Summarize:

Perhaps no other area of the criminal justice system has generated more debate or discussion than court sentencing. Whether it is the appropriate sentence for youthful offenders, the reasons for racial disparities in prison sentences, or the continued use of the death penalty as the ultimate sentence, there is no shortage of polarizing opinions on these and many other aspects related to sentencing decisions. All too often, however, views and opinions related to sentencing issues have been based on commonsensical notions, media depictions, or outdated and erroneous information. This section of the volume provides a counter-balance to this non-scientific approach by focusing on findings generated from empirical research that explores some of the key issues in court sentencing. Chapter 12, by Celesta Albonetti, on mandatory minimum sentences begins this section. The chapter includes an historical analysis of the development of mandatory minimum sentencing laws to provide context for the development of these laws. The author then examines the outcomes associated with mandatory minimum sentences by noting, among other things, that these laws have led to a dramatic upswing in prison populations, an increase in racial disparities, and an increase in the length of incarceration. The outcomes of mandatory minimum sentences, according to Albonetti's review of the empirical evidence, have been largely negative. The remainder of her chapter deals with some of the ways these negative consequences can be reduced through sentencing policies that are evidence-based and humane. Chapter 13, by Jeffrey Ulmer and Julia Laskorunsky, then explores one of the salient and problematic issues on court sentencing, namely sentencing disparities. The authors provide some revealing statistics regarding differential incarceration rates by race/ethnicity which document that minorities, particularly African-American males, are disproportionately sentenced to prison. Ulmer and Laskorunsky examine some of the potential reasons that might account for these disparities, including how sentencing policies play a pivotal role in creating and exacerbating racial disparities in sentencing. Clearly, disparities in sentencing represent a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that lack a straightforward or immediate solution. The authors recognize this and suggest the need for further research studies that can contribute to greater recognition and understanding of sentencing disparities, thereby providing evidence-based policies to reduce these disparities. Chapter 14, by Kelly Socia and Jason Rydberg, examines sex offender legislation and policies. Sex offender policy has received a significant amount of attention, largely because of the general fear of sex offenders and the perceived risk that they pose to society. Socia and Rydberg examine whether the fear of sex offenders is warranted or whether it has been the result of politics and the media. Based on their examination of the research literature, the authors conclude that the general view of sex offenders and the associated policies that have developed are not consistent with the relevant empirical research. They conclude with the recommendation that sex offender policies should be separated from politics and that relying on empirical research findings would help to increase the effectiveness of sex offender policies and practices. 147 Chapter 15, by Douglas Marlowe, provides an examination of the primary issues and findings related to drug courts and drug policy. After providing some background information concerning the creation of drug courts, Marlowe focuses upon the empirical research that has evaluated the effectiveness of drug courts. His review of the research literature is centered upon rigorously designed studies that show drug courts have resulted in significant reductions in rearrests. While his conclusion is that drug courts are effective, he also considers some of the intricacies and caveats of these findings by focusing on variability in the effectiveness of these programs and for whom drug courts are most effective. In closing, Marlowe makes a general call for all policies, including drug policies, to be guided by what is discovered in research studies, not by political ideology. In the section's closing chapter (Chapter 16), Gordon Waldo examines the death penalty by employing the case of Furman v. Georgia for his conceptual framework. Although Waldo begins his chapter by listing a number of reasons why the death penalty should be abolished, his rationale for its abolishment is based upon how it is used in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion as related to the decision of the Furman v. Georgia case. Waldo reviews a considerable amount of research and discusses findings related to arbitrariness as it pertains to geography, culpability, and judges, among other factors. He reviews the literature on racial discrimination and the death penalty and presents research showing that racial minorities are more likely than whites to receive a death penalty sentence. Waldo concludes his chapter by recommending that the United States abolish the death penalty because it continues to be used in an arbitrary and discriminatory way as documented consistently in the relevant research literature. Sentencing policies and practices generate a significant amount of attention and debate among the public, policymakers, and researchers. As the chapters in this section demonstrate, there are several areas within the field of criminal justice sentencing that are particularly contentious and devoid of scientific evidence, namely, the use of mandatory minimum sentences (Chapter 12), sex offender sentences (Chapter 14), and the use of the death penalty (Chapter 16). However, drug courts (Chapter 15) provide an example of an evidence-based sentencing option that has been proven to be effective at reducing recidivism. Overall, sentencing disparities (Chapter 13) are widespread in the American criminal justice system and are the result of sentencing policies that have been implemented without the best available research evidence. In sum, to minimize disparities and increase the effectiveness of sentencing policies, rigorous evaluations and reliance upon research evidence is fundamental.