Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/46064

Judging Federal White-Collar Fraud Sentencing: An Empirical Study Revealing the Need for Further Reform

File SizeFormat 
SSRN-id2735864.pdf403.57 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Item Summary

Title: Judging Federal White-Collar Fraud Sentencing: An Empirical Study Revealing the Need for Further Reform
Authors: Bennett, Mark W.
Levinson, Justin D.
Hioki, Koichi
Issue Date: Feb 2016
Publisher: Iowa Law Review
Citation: Bennett, Mark W. and Levinson, Justin D. and Hioki, Koichi, Judging Federal White-Collar Fraud Sentencing: An Empirical Study Revealing the Need for Further Reform (February 21, 2016). Iowa Law Review, Vol. 102, 2016.
Related To: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2735864
Abstract: White-collar federal fraud sentencing has long been fraught with controversy and criticism. As a result, the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s intensive multi-year examination of sentencing for fraud crimes generated tremendous interest among the Department of Justice, criminal defense organizations, the academy, and a wide-range of advocacy groups. In November 2015, the Commission’s publicly announced proposed amendments became law without Congressional change. These amendments, while commendable in process and purpose, fall short of sorely needed reforms that would serve to realign white-collar fraud punishments with legitimate penal justifications. This Article portrays the recent historical tension between the Federal Sentencing Commission and federal judges, and presents the results of an original empirical study that demonstrates clearly the continuing need for significant reforms. The Article begins by framing the problem of fraud sentencing within modern criminal law, and examines the statistical reality of economic crime sentencing since the 1980s, which has been increasingly characterized by downward departures from harsh recommend minimum sentences. It then details an original empirical study we conducted on 240 sitting federal and state judges, just as the new sentencing guideline amendments were passing untouched through Congress. This study presented judges with a realistic pre-sentence report for a multimillion-dollar economic crime, and asked judges to sentence the defendant. We found that a remarkable 75% of federal district court judges sentenced the defendant to the precise minimum sentence of a possible sevenyear range. The study further compared the judges’ sentences across judicial cohorts and evaluated the role of judges’ individual sentencing philosophies, age, religion, and the political party of the appointing president. Despite a range of interesting differences in sentencing philosophy and self-reported attitudes found based on these factors, federal judges’ overwhelming agreement regarding minimum sentencing largely transcended their other differences. The Article considers the results of the study in the context of the revised guidelines as well as scholarly reform suggestions, and offers five specific proposals to reform the guidelines, beginning with significant cuts to the so-called “loss table” as well as the specific offense characteristics that frequently lead to near-nonsensical sentencing guidelines.
Pages/Duration: 53 pages
URI/DOI: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/46064
Appears in Collections:Levinson, Justin D.



Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.