a prison sentence that is imposed. It is not that simple. To illustrate the inadequacy of the ‘average length of a prison sentence’ as a measure of sentence severity, one could look at some Statistics Canada data tables presenting the median and mean length of prison sentences for all offences imposed in 2003. These measures were almost identical for British Columbia and for Canada as a whole. One might conclude, on the basis of these comparisons, that sentencing in British Columbia and in Canada, more generally, was of equal severity. However, approximately 40% of cases in British Columbia resulted in a prison sentence as compared to about 35% of cases in all of Canada. Is British Columbia harsher than the rest of Canada? Looking at the proportion of cases with a finding of guilt resulting in a prison sentence, one would easily arrive at this conclusion. Looking at the average length of these prison sentences, one would not. The problem of ‘scaling’ the severity of sentences becomes even more salient when these two indicators – prison sentence length and percent receiving a prison sentence – directly conflict with one another. Take for example, the offence category of “uttering threats.” Statistics Canada reports that in 2003, the average (median and mean) prison sentences in British Columbia were shorter than for Canada as a whole. The mean prison sentence in Canada was reported to be 83 days, whereas for British Columbia it was 61 days. One could easily conclude, therefore, that prison sentences were ‘shorter’ in British Columbia and that sentences for this offence were more lenient in British Columbia than in Canada as a whole. But in British Columbia, 41% of the cases of ‘uttering threats’ resulted in a prison sentence compared to 35.5% of cases in Canada as a whole. What may be happening in British Columbia, therefore, is that cases of uttering threats are receiving relatively short prison sentences that, elsewhere in Canada, would have received a non-custodial sentence. By averaging in a number of relatively short sentences for British Columbia that are not part of the calculation elsewhere in Canada, British Columbia’s average prison sentence decreases because more people convicted of this offence are being sent to prison. We strongly believe that what is needed to compare sentencing patterns across jurisdictions is a comprehensive picture that does not reduce overall sentencing in a jurisdiction to a single number. Hence we have suggested that there be multiple measures of sentencing patterns and that one should look at all available categories of offences. It is natural – and not necessarily inappropriate – to find that there is some variation in sentencing across jurisdictions. After all, under our current law, judges have to decide, within the context of their own jurisdictions, how serious offences are, and what the goals of sentencing should be in determining the sentence. Notwithstanding the ease with which sentences can be described by the average length of a prison sentence, we conclude that these measures (mean or median sentence) have too high a probability of failing to accurately describe sentencing to justify their use. We demonstrated in the full report, for example, that one could have a situation in which five jurisdictions all had the same mean and median sentences for a particular offence category, but the proportion of those found guilty who were given harsh sentences could simultaneously vary, in our hypothetical example, from 1% of those found guilty to 35% of those found guilty. If 1% of all guilty findings in a jurisdiction were to result in a penitentiary sentence and 35% of all guilty findings in another resulted in a penitentiary sentence, we argue that a description of the mean and median sentences of these two jurisdictions as being identical is not terribly helpful, nor descriptive. In order to understand variation in sentencing across Canada, we concluded that it was important to look at data in as much detail as possible. First of all, this meant looking at individual offence groupings as well as comparisons between British Columbia and individual provinces, rather than ‘Canada’ as a single unit. Second, it meant using multiple measures of sentence severity that acknowledge that the distribution of sentences can vary in a number of different ways. The core of our analysis, therefore, presents comparisons between British Columbia and other individual provinces. For various reasons described in the full report, we felt that comparisons between British Columbia, on the one hand and the three territories, Manitoba, and Quebec, on the other hand, should not be made. The most compelling reason for not including the territories in our analysis is their small sample sizes. Comparisons with Manitoba and Quebec were excluded because of the (in)completeness of the data from these two jurisdictions. Hence we present comparisons of British Columbia with each of the remaining 7 provinces. We present five inter-related measures of sentence severity for each offence grouping: the percent of all guilty findings resulting in a prison sentence; the percent of prison sentences that are greater than 3 months in length; the percent of prison sentences that are greater than 6 months in length; the percent of all guilty findings that resulted in a prison sentence of greater than 3 months in length; and the percent of all guilty findings that resulted in a prison sentence of greater than 6 months in length. Details: Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre of Criminology; Ottawa: Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa, 2008. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2011 at: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/reports/pdf/ConcernLeniency.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Canada URL: http://www.criminaljusticereform.gov.bc.ca/en/reports/pdf/ConcernLeniency.pdf Shelf Number: 122766 Keywords: PunishmentSentencing (Canada)Sentencing Disparities |
