| Judicial decision-making has been a long-standing subject of criminological inquiry. It has been the explicit focus of theory (e.g. Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998; Albonetti, 1991; Farrell & Holmes, 1991) and is implicit in discussions of unwarranted sentencing disparity, determinate sentencing, and extra-legal offender attributes such as race. Central to each of these topics is the judge's sentencing decision and the differences in sentences that flow from the use of discretion. However, few studies have actually directly examined variation in judges' sentencing behavior and how this variation corresponds to judge and offender attributes. This dissertation fills that void by using data from Florida Circuit Courts to examine how judges' indelible attributes and experiences influence their use of imprisonment. Results demonstrate that judges are far from homogenous in their sentencing behavior and, in spite of sentencing guidelines, extra-legal offender attributes continue to matter but in nuanced ways. Findings include statistically significant effects for the judges' political party affiliation, age, time on bench, sex, race, and Hispanic ethnicity; several of these effects are conditioned by offender attributes. These effects are modest in magnitude but when considered cumulatively, they result in consequential differences in the probability that an offender is imprisoned. Judges also show considerable variation in their propensity to imprison even after controlling for differences in their traits. While judge attributes like race and sex matter, they do not adequately capture the bulk of inter-judge variation in the use of imprisonment. In short, criminal sentencing remains a highly individualized activity. |
