Project Director: Brian Ostrom, Ph.D. National Center for State Courts

1. Assessing Consistency & Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Final Report Project Director:Brian Ostrom, Ph.D.National Center for State Courts

2. Purpose of structured sentencing • “The end is not the process in itself, but the substantive goal that trial judges exercise independent and deliberative judgment about each sentence—making these sentences more than an algebraic equation and less than a Rorschach test.” • Judge Jeffrey Sutton Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

3. What is the research goal? The degree to which a sentencing system contributes to the maintenance of justice depends in large measure on three central issues: Consistency--like cases are treated alike Proportionality– more serious offenders are punished more severely Lack of discrimination—age, gender and race are insignificant in who goes to prison and for how long Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

4. Why these 3 states? • These states represent 3 distinct approaches to structuring judicial discretion • Well-respected systems • Alternative design strategies • Voluntary and presumptive • Data is more readily obtainable Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

5. What type of data analysis is used? • • Multivariate statistical analysis (various techniques) • Reviewing all other state guideline systems, and assessing impact of recent supreme court decisions • • Review and comment by commission and staff Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

6. Continuum of sentencing guidelines • Enforceable rule related to guideline use • Completion of guideline forms required • Sentencing commission monitors compliance • Compelling and substantial reason for departure • Written reason required for departure • Appellate review Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

7. Produced scheme to assess each SG structure Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

8. Produced a State Guideline Continuum • Minnesota: presumptive, determinate, and tighter ranges • Michigan: presumptive, indeterminate, and wider ranges • Virginia: voluntary and widest ranges Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

9. Modeling strategy • Simulate the actual sentencing process by modeling the content and form of information received by the judge at the time of sentencing • Do the basic design features of the guidelines serve to locate similarly situated offenders in terms of location and duration? • Do the guidelines in operation provide clear-cut and proportional distinctions between more serious and less serious offenders? • Is there evidence of discrimination distinct from inconsistency in sentencing? Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

10. Comparing Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

11. Concentrating on Virginia…. • Focus on these individual crime groups: • Assault • Larceny • Burglary • Fraud • Drugs • Robbery • Look at the decision making associated with • Worksheet A – to model prison/no prison decision • Worksheet C – to model prison sentence length decision Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

12. Concentrating on Virginia…. Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

13. Consistency… Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

14. Consistency… As Point Values Increase, Months Of Sentence Also Rises Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

15. Burglary: Estimated Probability of Prison Sentence by Worksheet A Point Value Consistency… Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

16. Proportionality… Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

17. Proportionality… Note: Above is a partial list of the prior record factors that were examined. Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

18. Discrimination…. Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

19. Comparing Outstate and Southeast Michigan Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

20. Comparing Outstate and Hennepin Co. Minnesota Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

21. Conclusions: • Consistency achieved in all three guideline systems • A challenge for all systems lies in proportionality • Virginia guidelines have successfully eliminated any evidence of systematic discrimination • Sex • Race • geography Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

22. Status of Project • Peer review complete • NIJ reviewing report • 2008 NASC conference Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States