Although many developments have been realized in non capital sentencing studies since 1990s, the article critically addresses various problems in the correctional sentencing systems. Ulmer while reviewing sentencing research from early 1990s onwards points out several issues which majorly revolves around data availability collected in the judicial systems. Despite data availability being highly touted because of its ability to enable progress on various processes as outlined in the 1983 Blumstein et al report, the review reveals that data availability overlooks sentencing in the wider context of previous judicial decisions. Ulmer posits that prosecutorial decisions are often under emphasized in capital sentencing despite being pervasive and highly consequential.
The article further points out that guideline criminal sentencing data recommended in earlier research work are only aimed at convicted offenders and exclude crucial pre-conviction data on previous charges. With regard to data sets used in criminal sentencing, the article further highlights that pre-conviction information for multiple cases and local jurisdictions are often scarce and hard to obtain. In cases where such pre-conviction data are available, Ulmer asserts that researchers are faced with other trade-offs since few research which use recent data in sentence examination in the context of previous decisions have been undertaken.
Another major problem that the article addresses regards Hagan and Bumiller report as well as Blumstein et al reports of 1983 which proposed sentencing research that examines the effects of socioeconomic status variables of the defendants on sentencing outcomes. The reports further recommended the assessment of probable influence of ethnicity and race on socioeconomic factors besides evaluating sentencing variation between actors in criminal justice. However according to Ulmer, few of such studies have been carried out and this presents a major problem in understating the complexity that regards criminal sentencing decisions.
Ulmer in his comprehensive review of earlier research in criminal sentencing reveals several findings that reflect the situation of criminal justice system since 1990s. In reviewing studies on disparities on social characteristics, Ulmer found out that minority groups were disadvantaged regarding in-out decisions. Basing on studies conducted by other researchers, the study also revealed that race and ethic effects are often influenced by other social characteristics such as gender and age. The study also revealed that other factors such as offence severity or type, criminal history, victim characteristics and case processing factors conditioned race and ethnicity effects.
The article forms a framework for sound and effective judicial systems that takes into account the participation of all actors. By evaluating recent developments and outlining future directions in correctional systems, Ulmer hypothetically depicts the future of correctional sentencing. Through a raft of measures that the article proposes and which include the use of data on charges, the correctional systems will be more efficient since it allows researchers to evaluate and monitor charge reductions related to guilty pleas. The data will also make it easier for researchers to investigate incidence of selection in criminal sentencing justice decisions. The application of these research findings especially on studies on traditional courts vs. problem solving ones with regard to organization and punishment outcomes is likely to create a wider understanding of courts contemporary evolution consequences.
Ulmer’s article is arguably a product of well elaborate and extensive research. It offers a vivid yet explicit review of correctional sentencing in a manner that is easy to understand. Ulmer for purposes of clarity and understanding chooses not to divulge into the wider context of sentencing in general but instead concentrated on non-capital punishment. The article first offers early a conceptual review of developments in criminal sentencing and which Ulmer successfully manages to highlight by reviewing past research work in criminal justice. The end point is a captivating and vivid account of recent developments in criminal sentencing and predicted future trends. To give credibility to the article, Ulmer documents mainly from other scholars and this he uses to form the basis of his argument.
To a smaller extent, the article fails to capture every sentencing research in the past years and the one explored are not exhaustively reviewed in details. Besides, Ulmer chose to concentrate on non-capital punishment and this underscores other aspects of criminal sentencing. This portrays a biased and unrepresentative view of criminal sentencing and therefore the review cannot be applied in the wider context of criminal sentencing. The article also does more in highlighting the positive development in criminal sentencing while underscoring the challenges that might have experienced. For the review to be a representative view of criminal system it would have been imperative to consider both aspects since it gives a framework for tackling such challenges in the future.
Given the necessary resources, I think the study can be improved in a variety of ways. In order to gain a greater understanding of criminal sentencing complexity, court actors especially judges, prosecutors and other justice officials need be interviewed in order to get their opinion on ways of improving criminal sentencing decisions. Furthermore, I will collect information regarding defendants experience in courts and prison, as well as ethnographies of the judicial system. The ethnographies will be crucial in analyzing quantitative data which will help in developing and assessing theoretical paradigms which can reflect peoples’ lives complexities and other multiple factors that influence decision making in criminal justice.
The study is arguably a well thought and researched review which offers recent development in criminal sentencing despite predicting future developments in future research. Although it fails to exhaustively highlight past developments in depth besides focusing on con capital sentencing, it still remains one of its kind that offers a framework for future direction in future sentencing research.
Reference
Ulmer, J. T. (2012). Recents Developments and New Direction inSenrencing Research. Justice Quarterly, 29:1 , 1-40.