Criminal sentencing in the United States

Last updated
Rate of U.S. imprisonment per 100,000 population of adult males by race and ethnicity in 2006. Jails and prisons. On June 30, 2006, an estimated 4.8% of black non-Hispanic men were in prison or jail, compared to 1.9% of Hispanic men of any race, and 0.7% of white non-Hispanic men. U.S. incarceration rate by race 2.gif
Rate of U.S. imprisonment per 100,000 population of adult males by race and ethnicity in 2006. Jails and prisons. On June 30, 2006, an estimated 4.8% of black non-Hispanic men were in prison or jail, compared to 1.9% of Hispanic men of any race, and 0.7% of white non-Hispanic men.

In the United States, sentencing law varies by jurisdiction. The jurisdictions in the US legal system are federal, state, regional, and county. Each jurisdictional entity has governmental bodies that create common, statutory, and regulatory law, although some legal issues are handled more often at the federal level, while other issues are the domain of the states. [2] Civil rights, immigration, interstate commerce, and constitutional issues are subject to federal jurisdiction. Issues such as domestic relations, which includes domestic violence; marriage and divorce; corporations; property; contracts; and criminal laws are generally governed by states, unless there is federal preemption. [3]

Contents

Sentences are typically determined by a judge, in a separate hearing, after the jury (or other finder of fact) has issued findings of fact and a guilty verdict. In some cases after the probation department has carried out a pre-sentence investigation. Juries generally have little involvement in sentencing, except in some death penalty cases (which are exceptionally rare). [ citation needed ]

Total incarceration in the United States by year US incarceration timeline.gif
Total incarceration in the United States by year

In the 1970s, the length of incarceration had increased in response to the rising crime rates in the United States.[ citation needed ]

In 1987 the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines were created to establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal criminal justice system. [4] The Guidelines prescribe a reduction of sentence time for most defendants who accept responsibility and plead guilty; further discounts are available to some defendants through fact bargaining, substantial assistance, and so on.

Life imprisonment increased by 83% between 1992 and 2003 due to the implementation of three strikes laws. Short-term sentencing, mandatory minimums, and guideline-based sentencing began to remove the human element from sentencing. They also required the judge to consider the severity of a crime in determining the length of an offender's sentence.[ citation needed ]

Federal court statistics from 2003 show that the average sentence given for offenses resolved by guilty plea was 54.7 months, while the average sentence for offenses resolved by trial was 153.7 months. [5] The practice of giving much harsher sentences when a defendant chooses to exercise the right to a trial by a jury of his or her peers has been controversial, as is seen as a personal act of anger by the judge over "wasting court time."[ citation needed ]

Determinate and indeterminate sentencing

Indeterminate sentencing

In some states, a judge will sentence criminals to an indeterminate amount of time in prison for certain crimes. This period is often between 1 and 3 years (on the short end) and 5–50 years on the upper end. The legislature generally sets a short, mandatory minimum sentence that an offender must spend in prison (e.g. one-third of the minimum sentence, or one-third of the high end of a sentence). The parole board then sets the actual date of prison release, as well as the rules that the parolee must follow when released.

During a long sentence, an offender can take full advantage of the programs that the prison has, including rehab for substance use disorders, anger management, mental health, and so on, so when the offender completes the rehab or program he may be released upon request from authorities with a lower risk of recidivism. This process tries to combat the tendency of prisoners leaving incarceration after a long sentence to go back to offending in short order, without any attempt at correcting their ways.[ citation needed ]

Determinate sentencing

Those given short sentences usually serve the full-time (do "day-for-day") as imposed by the judge, or might receive time off for good behavior, based on state or local rules and regulations.[ citation needed ]

In the mid-1970s, most state and federal prisons moved from long term to short term sentencing. Over time, though, state and federal authorities have gradually migrated their philosophies back toward long-term sentences. Many states use a mixture of the two; e.g., some offenders may receive sentences reduced by several months due to rehabilitation, counseling, and other programs, as well as good time.[ citation needed ]

