"Fundamentally Flawed?" Exploring the use of policy disagreements in judicial downward departures for child pornography sentences kaiser and spohn child pornography sentencing

Kimberly A. Kaiser, Cassia Spohn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Research Summary: Using U.S. Sentencing Commission data, this study assesses whether judicial downward departures are more prevalent among child pornography offenders compared with a matched sample of defendants convicted of other offenses. Additionally, we examine reasons given by judges when departing from the guidelines for these offenders. We found that child pornography defendants received significant reductions in sentences by way of judicial downward departures. Policy Implications: In 2007, the Supreme Court considerably altered the federal sentencing process. In Kimbrough v. United States (2007), the Court held that judicial departures were permissible on grounds of a policy disagreement. Many circuit courts have authorized sentencing judges to depart from the guidelines in child pornography cases based on such a policy disagreement. The findings of this study suggest that judicial downward departures for these offenders cannot be explained by individual characteristics, such as race, gender, or age, and may be indicative of a specific disagreement with this particular sentencing policy. An examination of the reasons provided by judges supports the hypothesis that judges may be attempting to remedy what they perceive as unjustly harsh sentencing guidelines.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)241-270
Number of pages30
JournalCriminology and Public Policy
Volume13
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

pornography
offender
remedies
Supreme Court
offense
examination
Pornography
Sentencing
Departure
gender
Offenders

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Literature and Literary Theory
  • Public Administration

Cite this

@article{56fb4169f8a0415a8de3968e23382abc,
title = "{"}Fundamentally Flawed?{"} Exploring the use of policy disagreements in judicial downward departures for child pornography sentences kaiser and spohn child pornography sentencing",
abstract = "Research Summary: Using U.S. Sentencing Commission data, this study assesses whether judicial downward departures are more prevalent among child pornography offenders compared with a matched sample of defendants convicted of other offenses. Additionally, we examine reasons given by judges when departing from the guidelines for these offenders. We found that child pornography defendants received significant reductions in sentences by way of judicial downward departures. Policy Implications: In 2007, the Supreme Court considerably altered the federal sentencing process. In Kimbrough v. United States (2007), the Court held that judicial departures were permissible on grounds of a policy disagreement. Many circuit courts have authorized sentencing judges to depart from the guidelines in child pornography cases based on such a policy disagreement. The findings of this study suggest that judicial downward departures for these offenders cannot be explained by individual characteristics, such as race, gender, or age, and may be indicative of a specific disagreement with this particular sentencing policy. An examination of the reasons provided by judges supports the hypothesis that judges may be attempting to remedy what they perceive as unjustly harsh sentencing guidelines.",
author = "Kaiser, {Kimberly A.} and Cassia Spohn",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1111/1745-9133.12082",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "241--270",
journal = "Criminology & Public Policy",
issn = "1538-6473",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - "Fundamentally Flawed?" Exploring the use of policy disagreements in judicial downward departures for child pornography sentences kaiser and spohn child pornography sentencing

AU - Kaiser, Kimberly A.

AU - Spohn, Cassia

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Research Summary: Using U.S. Sentencing Commission data, this study assesses whether judicial downward departures are more prevalent among child pornography offenders compared with a matched sample of defendants convicted of other offenses. Additionally, we examine reasons given by judges when departing from the guidelines for these offenders. We found that child pornography defendants received significant reductions in sentences by way of judicial downward departures. Policy Implications: In 2007, the Supreme Court considerably altered the federal sentencing process. In Kimbrough v. United States (2007), the Court held that judicial departures were permissible on grounds of a policy disagreement. Many circuit courts have authorized sentencing judges to depart from the guidelines in child pornography cases based on such a policy disagreement. The findings of this study suggest that judicial downward departures for these offenders cannot be explained by individual characteristics, such as race, gender, or age, and may be indicative of a specific disagreement with this particular sentencing policy. An examination of the reasons provided by judges supports the hypothesis that judges may be attempting to remedy what they perceive as unjustly harsh sentencing guidelines.

AB - Research Summary: Using U.S. Sentencing Commission data, this study assesses whether judicial downward departures are more prevalent among child pornography offenders compared with a matched sample of defendants convicted of other offenses. Additionally, we examine reasons given by judges when departing from the guidelines for these offenders. We found that child pornography defendants received significant reductions in sentences by way of judicial downward departures. Policy Implications: In 2007, the Supreme Court considerably altered the federal sentencing process. In Kimbrough v. United States (2007), the Court held that judicial departures were permissible on grounds of a policy disagreement. Many circuit courts have authorized sentencing judges to depart from the guidelines in child pornography cases based on such a policy disagreement. The findings of this study suggest that judicial downward departures for these offenders cannot be explained by individual characteristics, such as race, gender, or age, and may be indicative of a specific disagreement with this particular sentencing policy. An examination of the reasons provided by judges supports the hypothesis that judges may be attempting to remedy what they perceive as unjustly harsh sentencing guidelines.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925871461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925871461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1745-9133.12082

DO - 10.1111/1745-9133.12082

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84925871461

VL - 13

SP - 241

EP - 270

JO - Criminology & Public Policy

JF - Criminology & Public Policy

SN - 1538-6473

IS - 2

ER -