An analysis of sentencing for federal administration of justice offenses, 1991-1992

Abstract

This research examines the variables that affect sentence severity (length of imprisonments under the federal sentencing guidelines for administration of justice offenses. Previous research has failed to study sentence outcome in this type of case. Administration of justice offenses include the following types of illegal behavior: contempt, obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, failure to appear by material witness, failure to appear by defendant, bribery of a witness, accessory after the fact, and felony misconduct or neglect of duty. Equality under the law and the goal of sentencing guidelines formally defined sentencing disparity linked to defendant characteristics as illegal. A multivariate analysis is conducted to test hypotheses concerning the effect selected variables measuring defendant characteristics will have on sentencing severity. Previous research has delineated that some of these variables are age, race/ethnicity, gender, and education. I will examine them, as well as citizenship and defendant's number of dependents. The central objective is to determine the variables that significantly influence sentencing disparity linked to defendant characteristics, controlling for legally relevant variables, process variables, and federal circuits. Based on a merging of conflict theory, labeling theory, the uncertainty avoidance perspective, and causal attribution ideas, I hypothesize that the socially disadvantaged will receive harsher sentences than others because of discriminatory practices in determining sentences.