Sentencing of convicted murderers by US State

The United States does not have a specific guideline for sentencing murderers, including serial killers. When a killer is apprehended, he will be charged with murder, and if convicted can get life in prison or receive the death penalty, depending on in which state the murders took place. Generally speaking, each victim of a murder will merit a separate charge of murder against the offender, and as such, the killer could get a life sentence, a death sentence, or some other determinate or indeterminate sentence based upon the number of murders, the evidence presented, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances present. Such a compounded sentence may be tailored to run consecutively, with one sentence beginning after completion of another, or concurrently, where all or most of several sentences are served together. [ citation needed ]

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the execution of adults (18 and over) with intellectual disabilities or with severe mental illness (depending on the state) was cruel and unconstitutional under the eighth amendment.[ citation needed ] Three years later in Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Supreme Court extended the ban of the death penalty against capital crimes committed by juveniles who were under 18 years of age at the time due to the developing brain not being developed enough to completely hold the individual accountable.[ citation needed ]

In the 2010 case of Graham v. Florida , the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who committed crimes other than murder cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.[ citation needed ] In 2012, the court later ruled in Miller v. Alabama that offenders under the age of 18 must be eligible for parole if sentenced to life imprisonment even for those convicted of murder except if the child is declared to be "permanently incorrigible" meaning the child will never improve their behavior.[ citation needed ] However, in 2021, the Supreme Court in Jones v. Mississippi removed the requirement that judges must find a juvenile incorrigible to hand down life imprisonment without parole, making it easier for a judge to sentence a minor convicted of murder to life without parole.[ citation needed ]

StateSentencing
ArizonaIn Arizona, a person is guilty of murder if an offender knowingly and intentionally causes the death of a person. The murder must be premeditated. If an individual is found guilty of murder, there are three possible sentences: 35 years to life, life without parole, or the death penalty. [6]
FloridaIn Florida, a person is guilty of first degree murder when it is perpetrated from a premeditated design to result in the death of a human being. Murder is categorized as a capital offense; if convicted, the offender will receive either the death penalty or life in prison without parole. A unanimous vote of a twelve-person jury, is required to sentence a person to death if they are convicted of capital murder. [7] [8]
HawaiiIn Hawaii, a person is found guilty of second degree murder when they intentionally and knowingly cause the death of another person. If the person intentionally or knowingly kills more than one person, or kills a law enforcement officer, a judge, or a prosecutor in the line of, or as a result of, their duties, a witness to a crime, or a defendant to a corroborated crime, or if he hires another party to kill a certain individual, the person has met the criteria to be charged with first degree murder. The State of Hawaii has no death penalty. If they are found guilty, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment without parole. [9]
Louisiana Louisiana states that homicide in the first degree is killing of a human being with intent. There are other specific circumstances that may contribute, such as killing a police officer or a firefighter. Either of these offenses, or the killing of more than one person, is an automatic first degree charge. Louisiana provides for life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty for murder. [10]
MassachusettsIn Massachusetts, first degree murder is defined as killing a person with premeditated intent to kill. The only possible sentence for first degree murder is life in prison without parole as Massachusetts does not have the death penalty. Second-degree murder carries a mandatory life sentence in prison, but with the possibility of parole after 15 years, which is the standard minimum non-parole period in the state for second-degree murder and most other offenses.[ citation needed ]
MichiganIn Michigan, a person is found guilty of first degree murder when murder is perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. In Michigan, first degree murder carries an automatic life sentence without parole. [11]
NevadaIn Nevada, first degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. If a killer is found guilty with aggravating circumstances, such as killing someone via torture or killing a stranger with no apparent motive, they may receive either the death penalty or life without parole. [12]
New YorkIn New York state, first-degree murder is reserved when a person with the intent causes the death of a first responder (police officer, firefighter, or emergency medical technician) in the line of duty. This also includes correctional, probation, and parole officers, witnesses to a crime and family members, and medical professionals (physician or nurse) who attempt to help save a person. The penalty for first-degree murder carries between fifteen years imprisonment to life without parole. Second-degree murder is when a person has the intention of causing death to a person who does not meet any of the criteria that would warrant a first-degree murder. The maximum penalty for second-degree murder is life without parole. New York does not allow capital punishment. [13] [14]
WashingtonIn the state of Washington, a person is found guilty of first degree murder when there is a premeditated intent to cause the death of another person. Murder in the first degree is a class A felony. [15] If a person is convicted of first degree murder, they will receive a life sentence. [16] If an aggravating circumstance exists in addition to first degree murder, the defendant can be charged with aggravated first-degree murder, which carries only one possible sentence life without parole. Aggravating factors include the killing of a law enforcement officer, murder for hire, or murder committed during the course of kidnapping, rape, robbery, burglary, or arson, or for multiple murders. [17]

