STANDARD DISPOSITION THEORY: AN EVALUATION OF THE FACTORS THAT PREVENT EQUAL JUSTICE

This dissertation examines sentencing outcomes in twelve Virginia circuit courts to assess the impact of various legal and extralegal factors on the severity of punishment. In this study, I use a mixed-methods approach to test potential influences related to the individual case, decision-maker, and county context. These factors act in tandem to form a new theoretical framework of sentencing titled “standard disposition theory.” This theory is offered as an explanation of punishment disparity for similarly situated defendants. To evaluate the validity of the proposed theory, I construct hierarchal structural equation models based on sentencing guidelines worksheets between January 2010 and June 2016. I supplement this analysis with interviews of commonwealth attorneys, public defenders, and probation officers. The findings challenge the belief that judges are the sole authoritative power in sentencing decisions. Instead, I argue that the courtroom workgroup as a collective acts as the arbiter of justice. In addition, the analyses provide support for the existence of standard sentences which deviate according to mode of conviction. Furthermore, the results also suggest that extralegal features of the defendant and local court context affect punishment outcomes. I conclude by discussing suggestions for future research and implications for policymakers.