This study, which is based on individual criminal careers over a 60-year period, focuses on the development of criminal behavior. It first examines the impact that life circumstances such as work and marriage have on offending, then tests whether the effects of these circumstances are different for different groups of offenders, and finally examines the extent to which the age-crime relationship at the aggregate level can be explained by age-graded differences in life circumstances. Official data were retrieved for a 4-percent (N=4,615) sample of all individuals whose criminal case was tried in the Netherlands in 1977. Self-report data were derived from a nationally representative survey administered in the Netherlands in 1996 to 2,244 individuals aged 15 years or older. In analyzing this data, we use semi-parametric group-based models. Results indicate that life circumstances substantially influence the chances of criminal behavior, and that the effects of these circumstances on offending differ across offender groups. Age-graded changes in life circumstances, however, explain the aggregate age-crime relationship only to a modest extent.

The effects of life circumstances on longitudinal trajectories of offending

The aim of this paper is to describe the development of criminal behavior from early adolescence to late adulthood based on conviction data for a sample of Dutch offenders. Measuring over an age span of 12 to 72, we ask whether there is evidence for (1) criminal trajectories that are distinct in terms of time path, (2) a small group of persistent offenders, (3) criminal trajectories that are distinct in the mix of crimes committed, or, more specifically, persistent offenders disproportionately engaging in violent offences, and (4) different offender groups having different social profiles in life domains other than crime. The analysis is based on the conviction histories of the Dutch offenders in the Criminal Career and Life Course Study. Four trajectory groups were identified using a semi-parametric, group-based model: sporadic offenders, low-rate desisters, moderate-rate desisters and high-rate persisters. Analyses show that high-rate persisters engage in crime at a very substantial rate, even after age 50. Compared to other trajectory groups the high-rate persistent trajectory group disproportionately engages in property crimes rather than violent crimes. Also, these distinct trajectories are found to be remarkably similar across age cohorts.

Life span offending trajectories of a dutch conviction cohort

This paper evaluates the impact of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on interjudge sentencing disparity, which is defined as the differences in average nominal prison sentence lengths for comparable caseloads assigned to different judges. This disparity is measured as the dispersion of a random effect in a zero‐inflated negative binomial model. The results show that the expected difference between two typical judges in the average sentence length was about 17 percent (or 4.9 months) in 1986–87 prior to the Guidelines and fell to about 11 percent (or 3.9 months) in 1988–93 during the early years of the Guidelines. We have not sought to measure the effect of parole in the pre‐Guidelines period, other sources of disparity such as prosecutorial discretion, or the proportionality of punishment under the Guidelines as compared with the pre‐Guidelines era.

/pdf/measuring-interjudge-sentencing-disparity-before-and-after-20o386a48i.pdf

Measuring Interjudge Sentencing Disparity: Before and After the Federal Sentencing Guidelines*

Empirical studies corroborate a relatively close relation between goals of sentencing and punitiveness. However, it is not clear what aspects of sentencing goals motivate harsh punishment. This study analyzes the structure of sentencing goals and scrutinizes in particular whether the idea of retribution is associated with punitiveness, or whether punishment considerations from a societal perspective (macrolevel) are the source of more punitive responses. A questionnaire was mailed to a random sample drawn in Bern, Switzerland. A total of 357 persons responded to items measuring constructs including goals of sentencing, punitiveness, target of justice considerations, and perceived threat to society, after reading one of three short stories about specific crimes (fraud, physical injury, assault). Results of this study reveal a two-dimensional structure of sentencing goals. One dimension represents readiness to punish and exclude the offender socially. The other dimension refers to concerns of the victim versus the needs of the society as a whole. The analysis provides a new interpretation of sentencing goals.

Lay-Perspectives on Criminal Deviance, Goals of Punishment, and Punitivity

Investigations of how criminal justice actors contribute to variation in sentencing typically focus on the role played by the judge. We argue that sentencing should be viewed as a collaborative process involving actors other than the judge and that the role of the prosecutor is particularly salient. We also contend that the courtroom workgroup literature has suggested that sentences may vary depending on the particular judge and prosecutor to whom the case is assigned. By using a unique data set from three U.S. district courts (N = 2,686) that identifies both the judge and the prosecutor handling the case, we examine how the judge, the prosecutor, and the judge–prosecutor dyad contribute to variance in offender sentences. We do this by employing cross-classified random-effects models to estimate the variance components associated with judges, prosecutors, and judge–prosecutor interactions. The results indicate that disparity attributable to the prosecutor is larger than disparity from the judge. Moreover, the role that the judge plays is moderated by the prosecutor to whom the case is assigned, as the judge–prosecutor effect is consistently larger than other random effects across the models. We also find that results vary by judicial district.

Federal sentencing as a complex collaborative process: judges, prosecutors, judge–prosecutor dyads, and disparity in sentencing

The proposed Federal Criminal Code features several tnnovations aimed at the problem of disparate sentencrng. In keepitg with the Journal of Crmzinal Law and Crimntology's singular interdisczthlnary tradition, we present below two viewpotnts rarely encountered together. The first it a criminological evaluation of sentencing disparit'es based on empirical studies by a research group. In the second, Judge Tj7o;at provides a legal analysis of the same issue, drawing on his practical experience on the federal bench. They complement and supplement one another. THE EDITORS

/pdf/sentence-decisionmaking-the-logic-of-sentence-decisions-and-4qba6w1uy7.pdf

Sentence Decisionmaking: The Logic of Sentence Decisions and the Extent and Sources of Sentence Disparity

/pdf/practitioners-attitudes-toward-the-career-criminal-program-444kroatai.pdf

John S. Bartolomeo

Papers

Sentence Decisionmaking: The Logic of Sentence Decisions and the Extent and Sources of Sentence Disparity

Practitioners' Attitudes toward the Career Criminal Program