Version 1

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the integrity of sentencing outcomes under alternative state guideline systems and to investigate how this variation in structure impacted actual sentencing practice. Sentencing guidelines are a relatively new reform effort to encourage judges to take specific legally relevant elements into account in a fair and consistent way when deciding whether a convicted offender should be imprisoned, and if so, for what length of time. A common concern of state policymakers for limiting sentencing disparity under indeterminate sentencing laws is a fundamental rationale for the adoption of guidelines. For this reason, most states make explicit reference in their statement of purpose to achieving the goals of consistency (predictability and proportionality) and fairness (nondiscrimination) in sentencing. The research team sought to address the question, to what extent do sentencing guidelines contribute to the goals of: consistency -- like cases are treated alike; proportionality -- more serious offenders are punished more severely; and a lack of discrimination -- age, gender, and race are insignificant in who goes to prison and for how long.

搜集汇总

背景与挑战

背景概述

该数据集研究了密歇根、明尼苏达和弗吉尼亚三个州在2001-2002和2004年的量刑实践，旨在评估不同量刑指南系统对判决一致性和公平性的影响。数据集包含四个部分，共计约49,000个案例，涵盖了犯罪严重性、前科记录等多个关键变量，为研究量刑政策的实际效果提供了重要数据支持。