Punishing on a Curve

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Adi Leibovitch
{"title":"Punishing on a Curve","authors":"Adi Leibovitch","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2820197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Does the punishment of one defendant change because of how she fares in comparison to the other defendants on the judge’s docket? This article demonstrates that the troubling answer is yes. Judges sentence the same case more harshly when their caseloads contain relatively milder offenses, and more leniently when their caseloads contain more serious crimes. I call this problem “punishing on a curve.”Consequently, the article shows how such relative sentencing patterns put into question the prevailing practice of establishing specialized courts or courts of limited jurisdiction. Because judges are punishing on a curve, the court’s jurisdiction systematically shapes sentencing outcomes. Courts of limited jurisdiction usually specialize in relatively less serious crimes (such as misdemeanors, drug offenses, or juvenile cases). They treat the mild offenses on their docket more harshly than generalist courts, that also see severe crimes, would have treated them. This leads to the disturbing effect of increasing punitive outcomes vis-a-vis these offenses, wholly contradictory to the missions of these courts. Such sentencing patterns undermine notions of justice and equitable treatment. They also undermine retributive principles and marginal deterrence across crimes of increasing severity.In light of the profound normative and practical implications, the article offers a remedy to standardize sentences through “statistical curving.” In addition to consulting the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines for a particular offense, a judge should see the distribution of sentences for the same offense across different courts. The article illustrates the feasibility of the proposal empirically using sentencing data from neighboring judicial districts in Pennsylvania. It also explains how this proposal fits within the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence following United States v. Booker, which rendered the sentencing guidelines advisory, and its potential advantage in improving appellate review.","PeriodicalId":47587,"journal":{"name":"Northwestern University Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northwestern University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2820197","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Does the punishment of one defendant change because of how she fares in comparison to the other defendants on the judge’s docket? This article demonstrates that the troubling answer is yes. Judges sentence the same case more harshly when their caseloads contain relatively milder offenses, and more leniently when their caseloads contain more serious crimes. I call this problem “punishing on a curve.”Consequently, the article shows how such relative sentencing patterns put into question the prevailing practice of establishing specialized courts or courts of limited jurisdiction. Because judges are punishing on a curve, the court’s jurisdiction systematically shapes sentencing outcomes. Courts of limited jurisdiction usually specialize in relatively less serious crimes (such as misdemeanors, drug offenses, or juvenile cases). They treat the mild offenses on their docket more harshly than generalist courts, that also see severe crimes, would have treated them. This leads to the disturbing effect of increasing punitive outcomes vis-a-vis these offenses, wholly contradictory to the missions of these courts. Such sentencing patterns undermine notions of justice and equitable treatment. They also undermine retributive principles and marginal deterrence across crimes of increasing severity.In light of the profound normative and practical implications, the article offers a remedy to standardize sentences through “statistical curving.” In addition to consulting the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines for a particular offense, a judge should see the distribution of sentences for the same offense across different courts. The article illustrates the feasibility of the proposal empirically using sentencing data from neighboring judicial districts in Pennsylvania. It also explains how this proposal fits within the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence following United States v. Booker, which rendered the sentencing guidelines advisory, and its potential advantage in improving appellate review.
曲线上的惩罚
对一个被告的惩罚是否会因为她与法官案底上的其他被告相比表现如何而改变?本文证明了这个令人不安的答案是肯定的。法官对同一案件的判决,在罪行较轻的情况下更为严厉,在罪行较严重的情况下更为从轻。我把这个问题称为“曲线惩罚”。因此,本文表明这种相对的量刑模式如何对设立专门法院或有限管辖权法院的普遍做法提出质疑。由于法官的惩罚呈曲线状,法院的管辖权系统地影响了量刑结果。有限管辖权的法院通常专门审理相对不那么严重的罪行(如轻罪、毒品犯罪或青少年案件)。他们对案卷上的轻微罪行的处理,要比审理严重罪行的多面手法庭更为严厉。这导致了对这些罪行的惩罚结果日益增加的令人不安的影响,这与这些法院的使命完全矛盾。这种量刑模式破坏了正义和公平待遇的概念。它们还破坏了惩罚原则和对日益严重的犯罪的边际威慑。鉴于其深刻的规范意义和现实意义,本文提出了通过“统计曲线”来规范句子的补救措施。除了参考量刑指南对特定罪行所建议的量刑范围外,法官还应该看到同一罪行在不同法院的量刑分布情况。本文以宾夕法尼亚州邻近司法管辖区的量刑数据为实证,论证了该建议的可行性。它还解释了这一建议如何符合最高法院在美国诉布克案(United States v. Booker)之后的判例,该判例使量刑指南具有咨询意义,以及它在改进上诉审查方面的潜在优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Northwestern University Law Review is a student-operated journal that publishes four issues of high-quality, general legal scholarship each year. Student editors make the editorial and organizational decisions and select articles submitted by professors, judges, and practitioners, as well as student pieces.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信