Measuring Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity Before and After the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Published in: Discussion Papers in Economics, Discussion Paper No. 207, (Princeton, N.J. : Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, December 1998), p. 1-60, [3]

Posted on on December 01, 1998

by James M. Anderson, Jeffrey R. Kling, Kate Stith

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

This paper evaluates the impact of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on inter-judge sentencing disparity, which is defined as the differences in average nominal prison sentence lengths for comparable caseloads assigned to different judges. This disparity is measured as the dispersion of a random effect in a zero-inflated negative binomial model. The results show that the expected difference between two typical judges in the average sentence length was about 17percent (or 4.9 months) in 1986-87 prior to the Guidelines, and fell to about 11 percent (or 3.9 months) from 1988-93 during the early years of the Guidelines. We have not sought to measure the effect of parole in the pre-Guidelines period, other sources of disparity such as prosecutorial discretion, or the proportionality of punishment under the Guidelines as compared with the pre-Guidelines era.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.