Racial disparity under the federal sentencing guidelines pre‐ and post‐Booker

Abstract

T he article by Ulmer, Light, and Kramer (2011, this issue) and the corresponding policy essays by Albonetti (2011, this issue), Engen (2011, this issue), Scott (2011, this issue), and Spohn (2011, this issue) in this section of Criminology & Public Policy examine the effect of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions on sentencing disparity under the federal sentencing guidelines. In 1984, Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act, which created the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC). One motivation for the Act was the belief that too much discretion was provided to judges in the federal system and that as a result there was great disparity in sentencing White and minority defendants.1 The USSC was given the task of developing and implementing sentencing guidelines for federal judges as a means of controlling judicial discretion, with the goal of achieving greater “uniformity” in sentencing. Prior to the guidelines, federal judges had virtually unlimited discretion to impose sentences so long as they met broad statutory requirements. Under the guidelines, however, the judge had to calculate a defendant’s criminal history and offense level score under strict rules, the result of which was the placement of the defendant on a sentencing grid. The sentence found in the grid was the presumptive sentence, and although departures could be made, the reason for the departure had to be given either in open court or in a written judicial opinion. Furthermore, to monitor and ensure compliance with the guidelines, the Reform Act also provided for appellate review of any departures from the