THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF GUIDELINES CIRCUMVENTION: THE CASE OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS*
Abstract
Recent scholarship on criminal punishments increasingly highlights the importance of courtroom social contexts. Combining recent data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (FY1997–2000) with aggregate data on federal districts, the current study examines interdistrict variations in the application of downward departures from the federal sentencing guidelines. Findings indicate that substantial variation exists in the probability of both prosecutor‐initiated substantial assistance departures and judge‐initiated downward departures. This variation is accounted for, in part, by organizational court contexts, such as caseload pressures, and by environmental considerations, such as the racial composition of the district. Additional evidence suggests that individual trial penalties and race disparities are conditioned by aggregate court contexts. Drawing on interviews with federal justice personnel, this article concludes with a discussion of future directions for research on federal guidelines departures. Part of the glory of the federal system…is that you've got this one big organization, but it can be molded to different needs… ‐ An assistant U.S. attorney ‐
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These types of guideline departures are widely used and well known as prosecutorial tools to leverage informant cooperation with federal law enforcement.
“These types of guideline departures are widely used and well known as prosecutorial tools to leverage informant cooperation with federal law enforcement”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Johnson et al. 2008
Cites
Albonetti, C. A. (1997) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.2307/3053987 · Cited by 459 · see citing works
Judging Judicial Discretion: Legal Factors and Racial Discrimination in Sentencing
Bushway, S. D., & Morrison Piehl, A. (2001) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.2307/3185415 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
Difference, Disparity, and Race/Ethnic Bias in Federal Sentencing
Everett, R. S., & Wojtkiewicz, R. A. (2002) · Journal of Quantitative Criminology · doi:10.1023/a:1015258732676 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
The Juvenile Penalty: A Comparison of Juvenile and Young Adult Sentencing Outcomes in Criminal Court
KURLYCHEK, M. C., & JOHNSON, B. D. (2004) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00527.x · Cited by 156 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…the problematic skew in these data distributions but also provides for a useful substantive interpretation of our findings as the proportional increase in departure length associated with a unit increase in the independent variable (Bushway and Piehl, 2001; Kurlychek and Johnson, 2004).8 7.”
BackgroundSelf-citationUlmer, J. T. (2005) · Symbolic Interaction · doi:10.1525/si.2005.28.2.255 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
LIN, J., GRATTET, R., & PETERSILIA, J. (2010) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00201.x · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda
Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2019) · Annual Review of Criminology · doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024805 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Self-citationPunishment in Indian Country: Ironies of Federal Punishment of Native Americans
Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2018) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2017.1341540 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- JOHNSON, B. D., ULMER, J. T., & KRAMER, J. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Venue
- Criminology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-08
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 737-783
- ISSN
- 0011-1384 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-9125
- OpenAlex
- W1999447680
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 50.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Criminology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Law and Policy
- Keywords
- federal sentencing guidelines, downward departure, federal district courts
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review