Author: Hagen, Courtney Title: Bias in the Federal Judicial System: Do Sentencing Disparities Exist in the Southwest Border Region of the United States? Summary: Despite falling crime rates in recent years, political arguments have been made that illegal immigrants entering the country are contributing to increased crime along the Southwest Border region of the United States. Given existing literature that demonstrates bias in the judicial system, particularly regarding sentencing disparities based upon demographic characteristics, I intend to examine the potential effects of such policies, practices, and rhetoric in creating sentencing disparities in the Southwest Border. Specifically, I test the hypothesis that Hispanics and/or illegal immigrants receive longer sentences than other ethnic groups and U.S. citizens for similar crimes committed in the Southwest Border. Additionally, I test whether these disparities are greater in the Southwest Border than in the rest of the country. Using sentencing data provided by the United States Sentencing Commission for the years 2000 through 2008, I study the effects of ethnicity and citizenship while controlling for crime type and geographic region, and include control variables for additional demographic characteristics, prior criminal history, and other "legalistic" attributes. My hypothesis is inconsistently supported; certain crimes exhibited sentencing bias for Hispanics and/or illegal immigrants, while others did not. Moreover, no strong pattern emerged to identify which crimes would produce bias. The inconsistent and often suspect results suggest the absence of important data, likely attributable to a "deportation effect" which is not fully documented and therefore is not available for inclusion in tests regarding sentencing disparities for illegal immigrants and/or Hispanics. Details: Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 2011. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Master's Thesis: Accessed May 8, 2012 at: http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/553752 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/553752 Shelf Number: 125179 Keywords: HispanicsIllegal AliensIllegal Immigrants (U.S.)Immigrants and CrimeSentencing Disparities |
Author: Starr, Sonja B. Title: Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases Summary: This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted. Prior studies have reported much smaller sentence gaps because they have ignored the role of charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing fact-finding in producing sentences. Most studies control for endogenous severity measures that result from these earlier discretionary processes and use samples that have been winnowed by them. I avoid these problems by using a linked dataset tracing cases from arrest through sentencing. Using decomposition methods, I show that most sentence disparity arises from decisions at the earlier stages, and use the rich data to investigate causal theories for these gender gaps. Details: East Lansing, MI: University of Michigan Law School, 2012. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: University of Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper, No. 12-018: Accessed September 27, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002 Shelf Number: 126473 Keywords: DiscretionDiscriminationGenderPunishmentSentencing Disparities |
Author: Nicosia, Nancy Title: Does Mandatory Diversion to Drug Treatment Eliminate Racial Disparities in the Incarceration of Drug Offenders? An Examination of California's Proposition 36 Summary: Like other states, minorities are disproportionately represented in the California’s state prison system, particularly for drug offenses. Unlike other states, California has had a policy of mandatory diversion to drug treatment for non-violent drug offenders since mid-2001 (Proposition 36). Using a rich dataset including current and prior criminal charges from 1995 through 2005 in California, we examine whether disparities in court dispositions to prison and drug treatment between White and Blacks male drug offenders are explained by observable case and criminal justice characteristics. We estimate the extent to which remaining observable disparities are affected by Proposition 36. We find that Black and White male drug offenders differ considerably on covariates, but by weighting on the inverse of a nonparametric estimate of the propensity score, we can compare Blacks to Whites that are on average equivalent on covariates. Unadjusted disparities in the likelihood of being sentenced to prison are substantially reduced by propensity score weighting. Proposition 36 reduces the likelihood of prison overall, but not differentially for Blacks. By contrast, racial disparity in diversion to drug treatment is not reduced by propensity score weighting. There is some evidence that Proposition 36 increased diversion for Blacks. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper Series; Working Paper 18518: Accessed November 20, 2012 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18518.pdf?new_window=1 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18518.pdf?new_window=1 Shelf Number: 126942 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse Treatment (U.S.)Drug OffendersRacial DisparitiesSentencing Disparities |
