Variables Influencing Sentencing Severity: Intercourt Differences in Connecticut

Studies of criminal-court dispositions have traditionally aggregated courts along political and geographic boundaries. This article suggests that courts should be analyzed individually, even within the same jurisdiction, as a means of increasing the explanatory capacity of the variables involved. Further, it is contended that intercourt differences are a result of organizational infiuences operating within each court. The literature on courts suggests that (rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence, injudges have enormous latitude in allocating capacitation). The composition of the courtsanctions among convicted offenders. This room work group (judge, prosecutor. and sentencing discretion allows for substantial defense counsel) was found by Eisenstein variation in the treatment of individuals and Jacob (1977) to be a major explanatory before the bench. Over time many revariable; different work-group combinasearchers have attempted to articulate the tions produced different sentencing outfactors that influence sentencing disposicomes. Marvin Frankel, a judge, himself tions in criminal courts. Hogarth (1971). in a described judicial decision making on sancstudy of Toronto magistrates, found that tions as existing within a “sentencing wildersentencing decisions were influenced by ness.” an opinion further developed in his many variables. one of the most important sarcastically entitled book Criminal Senof which was the jurist’s penal philosophy tences (Frankel. 1972, 1973).