The findings suggest that districts vary considerably from each other in sentencing practices over the time period studied, and that there is relative within-district stability of outcomes within districts over time, including in response to the Supreme Court's mandates. The study also found that policy change appears to influence the mechanisms by which cases are adjudicated in order to reach normative outcomes. Finally, it was found that the relative district-level reliance upon mandatory minimums, which were not directly impacted by the guidelines changes, is an important factor in how drug trafficking cases are adjudicated. The researchers conclude that local legal practices not only diverge in important ways across place, but also become entrenched over time, such that top-down legal reform is largely reappropriated and absorbed into locally established practices. (Publisher abstract modified)
Downloads
Related Datasets
Similar Publications
- Examining Police Presence, Tactics, and Engagement as Facilitators of Informal Social Control in High-Crime Areas
- Factors associated with child custody evaluators’ recommendations in cases of intimate partner violence
- Is a Plea Really a Bargain? An Analysis of Plea and Trial Dispositions in New York City