NCJ Number
56979
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 68 Issue: 2 Dated: (JUNE 1977) Pages: 306-310
Date Published
1977
Length
5 pages
Annotation
SURVEY DATA WERE GATHERED FROM 47 VIRGINIA DISTRICT COURT JUDGES TO EXAMINE THE DEGREE OF SENTENCING DISPARITY AMONG THE SAME TYPE OF JUDGES WITHIN THE SAME JURISDICTION.
Abstract
THE JUDGES WERE EACH GIVEN AN IDENTICAL BOOKLET WITH FIVE CASE DESCRIPTIONS AND ASKED TO RECOMMEND A VERDICT, AND, IF A GUILTY VERDICT IS RENDERED, TO SUGGEST AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE. CASE DESCRIPTIONS CONVEYED THE BASIC EVIDENTIAL FACTORS REQUISITE FOR A VERDICT, THE DEFENDANT'S NAME, THE CRIMINAL CHARGE, AND A SYNOPSIS OF THE TESTIMONY. THE OVERALL PATTERN RESULTING FROM THE JUDGES' RECOMMENDATIONS WAS AGREEMENT ON THE VERDICT, BUT THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL VARIANCE IN THE CHOICE OF SENTENCING MODE AND PENALTY SERIOUSNESS WITHIN THE MODE. AFTER ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES IS MADE, NUMBER OF CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN: (1) GENERALLY, WHEN LEGAL CASES ARE EQUALIZED WITHIN OFFENSE CATEGORIES, JUDGES SHOW SIGNIFICANT DISPARITY; (2) THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IS RELATED TO THE DISPARITY; (3) STRONG EVIDENCE DOES NOT APPEAR TO GUARANTEE A HIGH AGREEMENT ON THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE; AND (4) THE TYPE OF OFFENSES APPEAR TO BE RELATED TO THE DEGREE OF DISPARITY. REFERENCES ARE CITED. (DAG)