Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Theoretical Framework
This research entails an investigation into the variables that influence the sentencing decisions of judges in drug offenders’ cases. According to Spohn (2002), judges often need to take into account a series of external factors, which may not necessarily guarantee fairness, when making sentencing decisions (p. 92). Additionally, the federal states’ mandatory sentencing guidelines may force the concerned judge to apply a certain sentence regardless of the offender’s background characteristics. Much of the previous research largely focused on sentencing decisions in general; however, this study will specifically focus to drug offenses since such cases account for the largest number of non-violent arrests made.
Previous researches on drug offense cases primarily focus on the effect of ethnographic factors in sentencing decisions. Brenna (2008, p. 277), carried out a comparative analysis of sentencing decisions of three racial groups; that is, Hispanics, Whites, and blacks in North Carolina. Overall, the white offenders received less severe punishments than the offenders of the other races convicted of the same crimes did. In particular, Blacks got more severe punishments than whites did, but less severe punishments than their Hispanic counterparts did. Therefore, overall, the Hispanics receive the toughest sentences for drug related crime. Such a study reveals that ethnic and racial biases do play a role in influencing sentencing decisions. This will be one of the variables to be analyzed in this research study.
King and Muaer (2002, p. 19) research study identified five main demographic factors that influence judges’ sentencing decisions concerning drug related offenses. First, the criminal history of the drug offender played a large role in their judgments. In the state analyses done, thirty-five percent of all drug offenders had a history of similar drug crimes, while 21% were first time offenders. Additionally, it was found that a substantial portion had been accused of previous non-drug related crimes. Judges may have considered this demographic variable in their sentencing decisions. Second, the researchers identified the degree of drug activity involvement as an important factor influencing the judge’s decision. It was found that fifty-five percent of all the drug users were responsible for drug trafficking. In this study, 27.1% of all the subjects had been arrested for possession while 15.6% had been arrested for possession with intent to distribute. Therefore, judges were likely to give harsher penalties for drug traffickers compared to those who were arrested for possession.
In consideration of the demographic factors that influence judgments, having a history of drug abuse was found to be the third factor. Approximately 68% of the subjects were found to have used drugs a month before their arrest while 41% were under the influence at the time of the arrest. Fourth, the analysts found that community ties also played a role in the sentence. Unemployed members of society were found to represent 40% of all the drug related subjects in the study. Lastly, racial and ethnic communities were immensely affected by sentencing decisions. There was a disproportionate number of Blacks, Hispanics or low-income earners in the prison population. 56 % of the cases were black, 23% were Hispanic, while only 19% were white. These representations contrast national demographics on drug users’ profile. King and Muaer (2002, p. 22) concluded that judges may be targeting members of these groups unfairly.
Statement of the Problem
Statistics indicate that 756 out of every 100,000 members of the population remain imprisoned in the US. In contrast, other developed countries, such as the UK, “only imprison 390 per 100, 000; Germany imprisons 89, while France imprisons 96 in every 100, 000” (Bewley-Taylor, 2009, p. 7). An obvious explanation for this excessive number of incarcerations is the “war on drugs” policy. Additionally, probably the judges’ sentencing decisions could be contributing to this problem. Consequently, one must analyze this process for any irregularities.
Additionally, imprisonment, by its precise nature, results to loss of autonomy, liberty and personal rights. This is especially worrisome if concerned parties have been accused of minor drug offences. Prisoners lack the right to see their family and friends or engage in productive activities. A judge can decide whether a person will go through these problems or not. Sentencing is quite a complicated process that involves multiple variables. The judge ought to weigh the facts of the case to assess the blameworthiness of the offender. This research aims to offer a solution to these problems by revealing the variables that impact on sentencing decisions made for drug offenders.
Significance of the Study
Judges play a vital role in the criminal justice system. As a result, it is necessary to ensure that they make accurate and fair decisions. This research will scrutinize the decision-making process and thus illustrate whether decisions are being made fairly or unfairly. In sentencing, judges must uphold the prevailing principles of the criminal justice system; these can be retributive or restorative. The research’s results will lay out the principles that motivate judges’ sentencing decisions, and thus confirm or nullify assumptions that they are effective in their job.
