{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03025884068538097, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014218009478672985, 'mean_word_length': 5.308045977011494, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Special Issue: New Theory and Research on Sentencing

Occasionally, I encounter a colleague in criminology or sociology who does not share my fascination with courts and their sentencing decisions, and they ask me (usually with some bemusement) a version of, “Why do people keep studying that?” It is true that sentencing research is a very mature field. When I was constructing the literature review for my dissertation in the early 1990s, I put together an annotated bibliography of over 120 works, and even that was limited to high-quality research and theory from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. Sentencing research has continued as a vibrant enterprise in the 2000s and 2010s, and new studies constantly appear across the landscape of criminology and criminal justice, as well as respected journals in sociology, law, political science, and economics. I understand the bemusement of these colleagues. It does feel that we sometimes continue to tread the same ground over and over, parsing out this or that extralegal effect on sentencing severity from these or those legally relevant effects. But five features, I think, perennially keep the study of sentencing relevant and active. First, to study sentencing is, in a fundamental sense, to study justice itself. Sentencing is a window into a society’s, and a community’s, cultural and social production of who and what is considered deserving of sanction, and the moral or utilitarian goals of those sanctions. In terms of justice, sentencing also enacts judgements of harm and care, a basic moral foundation in moral psychology (see Haidt, 2012). Second, to study sentencing is to study fairness, another basic moral foundation (Haidt, 2012). Fairness raises questions about the extent to which sentencing decisions are shaped by, and in turn reproduce patterns of social inequality. This is why we have long focused on discerning extralegal sentencing disparity based on race/ethnicity, class, citizenship, gender, or other intersecting social statuses (Steffensmeier, Painter-Davis, & Ulmer, 2017). If sentencing reproduces social disadvantage among the already marginalized, this renders an entire justice system problematic. Third, contrary to popular images of lone judges meting out justice as they best see fit, sentencing is inherently an organizational production. This means the study of sentencing is a study of organizational processes, outcomes, and environments (Ulmer, 2019). Thus, we investigate which actors have organizational discretion to shape punishment decisions? How do they use that discretion? With whom do they negotiate, cooperate, or conflict? What organizational or environmental constraints and accountability exist, if any, on their use of discretion?