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
- A Review of the Evolution of the NCS-NCVS Police Reporting and Response Questions and Their Application to Older Women Experiencing Violent Victimization
- Searching for Legal Domination: An Applied Multimedia-based Empirical Analysis of Juror Decision-making
- Out of home placement location and juvenile delinquency: The investigation of neighborhood impact on child welfare population's juvenile justice involvement