Criminal sentencing of women in the US

Central California Women's Facility is the largest female correctional facility in the United States. Its current occupancy is 2,640 occupants despite its designed capacity of 2,004 occupants. VSPW 24th Avenue Chowchilla California sign Oct 2004.JPG
Central California Women's Facility is the largest female correctional facility in the United States. Its current occupancy is 2,640 occupants despite its designed capacity of 2,004 occupants.

The United States generates 30 percent of all incarcerated women in the world, despite only comprising five percent of the global female population. [18] Multiple studies have been conducted to analyze the differences in the crimes committed by men and women, as well as the sentencing of such offenders.

Women have been found to on average receive lighter sentences and penalties than male defendants in the United States. However, the degree of preferential treatment varies by the type of offense committed. [18] [19] [20] [21] Women are less likely than male offenders to receive a prison sentence for property crimes and drug offenses. When female offenders do receive a prison sentence, research has found women receive shorter sentences than male offenders for the same offense. [19] [22] The level of preferential treatment shown to female offenders was lower when the offense went against perceived gender norms. Women who committed more "masculine crimes," such as violent offenses or crimes against children, were not treated preferentially during sentencing. [19]

Within the scope of capital punishment, women are far less likely to receive a death sentence and even less likely to actually face execution. Between 1973 and 2012, women comprised only 2.1% of death sentences imposed at trial and merely 0.9% of persons executed. [23] Women who are sentenced to death at trial are more likely to receive executive clemency than their male counterparts, despite their crime having more aggravating factors that may increase sentencing outcomes. [24]

Researchers have developed theories that concentrate on the differences between the treatment of each gender by society. A possible explanation for disproportionate sentencing is the chivalry thesis which states that gendered stereotypes influence sentencing outcomes as women are considered childlike, less threatening, less dangerous, and not responsible for their behaviors. [19] [20] This theory also maintains that men are traditionally inclined to minimize the suffering of women as a result of their paternalistic desire and this behavior has been incorporated into the justice system as it is a male-dominated field. [19] [20] Judges primarily explained sentencing differentials as a result of childcare responsibilities that would create a larger social cost if mothers were incarcerated, illustrating direct applications of the chivalry thesis. [20] Others argue the disparity in sentencing is merely the result of human error as a result of the dynamics of judicial decision-making. [19] The focal concerns theory reaffirms this belief as this theory states that the sentencing disparity is the result of a judge's inability to spend a large amount of time on a single case and the incomplete information given to them minimizes their ability to make a fully informed decision. [19] [20] As a result, judges may unknowingly rely on generalizations of personal biases to guide sentencing decisions. [19]

In an attempt to prevent preferential treatment to particular genders, races, ethnicities, or socio-economic classes, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were enacted to create sentencing uniformity and equality. [22] The enactment of these guidelines has since increased sentences given to women at trial; however, the disparity between male and female offenders persists as the internal biases influencing preferential sentencing have not been addressed. [22]

Criminal Sentencing and Incarceration of Blacks in the US

As of October 2023, 38.6% of individuals in the United States' prisons are black, even though they represent only 13.6% of the total population, according to the 2020 Census. [25] [26]

Studies have examined differences in sentencing for crimes committed by individuals of different races. One such study, conducted by Peter Lehmann and published in 2023, analyzed felony sentences across races, genders, and age groups. Lehmann examined data from noncapital felony cases in Florida circuit courts over a 12-year period. His research revealed that young black males were disproportionately subject to harsh sentencing. [27] Another study titled "The Color of Mass Incarceration," conducted by Ronnie B. Tucker and published in 2016, found that in 2010, for every white woman incarcerated, three Black women were also imprisoned. [28]

