THE RULES HAVE CHANGED‐SO PROCEED WITH CAUTION: A COMMENT ON ENGEN AND GAINEY'S METHOD FOR MODELING SENTENCING OUTCOMES UNDER GUIDELINES

88 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Location, location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses (2002, background): “15 Recent exchanges concerning the appropria~ representation of offense- seriousness and criminal-history measures in models of sentencing outcomes (Engen & Gainey, 2000; Ulmer, 2000) necessitate a brief word.”
Is the Magic Still There? The Use of the Heckman Two-Step Correction for Selection Bias in Criminology (2007, background): “Examination of additional model specifcations, including criminal history and crime severity along with the presumptive sentence (Ulmer 2000), revealed differences as great as 30% (results not shown).”
The Inextricable Link Between Age and Criminal History in Sentencing (2007, background): “Empirical studies of sentencing outcomes generally find that, on average, younger defendants receive longer sentences, controlling for other attributes of the crimes and the defendants’ criminal histories (Bushway & Piehl, 2001; Engen & Gainey, 2000; Ulmer, 2000).”
Reassessing and Redirecting Research on Race and Sentencing (2013, methodology): “Similar observations have emerged in research on sentencing from other guidelines states as well (e.g. Engen & Gainey, 2000; Ulmer, 2000; Wooldredge, 2010), though this is not merely an issue in states with sentencing commissions.”