GET EMAILS UPLOAD

Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

by Brian J. Ostrom; Charles W. Ostrom; Matthew Kleiman; Roger A. Hanson

May 1, 2008

DESCRIPTION

Summarizes a study of sentencing guidelines in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia comparing levels of predictability and judicial discretion under different guideline systems, effectiveness in limiting discriminatory disparities, and lessons learned.

Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States

Download via IssueLab (2.53 MB)

Save To Library

Suggest an edit

Published By

National Center for State Courts

Funded By

Pew Charitable Trusts

Copyright

Document Type

Report/Whitepaper

Language

English

Geography

Linked Data show/hide

This web page is marked up with Schema.org microdata and formatted for machine-reading. Here's why that matters. Have a peek at what a machine sees here .

Title: Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States
Publication date 2008-05-01
Publication Year 2008
Authors Brian J. Ostrom , Charles W. Ostrom , Matthew Kleiman , Roger A. Hanson
Copyright holder(s) National Center for State Courts
Geographical Focus North America / United States (Midwestern) / Michigan , North America / United States (Midwestern) / Minnesota , North America / United States (Southern) / Virginia
Keywords sentencing , sentencing guidelines , offenders , prior record , worksheet
Document type Report/Whitepaper
Language English
URL: https://www.issuelab.org/resource/assessing-consistency-and-fairness-in-sentencing-a-comparative-study-in-three-states.html
Resource provided by IssueLab

Explore Collections

IssueLab Results is #OpenForGood

Democracy

Gun Violence

Immigration Strategies

Affordable Care Act

Race and Policing

New York Foundation Grantee Publications

European Foundation Centre's Virtual Library

TrustAfrica's African Giving Knowledge Base