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

A presentation being given by a businesswoman to a group of participants at a business conference. Four Plan Features Can Boost 'Retirement Readiness'
A large group of people in formal or traditional attire stands together on a stage, with a digital background depicting marine life and the large text “WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies.” WTO Needs to Redouble Its Effort on Fishing Subsidies
A man in a winter hat and sunglasses kneels on a rocky shoreline in front of a campfire, holding a metal mug with gloved hands. Behind him, in the water, a motorboat is moored to the shore. Cliffs rise on both sides of the water. Why Newfoundland’s South Coast Fjords Are Sacred
An illustration of a couple holding hands walking away from an outline of houses behind them Pathways to Homeownership: Housing in America