Racial Disparities Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimums

Joshua B. Fischman, Max M. Schanzenbach*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    54 Scopus citations

    Abstract

    The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines restrict judicial discretion in part to reduce unwarranted racial disparities. However, judicial discretion may also mitigate disparities if judges use discretion to offset disparities emanating from prosecutorial discretion or sentencing policies that have a disparate impact. To measure the impact of judicial discretion on racial disparities, we examine doctrinal changes that affected judges' discretion to depart from the Guidelines. We find that racial disparities are either reduced or little changed when the Guidelines are made less binding. Racial disparities increased after recent Supreme Court decisions declared the Guidelines to be advisory; however, we find that this increase is due primarily to the increased relevance of mandatory minimums, which have a disparate impact on minority offenders. Our findings suggest that judicial discretion does not contribute to, and may in fact mitigate, racial disparities in Guidelines sentencing.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)729-764
    Number of pages36
    JournalJournal of Empirical Legal Studies
    Volume9
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Dec 2012

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Education
    • Law

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Racial Disparities Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimums'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this