Author: Jeffries, Samantha Title: Indigenous Disparity in Lower Court Imprisonment Decisions: A Study of Two Australian Jurisdictions, 1998 to 2008 Summary: This paper reports findings from statistical analyses of Indigeneity and lower court sentencing in New South Wales and South Australia from 1998 to 2008. The aim was to explore the probability of Indigenous versus non-Indigenous defendants receiving a prison sentence over time, while controlling for other key sentencing determinates (ie sex, age, criminal history, seriousness of current offence, plea, bail status). Across the study period, results generally showed that Indigenous offenders were more likely to receive a prison term than similarly situated non-Indigenous offenders. However, the pattern of disparity over time differed by jurisdiction. In New South Wales, Indigenous offenders were more likely to receive a prison sentence throughout the entire period. By contrast, in the South Australian lower courts, disparity was found to have increased, with earlier years showing parity and leniency, before a trend towards a greater likelihood of a prison sentence for Indigenous offenders. Focal concerns theory is used to provide a possible explanation for the study's finding of Indigenous lower court sentencing disparity. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2012. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no. 447: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/441-460/tandi447.html Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/441-460/tandi447.html Shelf Number: 127392 Keywords: AboriginalsCourtsIndigenous Peoples (Australia)Racial DisparitiesSentencing Disparities |
Author: Mauer, Marc Title: The Changing Racial Dynamics of Women’s Incarceration Summary: In the first decade of the 21st century the United States began to experience a shift in the 30-year buildup to a world record prison system. Although the decade ended with an increased number of people in prison, the rate of growth overall was considerably below that of previous decades and since 2008 the overall number of people in state prisons has declined slightly each year. Scholars are beginning to analyze the relative contributions of changes in crime rates, criminal justice policies, economics, and demographics to the slowing growth rate of the prison system, but one area that has gone largely unexplored is the impact of such changes on racial disparities in imprisonment. As is well known, black/white disparities in the use of incarceration have been profound for quite some time. Since the 1980s a series of analyses have documented these trends at the national level as well as examining variation in disparity among the states. As prison populations fluctuate, though, the relative rate of incarceration among racial groups may or may not reflect prevailing patterns. Further, as the prospect of a declining prison population has now become a distinct possibility for the next decade, it will become increasingly important to monitor whether reduced incarceration is experienced in similar ways across racial/ethnic groups. This report first describes trends in incarceration for the first decade of the century, and contrasts this with patterns of the previous decade. We then assess the extent of change in the race and gender dynamics of incarceration over the past decade, and suggest factors which may be contributing to these trends. The data in this report document the following key findings: • Racial/ethnic disparities in U.S. incarceration remain substantial – In 2009, African Americans and Latinos constituted more than 60% of imprisoned offenders. African American males were incarcerated in state and federal prisons at 6.4 times the rate of non-Hispanic white males, and Hispanic males at 2.4 times the rate of non-Hispanic whites. • Declining rate of incarceration for African Americans – From 2000 to 2009 the rate of incarceration in state and federal prisons declined 9.8% for black men and 30.7% for black women. • Rates of incarceration for whites and Latinos generally rising – Incarceration rates for white men and women rose 8.5% and 47.1%, respectively from 2000 to 2009. For Hispanics the men’s rate declined by 2.2% while the women’s rate rose by 23.3%. • Dramatic shift in racial disparities among women – In 2000 black women were incarcerated in state and federal prisons at six times the rate of white women. By 2009 that ratio had declined by 53%, to 2.8:1. This shift was a result of both declining incarceration of African American women and rising incarceration of white women. The disparity between Hispanic and non- Hispanic white women declined by 16.7% during this period. Similar trends can be seen among men, but at a lesser scale, with a decline of 16.9% in the black/white incarceration ratio over the decade. The disparity between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white men declined by 11.1%. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2013. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_Changing%20Racial%20Dynamics%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_Changing%20Racial%20Dynamics%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 127843 Keywords: Female InmatesFemale Offenders (U.S.)Female PrisonersMinority GroupsRacial DisparitiesSentencing Disparities |
Author: Butcher, Kristin F. Title: Comparing Apples to Oranges: Differences in Women's and Men's Incarceration and Sentencing Outcomes Summary: Using detailed administrative records, we find that, on average, women receive lighter sentences in comparison with men along both extensive and intensive margins. Using parametric and semi-parametric decomposition methods, roughly 30% of the gender differences in incarceration cannot be explained by the observed criminal characteristics of offense and offender. We also find evidence of considerable heterogeneity across judges in their treatment of female and male offenders. There is little evidence, however, that tastes for gender discrimination are driving the mean gender disparity or the variance in treatment between judges. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 48p., app. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 23079: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23079 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23079 Shelf Number: 146420 Keywords: Female OffendersGender DisparitiesSentencingSentencing Disparities |
