STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND DISPARITIES:

EVIDENCE FROM FLORIDA

Sentencing in the United States is a pressing criminological and public policy concern. Much of the debate surrounding sentencing practices results from the persistent disparities observed in sentencing outcomes. In response to the growing discontent with sentencing practices, several states, including Florida, implemented sentencing guidelines with the purpose of eliminating unwarranted disparity, limiting judicial discretion, and increasing the transparency and legitimacy of the sentencing process (Tonry 1996; Stith and Cabranes 1998).

Despite these efforts, over a decade of research has demonstrated that there continues to be racial, ethnic, age and gender disparities in sentencing outcomes (Engen and Gainey 2000; Steffensmeier and Demuth 2000; Kramer and Ulmer 2009). The disproportionate rates of incarceration across demographic categories have led many scholars to question the source of these disparities. The purpose of this research is to examine these issues by using data from Florida Sentencing Guidelines and the Florida Department of Corrections from 1994 to 2004 to explore three areas that potentially influence disparate sentencing outcomes.

First, this research will assess how and whether the contextual characteristics of courts influence racial, ethnic, age and gender disparities in incarceration outcomes. This is important because courts have distinctive organizational and legal cultures that shape the nature of sentencing decisions and as a result the criteria used for punishing criminal defendants will vary across court contexts (see Savelsberg 1992).

Next, this research will explore how departures from the recommended sentencing range influences sentencing disparities. Guideline departures provide judges with a tremendous of amount of discretion as they can legally deviate from the proscribed sentence. Florida is an excellent source for examination as judges are permitted to depart from the recommended sentence without any type of written justification. Because judges are not required to provide written justification there is a lack of oversight which removes the transparency of the sentencing process and potentially inflates racial, ethnic, age and gender disparities.

The final area of inquiry focuses particular attention on the salience of gender in mitigating racially disparate sentencing outcomes among women. This research highlights the relevance of focusing attention on women as prior studies have overwhelmingly examined women in comparison to men which overlooks disparities that potentially exist among women.

In a series of publishable manuscripts this research seeks to advance the understanding of disparate sentencing outcomes by theoretically and empirically situating sentencing within a broader social context that not only explores the salience of defendant characteristics but also those of the court that potentially influence judicial decision-making.

In addition to producing three separate manuscripts, this fellowship is vitally important as it will afford me the opportunity to specifically focus on my research in order to prepare for promotion and tenure. This is especially salient as I am scheduled to submit my documents for promotion and tenure during the 2011-2012 school year. It is therefore my sincere hope that after careful consideration of my application materials that the committee will act favorably and award me the McKnight Junior Faculty Development Fellowship.