| How to Obtain
Documents |
| |
|
|
NCJ Number:
|
NCJ 178889
|
|
Title:
|
Effects of Judges' Sentencing Decisions on Criminal Careers, Research in Brief
|
|
Series:
|
NIJ Research in Brief
|
|
Author(s):
|
Don M. Gottfredson
|
|
Date Published:
|
11/1999 |
|
Page Count:
|
12 |
|
Sponsoring Agency:
|
|
|
Grant Number:
|
82-IJ-CX-0054; 95-IJ-CX-0118; |
|
Sale Source:
|
National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849
United States
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States |
|
Document:
|
Text PDF |
|
Agency Summary:
|
Agency Summary |
|
Dataset:
|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02857 |
|
Type:
|
Studies/research reports |
|
Language:
|
English |
|
Country:
|
United States |
|
Annotation:
|
This study determined the degree to which judicial sentencing
decisions affected subsequent criminal careers for 962 felony
offenders in Essex County, N.J., who were sentenced in 1976 and
1977 variously to confinement and noncustodial programs. |
|
Abstract:
|
The 18 participating judges exercised considerable discretion in
their sentencing decisions. The data collected included judicial
perceptions, the judges' predictions of the offenders' future
criminal behavior, the judges' sentencing purposes, offender
backgrounds, execution of sentences, and offenders' arrests and
charges during the 20 years after sentencing. Also measured were
the judges' selection of various sanctions, the validity of
subjective and objective predictions of future criminal behavior
(risks), and the offenders' time in the community (free of the
incapacitating effects of jail or prison). The findings show that
the judges' subjective risk assessments of offenders' likelihood
of recidivism, although only modestly valid, had a substantial
influence on their sentencing choices. More formal, empirically
derived methods provided better measures of the risk of
recidivism. Available sentencing choices had little effect, other
than that of incapacitation, on recidivism as measured by new
arrests and charges. Whether the offender was confined or given
noncustodial sanctions made no difference, nor did where the
offender was confined, the length of the offender's maximum
imposed sentence, the length of time the offender was confined, a
"split" sentence of jail and probation, or fines or restitution.
The findings thus offer little support, aside from
incapacitation, for increased use of confinement, emphasis on
longer terms, or more acceptance of specific deterrence as a
crime-control strategy. 15 exhibits |
|
Main Term(s):
|
Courts/ |
|
Index Term(s):
|
Recidivism ; Judicial discretion ; Corrections effectiveness ; Sentencing factors ; New Jersey |
| |
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=178889
|
* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents
not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.
|
|
Help | Contact Us | Home
