1 SENTENCING DISPARITY: USE OF TRANSCRIPT ANALYSIS AS A METHOD TO DETERMINE SALIENT FACTORS IN FEDERAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS By Jonathan L. Sitek, M.J.A. A doctoral thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the Doctor of Law and Policy Program at Northeastern University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Law and Policy Under the supervision of Dr. Golnoosh Hakimdavar College of Professional Studies Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts June 11, 2021 2 DEDICATION This paper is dedicated to my family, friends, and coworkers, for their encouragement and support throughout my entire educational experience. Additionally, this is dedicated to all the men and women of the criminal justice system, who do their level best day after day to ensure every person has access to equal justice under the law. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee members—Dr. Hakimdavar and Dr. Crow, for their support, guidance, commentary, and editorial ability. And all the professors at the DLP, whose experiential teaching styles were invaluable in connecting concepts and theory to real-world implementation. I would like to acknowledge Paul Collette, MA, CAC, LADC, for his constant guidance, encouragement, assistance, and inspiration during the difficult times. Additional thanks to Jennifer Amato, Brian Topor, Michael Rafferty, and Jesse Gomes, who checked in to make sure I was okay. Thanks to January Welks for being as excited about my doctorate as I was. I would also like to thank Greg Campos and Dr. Amisha Parekh de Campos for their candid discussions at the start of, and throughout, my journey. Thanks to Cohort 13, for tolerating my feeble attempts at humor. Special thanks to Barbara, for allowing me to grunt, groan, huff, puff, and vent when needed. To Greg Estevez for his constant check-ins, debriefs, and general life observations. Never has there been a finer salesman for grounded theory. To Bruce Walker, for understanding that imitation is truly intended to be the sincerest form of flattery—you were tracking just fine. And to Scott Allendevaux, for having the best home office of us all, and being willing to fight nice over Zoom. Your intelligence, humor, and generosity are second to none, sir. Thanks to Ann, Eric, and Julianna, for understanding my absence over these years and checking in as part of your bedtime routines. Finally, I would like to thank JLA, CWM, VLB, and TSW for their letters of recommendation and their encouragement when I began this journey. 4 ABSTRACT This study uses qualitative transcript analysis to determine whether transcript analysis is a viable method to study the issue of sentencing disparity. Child pornography sentencing hearings were chosen due to the high rate of departures from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines scheme. The intent was to determine whether common causes of disparity identified in the existing literature would be detectable via coding and analysis. A blended theoretical framework was used in an effort to capture as many factors as possible. The results indicated that transcript analysis could detect factors influencing disparity, with limitations. The results also highlighted the salient factors in the proceedings. In robust sentence explanations, judges laid out explicitly their reasoning. Other judges mainly relied on the papers filed in the case and did not elaborate on their reasoning. Additionally, transcript analysis could not detect many demographic characteristics of the sentencing judges. Further, factors such as a defendant’s religion, political affiliation, or ethnicity were not detectable unless a party discussed those factors in open court. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chpater 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 10 Background and Context......................................................................................................... 10 Law and Policy Review...........................................................................................................13 Problem Statement……………………………………………………………………….......19 Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………………………19 Research Question........................................................................................………………...20 Theoretical Framework…………...................……………………………………….………20 Definitions…………………………………………………………………………………...25 Assumptions…………………………………………………………………………………27 Scope and Delimitations……………………………………………………………………..27 Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………...27 Significance………………………………………………………………………………….28 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………..29 Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 30 Literature Search Strategy....................................................................................................... 30 Literature Review Related to Key Concepts ........................................................................... 31 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………..42 Chapter 3: Research Methodology ............................................................................................ 44 Research Design and Rationale .............................................................................................. 44 Method. ................................................................................................................................... 47 Positionality Statement………………………………………………………………………49 Participant Selection..............................................................………………………………..50 6 Access to Data and Data Collection ……………………………………………………51 Data Analysis Plan.............................................................................................................51 Trusthworthiness................................................................................................................55 Ethical Procedures.............................................................................................................56 Summary............................................................................................................................58 Chapter 4: Results ...................................................................................................................... 60 Description of the Data ........................................................................................................... 60 Description of the Data Analysis Process ............................................................................... 61 Description of the Findings......................................................................................................64 Chapter 4 Summary.................................................................................................................74 Chapter 5: Recommendations and Conclusions ...................................................................... 77 Summary of the Research Results .......................................................................................... 77 Discussion of the Research Results ........................................................................................ 81 In relation to the theoretical framework / conceptual framework......................................83 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................87 References .................................................................................................................................... 91 Appendix A.................................................................................................................................105 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Top Five Initial Nodes in Frequency .............................................................................. 62 Table 2. Second Round Coding: Major Themes and Sub-themes ................................................ 63 8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Themes and Sub-ordinate Themes ................................................................................ 73 9 LIST OF ACRONYMS USC United States Code: The codified laws of the U.S., cited by title and chapter USSC United States Sentencing Commission: Agency responsible for promulgating the Sentencing Guidelines USSG United States Sentencing Guidelines: Compilation of recommended imprisonment ranges, in months, for use by federal judges 10 Chapter 1: Introduction The concept of the judicial system in the United States evokes a sense of fair administration of justice through fair and uniform punishment. One would expect that the penalties imposed on similarly-situated offenders should be relatively the same. Historically, this has not been the case, and disparities in sentences imposed on offenders have occurred. The issue of sentencing disparity has prompted a large number of studies by legal scholars, social scientists, and criminal justice professionals (see, e.g., Anderson et al., 1999; Frankel, 1972; Hartley & Tillyer, 2019; Kim et al., 2009; Logue, 2009; Saccomano, 2019; Spohn, 2005; Steffensmeier & Britt, 2001; Ulmer, 2011). The ability for a criminal defendant to be treated in a manner consistent with other criminal defendants, to be sentenced similarly for similar conduct, and to be judged by a judicial official whose analysis of the case will lead to a sentence consistent with other judges who have analyzed similar cases, is essential to