Moreover, studies examining federal sentencing data over the past two decades have concluded that men tend to receive more severe criminal sentences compared to women. Notably, these studies have also revealed that black men receive the most severe sentences, while white women consistently receive the most lenient sentences. Correspondingly, minority women, particularly those of Black and Hispanic backgrounds, experience the harshest outcomes of the female identifying demographic. [29]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act</span> 1994 U.S. federal law

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly referred to as the 1994 Crime Bill, or the Clinton Crime Bill, is an Act of Congress dealing with crime and law enforcement; it became law in 1994. It is the largest crime bill in the history of the United States and consisted of 356 pages that provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers. Sponsored by U.S. Representative Jack Brooks of Texas, the bill was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Then-Senator Joe Biden of Delaware drafted the Senate version of the legislation in cooperation with the National Association of Police Organizations, also incorporating the Assault Weapons ban and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) with Senator Orrin Hatch.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1994 Oregon Ballot Measure 11</span> Citizens initiative passed in 1994

Measure 11, also known as "One Strike You're Out", was a citizens' initiative passed in 1994 in the U.S. State of Oregon. This statutory enactment established mandatory minimum sentencing for several crimes. The measure was approved in the November 8, 1994 general election with 788,695 votes in favor, and 412,816 votes against.

In the United States, habitual offender laws have been implemented since at least 1952, and are part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require a person who is convicted of an offense and who has one or two other previous serious convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole depending on the jurisdiction. The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those who continue to commit offenses after being convicted of one or two serious crimes.

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant. The landmark nature of the case was alluded to by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who characterized the decision as a "Number 10 earthquake".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incarceration in the United States</span> Form of punishment in United States law

Incarceration in the United States is one of the primary means of punishment for crime in the United States. In 2023, over five million people are under supervision by the criminal justice system, with nearly two million people incarcerated in state or federal prisons and local jails. The United States has the largest known prison population in the world. Prison populations grew dramatically beginning in the 1970s, but began a decline around 2009, dropping 25% by year-end 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines</span> Rules for sentencing convicts in the U.S. federal courts system

The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules published by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that set out a uniform policy for sentencing individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors in the United States federal courts system. The Guidelines do not apply to less serious misdemeanors or infractions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Bureau of Prisons</span> Corrections agency of the US federal government

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is a United States federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners.

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American juvenile justice system</span> Aspect of American justice system

The American juvenile justice system is the primary system used to handle minors who are convicted of criminal offenses. The system is composed of a federal and many separate state, territorial, and local jurisdictions, with states and the federal government sharing sovereign police power under the common authority of the United States Constitution. The juvenile justice system intervenes in delinquent behavior through police, court, and correctional involvement, with the goal of rehabilitation. Youth and their guardians can face a variety of consequences including probation, community service, youth court, youth incarceration and alternative schooling. The juvenile justice system, similar to the adult system, operates from a belief that intervening early in delinquent behavior will deter adolescents from engaging in criminal behavior as adults.

A presentence investigation report (PSIR) is a legal document that presents the findings of an investigation into the "legal and social background" of a person convicted of a crime before sentencing to determine if there are extenuating circumstances which should influence the severity or leniency of a criminal sentence. The PSIR is a "critical" document prepared by a probation officer via a system of point allocation, so that it may serve as a charging document and exhibit for proving criminal conduct. The PSIR system is widely implemented today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incapacitation (penology)</span> One of the functions of punishment

Incapacitation in the context of criminal sentencing philosophy is one of the functions of punishment. It involves capital punishment, sending an offender to prison, or possibly restricting their freedom in the community, to protect society and prevent that person from committing further crimes. Incarceration, as the primary mechanism for incapacitation, is also used as to try to deter future offending.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Race in the United States criminal justice system</span>

Race in the United States criminal justice system refers to the unique experiences and disparities in the United States in regard to the policing and prosecuting of various races. There have been different outcomes for different racial groups in convicting and sentencing felons in the United States criminal justice system. Although prior arrests and criminal history is also a factor. Experts and analysts have debated the relative importance of different factors that have led to these disparities.

