Sentencing Reforms Have Reduced Disparity

¶ … sentencing reforms have reduced disparity and discrimination. Sentencing reforms came about in the 1980s and beyond to help make sentencing fairer and more just for all prisoners. Surprisingly, there is little research in this area, and the textbook author notes that designing research in this area is difficult, due to all the variables that exist in sentencing and disparity data. For example, the researcher has to use cases that are very similar to each other to try to see if there are differences in sentencing, and they have to separate the results from other changes in the criminal justice system, as well.

However, some studies in specific states show that after sentencing reform guidelines were created, there was less disparity in sentencing, and that judges stuck to the guidelines when creating sentencing, which helped reduce disparity and discrimination. In Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Carolina, and Oregon, where studies were conducted, they indicated the guidelines created less disparity. However, when studying U.S. sentencing guidelines, the results were far more mixed. Some studies indicate disparity is reduced, while others show it has actually increased under the new guidelines. Again, the studies are extremely difficult to conduct due to the disparity of the cases and situations.

While the reforms have helped end disparity in some areas, and laws like the three-strike laws apply to all defendants, no matter who they are, most studies indicate that the laws, especially at the federal level, have not significantly reduced disparity in sentencing. Studies have found that there is often a marked difference between judges and judicial districts, and that in some cases; they have actually increased disparity and discrimination in sentencing. Even with sentencing reform, studies indicate that blacks and Hispanics receive longer sentences than whites do, and they receive less consideration in reduction of sentences and other considerations. These results were the same for violent crimes and drug-related crimes, and they show that federal judges are not following the guidelines, or they do not understand the guidelines as well as they should. Interestingly, females tend to receive lesser sentences than males, although that disparity disappears in crimes that are more serious. These characteristics show themselves in state courts, too, which indicates that disparity and discrimination still exist despite the sentence reforms that were supposed to do away with them.

It seems that sentences are actually harsher now than when sentencing reforms were first created, and that people expect harsher penalties for those convicted of crimes. In addition, although a few studies contradict this, there is still quite a bit of discrimination and disparity in the American judicial system on all levels. In addition, the CJ system seems to be less interested in reform and more interested in punishment today, and that may reflect the public's attitudes about criminal justice and the prison system.