The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: The Politics of Criminal Law Reform: A Comparative Analysis of Lower Court Decision- Making Author: Lydia Brashear Tiede Document No.: 223283 Date Received: July 2008 Award Number: 2007-IJ-CX-0015 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO The Politics of Criminal Law Reform: A Comparative Analysis of Lower Court Decision-Making A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the Requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Lydia Brashear Tiede Committee in charge: Professor Mathew McCubbins, Chair Professor Gary Cox Professor Stephan Haggard Professor Daniel Rodriguez Professor Joel Watson 2008 Copyright Lydia Brashear Tiede, 2008 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Lydia Brashear Tiede is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm: ________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2008 iii DEDICATION To David, For believing in me. Without you, this would not have been possible. To Natalie, For making me stop to smell the roses. iv EPIGRAPH Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. Jacob Bronowski From The Ascent of Man v . Law is as I’ve told you before, Law is as you know I suppose, Law is but let me explain it once more, Law is The Law. Yet law-abiding scholars write: Law is neither wrong nor right, Law is only crimes Punished by places and by times, Anytime, anywhere, Law is Good-morning and Good-night. Others say, Law is our Fate; Others say, Law is our State; Others say, others say Law is no more, Law has gone away. -WH Auden From Law Like Love vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page……………………………………………………………………………iii Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………..iv Epigraph……..…………………………………………………………………………….v Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………...vii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..xi List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………...xiii Acknowledgements………..……………………………………………………………..xv Vita...…………………………………………………………………………………..xviii Abstract……...…………………………………………………………………………..xix Introduction: The Politics of Criminal Law Reform……………………………………...1 References for Introduction……………………………………………………………….9 Chapter 1. Towards a Theory of Lower Court Decision-Making……………………….11 1.1. The Principal-Agent Relationship…………………………………………………..13 1.1.1. Why Delegate?............................................................................................13 1.1.2. Problems with Delegation………………………………………………...15 1.1.3. Methods of Minimizing Problems Inherent in Delegation……………….16 1.2. Extending Principal-Agent Models to Courts………………………………………21 1.3. Interactions Involving Lower Courts and Higher Law-Making Bodies……………28 References for Chapter 1…...……………………………………………………………35 Chapter 2. Regulating Judicial Discretion in American Federal Courts…………..……38 2.1. Lower Court Decision-Making…………………………………….........................38 2.2. The United States Sentencing Guidelines: A Test Case………………………..…42 vii 2.3. Changes in the Guideline Scheme…………………………………………………48 2.3.1. The PROTECT Act/Feeney Amendment: Legislation Restricting Judicial Discretion………………………………………………………48 2.3.2. Blakely and Booker : Supreme Court Cases Augmenting Judicial Discretion…………………………………………….………………….51 2.4. Testing the Effects of the Sentencing Guideline Scheme……………….…………55 2.5. Testing the Effects of Changes in Guideline Laws………………………………..60 2.6. Results: Guideline Scheme Hypotheses…………………………………………..62 2.7. Results: Changes in Guideline Law Hypotheses………………………………….69 2.8. Discussion and Implications……………………………………………………….75 Appendix to Chapter 2…………………………………………………………………..80 References for Chapter 2………………………………………………………………..84 Chapter 3. What Federal District Court Judges Think…………………………….……91 3.1. Overview and Data…………………………………………………………………92 3.2. Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………...……..97 3.3. Results……………………………………………………………………………..100 3.3.1. General Observations…………………………………………………...100 3.3.2. Duration of Law………………………………………………………...102 3.3.3. Party of appointing president…………………………………………...109 3.3.4. Professional experience on the bench…………………………………..113 3.4. Opinions Regarding Sentencing Guidelines and Reform…………………...115 3.5. Implications and Conclusions……………………………………………….118 Appendix to Chapter 3………………………………………………………………….122 References for Chapter 3……………………………………………………………….129 viii Chapter 4. Sentencing Reform in England and Wales: Diverging from the United States?......................................................................................................130 4.1. The Institutional Context for Sentencing Reform and Judicial Independence……132 4.1.1. England’s Court Structure and Constitutional Reform 2005…………..132 4.1.2. Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Role of the Judiciary……………...139 4.2. Why Sentencing Reform? Why Now?...................................................................141 4.2.1. The Criminal Justice Act of 1991………………………………………142 4.2.2. The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 2000………………………………144 4.2.3 Criminal Justice Act 2003……………………………………………….145 4.3. Judges and Sentencing Officials’ Opinions………………………………………153 4.3.1. Judicial Decision-making……………………………………………….153 4.3.2. Current guideline system and judicial discretion……………………….154 4.3.3. Inter-branch Relationships………………………………………………157 4.3.4. Unwarranted Sentencing Disparity……………………………………...159 4.4. Is England Destined to Inherit America’s Explosion in Prison Population? ……..161 Appendices to Chapter 4………………………………………………………………..168 References for Chapter 4……………………………………………………………….177 Chapter 5. Chile’s Experiment in Criminal Law Reform: Conversion from an Inquisitorial to Adversarial System…………………………………………….180 5.1. The Debate………………………………………………………………………...181 5.2. The Wave of Criminal Law Reforms Across Latin America……………………..184 5.3. The Case of Chile…………………………………………………………………188 5.4. Chile’s Pre-Reform Criminal Procedure………………………………………….191 5.5. Criminal Law Reforms in Chile…………………………………………………...194 ix 5.6. Data and Variables………………………………………………………………...200 5.7. Chile’s Criminal Law Reform as a Quasi-Experiment: Research Design………..202 5.7.1. Hypotheses and Methodology………………………………………….202 5.7.2. Results…………………………………………………………………..207 5.8. Conclusions and Implications……………………………………………………..212 Appendices to Chapter 5………………………………………………………………..215 References for Chapter 5……………………………………………………………….216 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...220 Appendix to Dissertation...……………………………………………………………..231 References to Appendix………………………………………………………………..238 x LIST OF TABLES Table I.1: Judiciaries and Laws Examined…………...…………………………………...8 Table 2.1: Partial Depiction of Sentencing Table in Months of Imprisonment…………44 Table 2.2: Pre-Guideline Case Statistics…..…………………………………………… 56 Table 2.3: Drug Amounts for Two Crimes Analyzed…………………………………. .57 Table 2.4: Description of Groups Tested with Identical Fact Patterns………………….57 Table 2.5: Results of Post-Tests (1999-2005)..…………………………………………63 Table 2.6: Percent Sentenced at Minimum by Group (1999-2005)……………………..64 Table A2.1: Multiple Regression Analysis of Sentence Length: Isolating the Effect of the PROTECT Act……………………………………………….81 Table A2.2: Multiple Regression Analysis of Sentence Length………………………..82 Table 3.1: Descriptive Statistics of 1991 and 2008 Survey Responses…………………94 Table 3.2: Professional Experience of Judges…………………………………………..95 Table 3.3: Summary of Circuit Affiliation for 2008 Survey……………...…………….96 Table 3.4: Summary of Party Appointing President for 2008 Survey…………………..97 Table 3.5: Responses to Congressional Action Question by Survey Year…………….107 Table 3.6: Responses to Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Unwarranted Disparity Question…………………………………………………………109 Table 3.7: Responses to Survey Questions by Years on the Bench……………………115 Table A3.1: Comparison of Judicial Responses 1991 and 2008 Surveys……………...122 Table 4.1: England and Wales Definitive Sentencing Guidelines by Year……………150 Table 4.2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Current Guideline System……………..156 Table A4.1: England and Wales Key Sentencing Legislation 1974 – 2003…………...174 Table 5.1: Time Table for Chile’s Criminal Law Reforms……………………………195 xi Table 5.2: Fixed Effect Results for Various Logged Dependent Variables…………...209 Table 5.3: Fixed Effect Results for Logged Case Processing Rates.…………………..209 Table A5.1: Chile’s Regions and Corresponding Judicial Districts…………………...215 Table C.1: Prison Populations Compared…………...…………………………………228 Table A.1: A Comparison: The Federal Guidelines vs. the Pennsylvania Guidelines..233 Table A.2: The