Measuring Interjedge Sentencing Disparity: Before and After the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

James M Anderson, Jeffrey Kling and Kate Stith

Journal of Law and Economics, 1999, vol. 42, issue 1, 271-307

Abstract: This paper evaluates the impact of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on interjudge sentencing disparity, which is defined as the differences in average nominal prison sentence lengths for comparable caseloads assigned to different judges. This disparity is measured as the dispersion of a random effect in a zero-inflated negative binomial model. The results show that the expected difference between two typical judges in the average sentence length was about 17 percent (or 4.9 months) in 1986-87 prior to the Guidelines and fell to about 11 percent (or 3.9 months) in 1988-93 during the early years of the Guidelines. We have not sought to measure the effect of parole in the pre-Guidelines period, other sources of disparity such as prosecutorial discretion, or the proportionality of punishment under the Guidelines as compared with the pre-Guidelines era. Copyright 1999 by the University of Chicago.

Date: 1999
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (35)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467426 (application/pdf)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

Related works:
Working Paper: Measuring Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity Before and After the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (1999)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlawec:v:42:y:1999:i:1:p:271-307

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Law and Economics from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().