Sentencing disparity is defined as "a form of unequal treatment in criminal punishment that is often of unexplained cause and is at least incongruous, unfair and disadvantaging in consequence". In the United States men are most adversely affected by sentencing disparity being twice as likely to be sentenced to jail after conviction than women and receiving on average 63% longer jail sentences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States incarceration rate</span> Incarceration rate of the United States

According to the latest available data at the World Prison Brief on May 7, 2023, the United States has the sixth highest incarceration rate in the world, at 531 people per 100,000. Between 2019 and 2020, the United States saw a significant drop in the total number of incarcerations. State and federal prison and local jail incarcerations dropped by 14% from 2.1 million in 2019 to 1.8 million in mid-2020. In 2018, the United States had the highest incarceration rate in the world.

The War on Drugs is a term for the actions taken and legislation enacted by the US federal government, intended to reduce or eliminate the production, distribution, and use of illicit drugs. The War on Drugs began during the Nixon administration with the goal of reducing the supply of and demand for illegal drugs, but an ulterior racial motivation has been proposed. The War on Drugs has led to controversial legislation and policies, including mandatory minimum penalties and stop-and-frisk searches, which have been suggested to be carried out disproportionately against minorities. The effects of the War on Drugs are contentious, with some suggesting that it has created racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, imprisonment, and rehabilitation. Others have criticized the methodology and the conclusions of such studies. In addition to disparities in enforcement, some claim that the collateral effects of the War on Drugs have established forms of structural violence, especially for minority communities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair Sentencing Act</span> A federal law in USA

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 was an Act of Congress that was signed into federal law by United States President Barack Obama on August 3, 2010, that reduces the disparity between the amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine needed to trigger certain federal criminal penalties from a 100:1 weight ratio to an 18:1 weight ratio and eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, among other provisions. Similar bills were introduced in several U.S. Congresses before its passage in 2010, and courts had also acted to reduce the sentencing disparity prior to the bill's passage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incarceration of women</span> Imprisonment of women

As of 2013, across the world, 625,000 women and children were being incarcerated in correctional facilities, and the female prison population was increasing in all continents. The list of countries by incarceration rate includes a main table with a column for the historical and current percentage of prisoners who are female.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice reform in the United States</span> Reforms seeking to address structural issues in criminal justice systems of the United States

Criminal justice reform seeks to address structural issues in criminal justice systems such as racial profiling, police brutality, overcriminalization, mass incarceration, and recidivism. Reforms can take place at any point where the criminal justice system intervenes in citizens’ lives, including lawmaking, policing, sentencing and incarceration. Criminal justice reform can also address the collateral consequences of conviction, including disenfranchisement or lack of access to housing or employment, that may restrict the rights of individuals with criminal records.

Sentencing reform is the effort to change perceived injustices in the lengths of criminal sentences. It is a component of the larger concept of criminal justice reform. In the U.S. criminal justice system, sentencing guidelines are criticized for being both draconian and racially discriminatory. Additionally, they are cited as the main contributor to the growing and excessive prison population known as mass incarceration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Decarceration in the United States</span> Overview article

Decarceration in the United States involves government policies and community campaigns aimed at reducing the number of people held in custody or custodial supervision. Decarceration, the opposite of incarceration, also entails reducing the rate of imprisonment at the federal, state and municipal level. As of 2019, the US was home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners. Until the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. possessed the world's highest incarceration rate: 655 inmates for every 100,000 people, enough inmates to equal the populations of Philadelphia or Houston. The COVID-19 pandemic has reinvigorated the discussion surrounding decarceration as the spread of the virus poses a threat to the health of those incarcerated in prisons and detention centers where the ability to properly socially distance is limited. As a result of the push for decarceration in the wake of the pandemic, as of 2022, the incarceration rate in the United States declined to 505 per 100,000, resulting in the United States no longer having the highest incarceration rate in the world, but still remaining in the top five.

