Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

Report Read time:
Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

The National Center for State Courts conducted an in-depth examination of sentencing patterns in three states with substantially different guidelines systems: Minnesota, which has a relatively strict system; Michigan, whose guidelines offer more judicial discretion, and Virginia, where compliance with the recommended sentences is completely voluntary. Ultimately, how one interprets the observed differences in outcomes among the three states will reflect individual views on the appropriate level of judicial discretion.

Downloads Report Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States
Downloads Report Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing A Comparative Study in Three States

MORE FROM PEW

In a vast field of solar panels, five workers in yellow and orange vests and helmets work on a section of panels. Those panels of black and blue glass catch the sun and transform it into energy, even though it appears to be a grey day out. Climate Talks Focus on Funding, Political Will, and More
Two people stand and talk in a tunnel in a creek. University of Georgia Uses Nature to Adapt to Climate Change
Workplace Savings Program Could Help 781,000 Kentuckians
An eight-lane highway runs beneath a large concrete and steel overpass, which is under construction. The highway is bordered mostly by undeveloped land with predominantly low brush in various shades of brown and green. Wildlife Crossings Save Lives, Money, and the Environment