Dissertation/Thesis Abstract

Displaced discretion? An empirical test of prosecutorial charge bargaining before and after the District of Columbia Sentencing Guidelines
by Vance, Stephen E., Ph.D., University of Maryland, College Park, 2009, 180; 3391395
Abstract (Summary)

Though significant research has found that sentencing guidelines systems have reduced sentencing disparity, few studies have examined whether sentencing guidelines have shifted discretion and disparity from judges to prosecutors. Using data from the District of Columbia Superior Court, this research examines whether charge bargaining practices changed after the District of Columbia Sentencing Guidelines. This study also examines whether legal, offender, and case processing characteristics had different effects on charge bargaining outcomes before and after the Sentencing Guidelines. The analyses show that, while there were changes in the plea bargaining process after the Sentencing Guidelines, there was not significant evidence of a displacement of discretion or disparity to prosecutors. Policy implications are discussed.

Indexing (document details)
Advisor: Wellford, Charles
Commitee: Hunt, Kim, Johnson, Brian, LaFree, Gary, Reuter, Peter
School: University of Maryland, College Park
Department: Criminology and Criminal Justice
School Location: United States -- Maryland
Source: DAI-A 71/03, Dissertation Abstracts International
Source Type: DISSERTATION
Subjects: Criminology
Keywords: Charge bargaining, Discretion, Disparity, District of Columbia Sentencing Guidelines, Plea bargaining, Prosecutorial, Sentencing guidelines, Washington, D.C.
Publication Number: 3391395
ISBN: 9781109634631
Copyright © 2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Policy
ProQuest