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

2. What is the research goal? Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Consistency can be defined: Similarly situated offenders receive similar sentences Increasing certainty and predictability Reducing disparity Examining consistency in sentencing across 3 alternative sentencing guideline schemes: Michigan, Minnesota & Virginia

3. 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 Minnesota: presumptive, determinate, and tighter ranges Michigan: presumptive, indeterminate, and wider ranges Virginia: voluntary and widest ranges These states represent 3 distinct approaches to structuring judicial discretion

4. What is disparity? Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States General – when discriminatory factors play a role in sentencing Minnesota – uniform and proportional sentences not effected by race or gender Michigan – inconsistent and discriminatory sentences Virginia—absence of appropriate and just criminal penalties

5. Who is similarly situated? Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Similarly situated offenders Minnesota – 60 grid cells, 60 similarity groups Michigan – 256 grid cells, 256 similarity groups Virginia—who is similarly situated? Within a crime group Worksheet A & C score

6. What is the study approach & what type of data analysis is used? Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Empirical assessment of consistency in sentencing and how it relates to alternative sentencing guideline structures Analysis 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

7. What is the current status? Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Databases are assembled for all 3 states Statistical analysis is ongoing, VA was most recently added

8. Michigan - sample results Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Major finding: Local legal culture (LLC) appears to have greatest impact on sentence variation. Michigan has relatively large sentencing ranges – making it possible for LLC to have larger impact Where you are sentenced plays a significant role in the sentencing outcomes

9. Michigan – more sample results Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Using Circuit 3 (Detroit) as a baseline, 21 other circuits had significantly higher rate of imprisonment; 7 circuits had significantly lower rate of imprisonment Out-state offenders more likely to get prison and, if so, for longer times, differences are not due to offense and offender factors Results show that different sentences can be given while still complying with the guidelines.

10. Virginia Analysis Plan 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

11. Virginia Initial Results -- Burglary Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States We explain less variation in sentencing in VA as compared to MI & MN (MN the most) We find no evidence of disparity based on race or gender, or circuit VA’s wider ranges make variation harder to explain

12. Virginia Initial Results -- Burglary Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Prison/no prison decision (Worksheet A) How well does the statistical model work? 79% correct prediction Model does 27% better than chance alone

13. Virginia Initial Results -- Burglary Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Prison/no prison decision (Worksheet A) Change in probability of state controlled sentence holding all else constant Firearm: 33% Felony Property Conviction (6-10): 21% Felony Property Convictions (11+): 24% Legally restrained other than parole: 17% Parole/post-release: 25%

14. Virginia Initial Results -- Burglary Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Prison sentence length (Worksheet C) How well does the statistical model work? 38% explained variance Comparison to other states Minnesota – 85% Michigan - 64%

15. Virginia Initial Results -- Burglary Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Prison sentence length (Worksheet C) Estimated impact holding all else constant Knife or firearm – increases sentence by 152% over what otherwise would get

16. Virginia Initial Results Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States Rate of prison sentences is similar for person crimes but higher for property and drug crimes What is current status of prison capacity? In general, do judges (or lawmakers?) perceive guideline ranges as wide?