References

  1. ↑ "Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006". Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved 2022-08-23.
  2. ↑ Black, Henry Campbell (1990). Black's law dictionary : definitions of the terms and phrases of American and English jurisprudence, ancient and modern. Joseph R. Nolan (6th ed.). St. Paul, Minn.: West Pub. Co. ISBN   0-314-77165-4. OCLC   21600991.
  3. ↑ Black, Henry Campbell (1979). Black's law dictionary : definitions of the terms and phrases of American and English jurisprudence, ancient and modern. Joseph R. Nolan, Michael J. Connolly, West Publishing Company (5th ed.). St. Paul: West Pub. Co. ISBN   0-8299-2041-2. OCLC   4957310.
  4. ↑ United States Sentencing Commission. "2021 GUIDELINES, UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION" (PDF).
  5. ↑ Bureau of Justice Statistics, Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics 70, 75 tbl. 5.3 (2003).
  6. ↑ "13-1105 - First degree murder; classification". Azleg.state.az.us. Archived from the original on April 11, 2001. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  7. ↑ "The 2010 Florida Statutes". The Florida Senate. Retrieved 13 September 2010.
  8. ↑ "Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes". flsenate.gov. Archived from the original on January 17, 2003. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  9. ↑ "House Bill". Capitol.hawaii.gov. 1987-01-01. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  10. ↑ "PART II. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON". Louisiana Legislature. Archived from the original on April 12, 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-01.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  11. ↑ "Michigan Legislature - Section 750.316". Legislature.mi.gov. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  12. ↑ "NRS: CHAPTER 200 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON". Leg.state.nv.us. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  13. ↑ "Legislation".
  14. ↑ "Legislation".
  15. ↑ "RCW 9A.32.030: Murder in the first degree". Apps.leg.wa.gov. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  16. ↑ "RCW 9A.32.040: Murder in the first degree — Sentence". Apps.leg.wa.gov. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  17. ↑ "RCW 10.95.020: Definition". Apps.leg.wa.gov. Retrieved 2010-07-01.
  18. 1 2 Bagaric, Mirko; Bargaric, Brienna (2016). "Mitigating the Crime that is the Over-Imprisonment of Women: Why Orange should not be the New Black". Vermont Law Review. 41 (537).
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Curry, Theodore; Lee, Gang; Fernando Rodriguez, S (June 2006). "Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary Across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses?". Social Science Quarterly. 87 (2): 318–339. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00383.x.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 Barrick, Kelle; Bontrager, Stephanie; Stupi, Elizabeth (Spring 2013). "Gender and Sentencing: A Meta-Analysis of Contemporary Research". The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice. 16 (2): 349–372.
  21. ↑ Nagel, Ilene H.; Johnson, Barry L. (Summer 1994). "The role of gender in a structural sentencing system: Equal treatment, policy choices, and the sentencing of female offenders under the United States sentencing guidelines". Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. 85 (1): 181–221. doi:10.2307/1144116. JSTOR   1144116.
  22. 1 2 3 Etienne, Margareth (Fall 2010). "Sentencing Women: Reassessing the Claims of Disparity". The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice. 14 (1): 73–84.
  23. ↑ Streib, Victor L. (2003). Death penalty for female offenders, January 1, 1973, through June 30, 2003. Ohio Northern University. OCLC   55038713.
  24. ↑ Heise, Michael (2003). "Mercy by the Numbers: An Empirical Analysis of Clemency and Its Structure". Virginia Law Review. 89 (2): 239–310. doi:10.2307/3202434. JSTOR   3202434.
  25. ↑ "BOP Statistics: Inmate Race". www.bop.gov. Retrieved 2023-11-08.
  26. ↑ Bureau, US Census. "Census.gov". Census.gov. Retrieved 2023-11-08.
  27. ↑ Lehmann, Peter S. (2023). "The trial tax and the intersection of race/ethnicity, gender, and age in criminal court sentencing". Law and Human Behavior. 47 (1): 201–216. doi:10.1037/lhb0000514. ISSN   1573-661X.
  28. ↑ Tucker, Ronnie B. (2017-01-01). "The Color of Mass Incarceration". Explorations in Ethnic Studies. 37–38 (1): 135–149. doi: 10.1525/esr.2017.37_38.1.135 . ISSN   1555-1881.
  29. ↑ Holland, Melanie M.; Prohaska, Ariane (2021). "Gender Effects Across Place: A Multilevel Investigation of Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Region in Sentencing". Race and Justice. 11 (1): 91–112. doi:10.1177/2153368718767495. ISSN   2153-3687.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.