Geographical sentencing disparities
Prof. Berman points to a news story that highlights the differences in sentences handed out in rural areas and urban areas. The post itself is innocuous, but the comments are very interesting, albeit contentious. The gist of the reporting is that sentences in rural areas are higher than those in urban areas. You might not be surprised. Ask yourself why. The offenses are the same, regardless of where they are committed; the sentencing ranges are the same throughout the state. So why is it not surprising that this happens? Do we assume that those living in rural areas have a different moral outlook on life than those living in urban areas?
Should this have any bearing on the lengths of sentences handed out? This is the problem that I highlighted earlier when talking about increased victim involvement in the criminal justice system. There are a multitude of factors that play a role in deciding the lengths of sentences. This is another.
How is this different from sentencing disparities based on race? Granted, demography is not a “protected class”, but still, the principle seems to be the same. Does anyone see an equal protection argument here?
Technorati Tags: sentencing, disparity, ohio
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on May 2, 2007 at 6:29 pm, and is filed under sentencing. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
I think it has to do with volume.
about 4 years ago
That definitely plays a large role. That’s what we always joke about smaller jurisdictions – simple possession is just as bad as multiple murders. But that’s a problem and it isn’t right.
Then again, the only “real” solution is some sort of sentencing guideline and we’ve seen how well that’s worked.
about 4 years ago
It seems to me that when sentences are made more uniform, it tends to be uniformly upward. Be careful what you wish for.
As far as guidelines being the only “real” solution, I think you are overlooking the keystone of all government operations: funding. If the county of a hanging judge had to pick up the tab for prisoners at the state level as well as those in the county jail, this would be a much more defendant friendly way of curbing sentence disparities.
about 4 years ago
I suppose I also always thought it had to do with volume. Smaller jurisdictions have more time to concentrate on the prosecution of, say, a possession case, where in a larger jurisdiction, they’re just not nearly as pressing as the several murder and assault cases pending. But it’s interesting bringing morality into it. I hadn’t thought about that aspect of it before…
about 4 years ago
I do see an equal protection argument. As I said at SL&P, “Geographic location of the sentencer and other non-legal considerations having nothing to do with the offense or the offender are arbitrary bases for sentencing disparity.”