About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

105 Colum. L. Rev. 959 (2005)
When Process Affects Punishment: Differences in Sentences after Guilty Plea, Bench Trial, and Jury Trial in Five Guidelines States

handle is hein.journals/clr105 and id is 1003 raw text is: PANEL ONE: PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND ITS CHALLENGES WHEN PROCESS AFFECTS PUNISHMENT: DIFFERENCES IN SENTENCES AFTER GUILTY PLEA, BENCH TRIAL, AND JURY TRIAL IN FIVE GUIDELINES STATES Nancy J. King,* David A. Soul,** Sara Steen,*** & Robert R. Weidner**** The research reported in this Essay examines process discounts-differ- ences in sentences imposed for the same offense, depending upon whether the conviction was by jury trial, bench trial, or guilty plea-in five states that use judicial sentencing guidelines. Few guidelines systems expressly recognize plea agreement as an acceptable basis for departure, and none authorizes judges to vary sentences based upon whether or not the defendant waived his right to a jury trial and opted for a bench trial. Nevertheless, we predicted that because of the cost savings resulting from waivers, judges and prosecu- tors in any sentencing system would ensure that guilty plea convictions would generate the lowest sentences, with bench trial sentences averaging higher than plea-based sentences for the same offense, and sentences following jury trials averaging the highest of all, even after controlling for other factors associated with sentence severity. We found that a significant plea discount is evident for most offenses in all five states. Waiving a jury in favor of a bench trial has less consistent punishment consequences. Among states and even within a single state, the prevalence of process discounts is extraordina- rily varied, as are the causes and methods of discounting. The Essay ex- plores how these findings might inform sentencing reform and discusses the use of bench trials in sentencing guidelines systems generally. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 960 I. PROCESS DISCOUNTS-PERVASIVE BUT IGNORED ............. .962 II. STUDY D ESIGN ............................................ 968 III. FINDINGS ................................................ 973 IV. DISCUSSION .............................................. 975 * Lee S. & Charles A. Speir Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School. ** Executive Director, Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy. *** Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Colorado. **** Assistant Professor, Sociology and Anthropology Department, University of Minnesota Duluth. The authors extend special thanks to Professor Jeffrey Ulmer for providing expert analysis of Pennsylvania's sentencing data and to Terry Adams for his skilled assistance with data from Kansas. We are grateful to the dozens of individuals who so generously took the time to discuss their experiences in interviews. Also, thanks to Barbara Tombs, Professors Kevin Reitz and Richard Frase, and the staff at the sentencing commissions in Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Finally, this research would not have been possible without research support by the Vanderbilt University Law School. 959

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most