IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v2y2005i1p1-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Have Federal Judges Changed Their Sentencing Practices? The Shaky Empirical Foundations of the Feeney Amendment

Author

Listed:
  • Max Schanzenbach

Abstract

The Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act of 2003 restricted judicial discretion to make downward departures. Supporters of the Amendment argued that federal district court judges were increasingly departing below the ranges specified in the Sentencing Guidelines, reducing sentences and increasing sentencing disparities. Using data on all federal criminal sentences between 1993 and 2001, this article argues that federal sentencing practices did not change appreciably over the relevant time period. First, while the rate of downward departures increased, much of the increase can be explained by a number of potentially relevant variables such as type of offense, the offense level, district of sentencing, and offender characteristics. Second, even though downward departures were more frequent, average total prison sentences hardly changed. Third, there is no evidence that the increasing number of Democratic appointees on the federal district court bench affected average prison sentences or the rate of downward departures. Finally, the influence of Guidelines factors on prison sentences has remained constant.

Suggested Citation

  • Max Schanzenbach, 2005. "Have Federal Judges Changed Their Sentencing Practices? The Shaky Empirical Foundations of the Feeney Amendment," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 1-48, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:2:y:2005:i:1:p:1-48
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00030.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00030.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00030.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:2:y:2005:i:1:p:1-48. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.