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

2. Purpose of structured sentencing Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States “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

3. What is the research goal? Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States 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

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

5. What type of data analysis is used? Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States 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

6. Continuum of sentencing guidelines Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States 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

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 Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Minnesota: presumptive, determinate, and tighter ranges Michigan: presumptive, indeterminate, and wider ranges Virginia: voluntary and widest ranges

9. Modeling strategy Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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