Skip to main content

Defining and Measuring Consistency in Sentencing

  • Chapter

Abstract

Sentencing consistency, or the extent to which like cases are treated alike, is a fundamental principle of justice. It generates transparency and predictability in sentencing practices, enhances public confidence in sentencing (Council of Europe, 1993) and helps promote the legitimacy of the criminal justice system (Roberts and Plesnicar, 2015). However, the means by which this consistency in sentencing may be achieved is far from clear-cut and highly controversial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson, J., Kling, J. and Stith, K. (1999) Measuring Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity: Before and After the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Journal of Law & Economics, 42: 271–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. and Spohn, C. (2010) Lawlessness in the Federal Sentencing Process: A Test for Uniformity and Consistency in Sentence Outcomes, Justice Quarterly, 27:362–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A., and Roberts, J. (2013) The origins and nature of the sentencing guidelines in England and Wales. In: A. Ashworth and J.V. Roberts (eds) Sentencing Guidelines. Exploring the English Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bellman, R. E. (1961) Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (1993) Consistency in Sentencing. Legal Issues, 92. http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID=36&=EN&produit_aliasid=809.

  • Frankel, M. (1972) Lawlessness in Sentencing. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 41(1):1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frase, R.S. (2005) Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota, 1978–2003. Crime and Justice, 32: 131–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, J. and Ulmer, J. (2002) Downward Departures for Serious Violent Offenders: Local Court ‘Conections’ to Pennsylvania’s Sentencing Guidelines. Criminology, 40: 807–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, T, de Silva, N., Sharma, N., Brown, D. and Harper, G. (2007) Local Variation in Sentencing in England and Wales. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (2012) Sentencing Practices: Controlled Substance Offenses Sentenced in 2010. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2013/other/130860.pdf.

  • Oregon Criminal Sentencing Commission (2003) Sentencing Practices: Summary Statistics for Felony Offenders Sentenced in 2001. http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/SGO lv2.pdf.

  • Pina-Sanchez, J, and Linacre, R. (2013) Sentence Consistency in England and Wales: Evidence from the Crown Court Sentencing Survey. British Journal of Criminology, 53: 1118–1138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pina-Sanchez, J, and Linacre, R. (2014) Impact of the 2011 England and Wales Assault Guidelines. Available from authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. (2013) Complying with sentencing guidelines: latest findings from the Crown Court Sentencing Survey. In: A. Ashworth and J.V. Roberts, (eds) Sentencing Guidelines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J.V. and Bradford, B. (2015) Sentence Reductions for a Guilty Plea: New Empirical Evidence from England and Wales. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, in press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. and Plesnicar, M. (2015) Legitimacy and the Sentencing Process. In: G. Meszko and J. Tankebe (eds) Legitimacy and Criminal Justice in Europe. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Commission Working Group (2008) Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales: An Evolutionary Approach. London: SCWG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Council (2012) Crown Court Sentencing Survey: Annual Publication, 2011. http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/CCSS_Annual_2011.pdf.

  • Sentencing Guidelines Council (2007) Sentence Reductions for a Guilty Plea. Definitive Guideline. London: Sentencing Guidelines Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. (2010) Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity After Booker: A First Look, Express, http://works.bepress.com/ryan_scott/2/.

  • Tarling, R. (2006) Sentencing Practice in Magistrates’ Courts Revisited. The Howard Journal, 45:29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonry M. H. (1987) Sentencing Reform Impacts. Rockville: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, J., Light, M. and Kramer, J. (2011) The ‘Liberation’ of Federal Judges’ Discretion in the Wake of the Booker/Fanfan Decision: Is There Increased Disparity and Divergence between Courts? Justice Quarterly, 28: 799–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hirsch, A., Ashworth, A., Roberts, J. (2009) Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy. Portland: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S., Spohn, C. and Delone, M. (2007) The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2015 Jose Pina-Sánchez

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pina-Sánchez, J. (2015). Defining and Measuring Consistency in Sentencing. In: Roberts, J.V. (eds) Exploring Sentencing Practice in England and Wales. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137390400_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics