Variation in Trial Penalties Among Serious Violent Offenses

Although the Constitution affords criminal defendants the right to a jury trial, defendants who choose to exercise that right often receive a significantly harsher sentence than those who plead guilty. This phenomenon is known as a trial penalty. Analyzing data from Pennsylvania from 1997 to 2000, this article investigates the presence of trial penalties in serious violent crime cases and how offense type, defendant characteristics, and jurisdiction-specific court features contribute to variation in such penalties. The trial penalties are also analyzed through two theoretical frameworks: an integrated focal concerns perspective and a community social-worlds perspective. The focal concerns perspective theorizes that legal actors focus on three things when making defendant-related decisions: (1) defendant blameworthiness, (2) the threat a defendant poses to the community, and (3) constraints and consequences of the punishment decision. The social-worlds perspective theorizes that courts have their own independent, localized social spheres with unique organizational culture, political agendas, relationship networks, and more, and that these localized norms influence how cases are prosecuted. The results of the study clearly demonstrate a significantly different sentencing outcome for defendants who plead guilty versus those who choose to go to trial and ultimately lose. More-serious offenses result in harsher trial penalties. The results also indicate that trial penalties are not evenly given, as sentencing differentials are often influenced by offense characteristics, a defendant’s criminal history, and court/county-level factors.

“The U.S. legal system guarantees every criminal defendant the right to a jury trial, yet we find that defendants accused of serious violent offenses are substantially penalized if they exercise this right and then lose. Furthermore, this jury trial penalty is not evenly assessed, but depends on the seriousness and type of offense, the offender’s prior record, and several court contextual characteristics.” p. 662