Richard S. Frase

The Impact of Contextual Factors on the Decision to Imprison in Large Urban Jurisdictions: A Multilevel Analysis

This study examines the influence of social and legal contextual factors on the processing of individual felony cases in large urban jurisdictions for 1998. Results of hierarchical logistic regression analyses that control for the effects of individual case-level factors show that three jurisdictional characteristics—use of sentencing guidelines, level of crime, and racial composition—influence the decision to imprison. These findings suggest that the type of sentence one receives and the reason one receives it partially depend on where it is meted out. This research demonstrates the importance of accounting for case-level factors in studies of cross-jurisdictional differences in punitiveness.

EXPLAINING SENTENCE SEVERITY IN LARGE URBAN COUNTIES: A MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS OF CONTEXTUAL AND CASE-LEVEL FACTORS

This study used hierarchical logistic modeling to examine the impact of legal, extralegal, and contextual variables on the decision to sentence felons to prison in a sample of large urban counties in 1996. None of the four contextual (county-level) variables—the level of crime, unemployment rate, racial composition, and region—increased the likelihood of a prison sentence, but 10 case-level factors, both legal and extralegal, and several macro-micro interaction terms were influential. These results demonstrate the importance of considering smaller geographic units (i.e., counties instead of states) and controlling for case-level factors in research on interjurisdictional differences in prison use.

What Explains Persistent Racial Disproportionality in Minnesota’s Prison and Jail Populations?

Racial disparity in prison and jail populations, measured by the ratio of black to white per capita incarceration rates, varies substantially from state to state. To understand these variations, researchers must examine disparity at earlier stages of the criminal process and also racial differences in socioeconomic status that help explain disparity in cases entering the system. Researchers must adjust disparity ratios to correct for limitations in available data and in studies of prior incarceration rates. Minnesota has one of the highest black/white incarceration ratios. Disparities at the earliest measurable stages of Minnesota’s criminal process—arrest and felony conviction—are as great as the disparity in total custody (prison plus jail) populations. Disparities are substantially greater in prison sentences imposed and prison populations than at arrest and conviction. The primary reason is the heavy weight sentencing guidelines give to offenders’ prior conviction records. Highly disparate arrest rates appear to reflect unusually high rates of socioeconomic disparity between black and white residents.

Research on Race and Sentencing: Goals, Methods, and Topics

Given the persistent racial disproportionality of inmate populations in the USA (and in many other countries), research on race and sentencing has received, and should continue to receive, a very high priority. Eric Baumer has given us a valuable overview of the apparent goals, accomplishments, and limitations of extant research on this topic, and the new directions which that research might take to better accomplish its goals. In particular, he wisely points to the relatively narrow set of research questions posed and methodologies used, the persistent limitations of those methods, and the need to expand research both in terms of topics and methods. As to the former, we surely need much more research on critical case processing steps that come before——and after——the initial sentencing decisions that have most often been examined. And to supplement the modal application of multiple regression models, we need to apply a variety of other methodologies——each, assuredly, subject to its own inherent limitations and problems. In the classic phrase coined by Zeisel

Prior Record Enhancements at Sentencing: Unsettled Justifications and Unsettling Consequences

The consequences of a person’s prior crimes remain after the debt to society is paid and the sentence is discharged. While the practice of using prior convictions to enhance the severity of sentence imposed is universal, prior record enhancements (PREs) play a particularly important role in US sentencing, and especially in guidelines jurisdictions. In grid-based guidelines, criminal history constitutes one of the two dimensions of the grid. The enhancements are hard to justify. Retributive theories generally reject the use of robust, cumulative record-based enhancements. Research into recidivism suggests that the preventive benefits of PREs have been overstated. The public support the consideration of prior convictions at sentencing, but there is convincing evidence that people are less punitive in their views than are many US guideline schemes. PREs exacerbate racial disparities in prison admissions and populations, result in significant additional prison costs, undermine offense-based proportionality, and disrupt prison resource prioritization.

A Measure of Tolerance: Public Attitudes on Sentencing Enhancements for Old and Juvenile Prior Records

ABSTRACT Sentencing policies routinely assign harsher punishment on repeat offenders, yet we know little about public attitudes toward recidivist sentencing premiums—beyond the predictable finding that people are more punitive when the offender is a recidivist. We conducted a survey to explore public reaction to two key inquiries: (1) whether older priors should carry less weight at new sentencing hearings and (2) whether juvenile priors should be counted at adult sentencing hearings. Many sentencing guidelines systems count all prior convictions forever and juvenile priors are almost always included. Results indicate that in contrast to current practice in U.S. guidelines jurisdictions, the public significantly discounts older priors, and favors disregarding at least some juvenile priors. Policy consequences are discussed.

Lessons of State Guideline Reforms

As the Sentencing Commission plans for the future of guidelines in the federal courts, it should consider the experience of the growing number of states with guideline systems. Ten states already had guidelines when the federal reform took effect in November 1987; since then, seven more have imple mented guidelines, and another six have appointed commissions to implement or study this approach.1 State guidelines have become increasingly sophisticated, as later reformers built upon and learned from the experiences of the states that went before. A number of states have also looked to the