Archival Version

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.

本研究旨在评估不同州量刑指南制度下的量刑结果完整性，并探究此类制度结构差异如何影响实际量刑实践。量刑指南（sentencing guidelines）是一项相对较新的改革举措，旨在推动法官在裁决已定罪罪犯是否应当入狱、以及若入狱则刑期长短时，以公平且一致的方式考量特定法律相关要素。州政策制定者在不确定量刑法律框架下，为限制量刑差异所普遍关注的问题，正是采纳量刑指南的核心理由。因此，多数州在其量刑宗旨声明中，均明确提及要实现量刑的一致性（可预测性与相称性）与公正性（无歧视性）目标。本研究团队旨在解答如下问题：量刑指南在多大程度上可达成以下目标——一致性：同类案件获得同等处理；相称性：罪行更严重的罪犯受到更严厉惩处；以及无歧视性：在决定何人入狱及刑期长短时，年龄、性别与种族均不构成影响因素。