Consistency in sentencing is an essential part of the criminal justice process because it ensures dependability and fairness. Indeed, uniformity is one of the biggest indicators of the quality of a sentencing decision. It indicates just how coherently and substantively it was done. When too many unpredictable variables come in the way, then this could undermine the legal process. Absence of a higher authority in the scrutiny of this decision can sometimes explain certain inconsistencies in the criminal justice system. If these irregularities are streamlined, then justice will be accorded to offenders; especially those who commit non-violent crimes like drug distribution or consumption. The research will be the first step in this process by identifying those uneven situations and thus spearhead mechanisms for correcting them.
Research Design
This research will rely on secondary data and no direct information will be collected from the concerned population (Rassel & O’Sullivan, 1999, p. 42). The key dependent variable in this research will be sentencing decisions in drug offender cases. Elements of sentencing decisions that will be analyzed include; the severity of the sentence, the form of sentence chosen, and favorability of the sentence. The possible independent variables for this study will include; demographic factors like age, gender, race and ethnicity; community factors such as poverty status in the judges’ community; characteristics of the offender; mandatory sentencing guidelines and legal issues in the case.
The secondary data for this research will be derived from studies that focus on drug offender cases in the United States only. In particular, the research will focus on online or library scholarly journals, technical reports made by government affiliated institutions or independent research institutions and reference books. The criteria for selecting the secondary data sources will include; the research methods used, date of publication, intended audience, sources of data whether primary or secondary and referencing of secondary data used. In general, sources expressing data in percentages instead of actual numbers will be used. Inconsistencies in data on variables, such as race, between sources will be addressed by use of a wider selection of secondary sources.
Data Analysis
In this research, a statistical model to be used will evaluate the proportionality, consistency and non-discrimination aspects of judicial sentencing decisions. The dependent variables will be the sentencing decisions in the drug offender cases such as severity of the sentence. The independent variables for this research will involve the demographic factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status of the offenders and community factors of the offenders and the sentencing judge, the legal issues in the case and the mandatory sentencing guidelines.
In this research, the sentencing decisions will be defined in terms of the two distinct elements of consistency. First, “sentences will be consistent if offenders with similar attributes receive similar sentences…. Second, sentences will be consistent, if different offenders receive dissimilar sentences proportional to their level of dissimilarity,” (Bushway et al. 2007, p. 176). As a result, this research will test three hypotheses, using a comparative analytic model, with regard to proportionality, consistency, and discrimination. First, do offenders that fall in the same situations get the same convictions? Second, does the sentencing reflect the proportional distinctions between serious and less serious offenders? Third, is inconsistency in sentencing an indicator of discrimination?
To build a statistical sentencing model, this research will review two separate judicial decisions: prison sentence versus non-custodial prison sentence and the length of prison sentence. From the consistency perspective, using an appropriate selection model, discernible patterns with regard to sentencing outcomes can be noted. With regard to offender characteristics, this research, using the sentence length equation and non-custodial sentences, assess the relationship between judicial sentences and characteristics such as age, race or gender. This will help identify potential discriminatory factors in judicial sentencing decisions.
Reference List
Bewley-Taylor, D., Hallam, C. & Allen, R. (2009).The incarceration of drug Offenders. The Beckley foundation drug policy program, 16, 1-19.
Brenna, P. (2008). Race/ Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes among drug offenders in North Carolina. Contemporary criminal justice journal, 24(4), 371-398.
Bushway, S., Johnson, D., & Lee, A. (2007). Is the Magic still there? The use of the Heckman two step correction for selection bias in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(2), 151-178.
King, R., & Mauer, M. (2002).Distorted priorities: drug offenders in state prisons. The sentencing project report, 1-25.
Rassel, G., & O’Sullivan, E. (1999).Research methods for public administrators. London: Longman.
Spohn, C. (2002). How do judges decide? The search for fairness and justice in Punishment. NY: Sage.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.