Author: Sentencing Project Title: Report of The Sentencing Project to the United Nations Human Rights Committee Regarding Racial Disparities in the United States Criminal Justice System Summary: The United States criminal justice system is the largest in the world. At year-end 2011, approximately 7 million individuals were under some form of correctional control in the United States, including 2.2 million incarcerated in federal, state, or local prisons and jails. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, dwarfing the rate of nearly every other nation. Such broad statistics mask the racial disparity that pervades the U.S. criminal justice system. Racial minorities are more likely than white Americans to be arrested; once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, they are more likely to face stiff sentences. African-American males are six times more likely to be incarcerated than white males and 2.5 times more likely than Hispanic males. If current trends continue, one of every three black American males born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as can one of every six Latino males - compared to one of every seventeen white males. Racial and ethnic disparities among women are less substantial than among men but remain prevalent. The source of such disparities is deeper and more systemic than explicit racial discrimination. The United States in effect operates two distinct criminal justice systems: one for wealthy people and another for poor people and minorities. The former is the system the United States describes in its report: a vigorous adversary system replete with constitutional protections for defendants. Yet the experiences of poor and minority defendants within the criminal justice system often differ substantially from that model due to a number of factors, each of which contributes to the over-representation of such individuals in the system. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2017 at: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Race-and-Justice-Shadow-Report-ICCPR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Race-and-Justice-Shadow-Report-ICCPR.pdf Shelf Number: 131372 Keywords: Minority GroupsRacial DiscriminationRacial DisparitiesSentencing Disparities |
Author: PriceWaterhouseCoopers Title: Indigenous incarceration: Unlock the facts Summary: Indigenous incarceration in Australia has been the subject of many thorough and well evidenced reports and reviews over the past three decades including the landmark Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Our report contributes new economic modelling to the evidence base. It estimates the costs of Indigenous incarceration and the potential savings if Indigenous incarceration rates were no different to those of the non-Indigenous population. The high, and growing, rates of Indigenous incarceration has a heavy impact on individuals, families, communities, and the Australian economy but it doesn't have to be this way. Our modelling suggests that implementing a holistic suite of initiatives would contribute significantly to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous rates of incarceration, but this alone would not be enough. Closing the gap requires systemic change, as well as smarter investment in programmatic solutions with Indigenous Australians having ownership and control over program settings. This report seeks to raise awareness of, and calls for action to address, the disproportionate rates of Indigenous incarceration across Australia. Details: Australia: PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2017. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2017 at: https://www.pwc.com.au/indigenous-consulting/assets/indigenous-incarceration-may17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: https://www.pwc.com.au/indigenous-consulting/assets/indigenous-incarceration-may17.pdf Shelf Number: 145915 Keywords: AboriginalsIndigenous PeoplesIndigenous PrisonersSentencing Disparities |
Author: Walcker, Allison Title: Examining the differences of "life" between adults and juveniles incarcerated in Nebraska's Correctional Systems Summary: For the 2009 Supreme Court schedule, Justices agreed to take up sentencing for young (juvenile) offenders, considering whether the reasoning that led it to strike down the death penalty for juvenile offenders four years ago should apply to sentences of life without the possibility of parole. The court accepted two cases on the issue, both from Florida and neither involved a killing. In Sullivan v. Florid,. Sullivan was sentenced to life without parole for sexually assaulting an elderly woman when he was 13. In Graham v. Florida, T. Graham received the same sentence for participating in a home invasion when he was 17 while on probation. Both cases were argued on November 9, 2009.This attention has caught the eye of state legislatures and advocacy groups centered on fairness in sentencing laws. The principal focus of this research was the examination of data regarding Nebraska's incarcerated life population, both adult and juvenile, in regard to previous national studies. This paper examines whether sentencing disparity exists among adult and juvenile offenders serving life sentences and life without parole sentences. Do juveniles serving harsher punishments today because of current criminal justice policies and laws? Second, the paper investigates whether racial disparity exists among adult and juvenile offenders serving these type of sentences, with minorities (specifically blacks) receiving harsher punishments. The following variables appear to be the most relevant and will be considered here: 1) offense(s), 2) age at admission, 3) sentence length (months/years), 4) criminal history (any prior convictions in Nebraska), and 5) race. Once the data was collected, it was compared and contrasted to previous national studies, such as Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch and The Sentencing Project. Details: Lincoln: Nebraska Wesleyan University, 2010. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed july 11, 2018 at: https://corrections.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/files/46/allison_walcker_12-2010_1.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://corrections.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/files/46/allison_walcker_12-2010_1.pdf Shelf Number: 150827 Keywords: Inmates Life Sentences Life Without Parole Lifers Prisoners Racial Disparities Sentencing Disparities |