By Gabriel Silveira de Queirós Campos, Américo Bedê Jr., Aline Pires de Angeli Ferreira

This article presents the findings of a quantitative study on sentencing practices in Brazil, focusing on the presence of numerical patterns and “penal clustering” in judicial decisions. Drawing on a dataset of criminal sentences from São Paulo—the country's most populous and active judiciary—the research statistically investigates whether Brazilian judges display preferences for certain sentence lengths, such as even numbers, “round numbers,” and multiples of 6 months. The study also examines the role of numerical fractions in shaping sentence variability. Despite Brazil's civil law tradition and the absence of formal sentencing guidelines, the results reveal a significant degree of penal clustering, with judges consistently relying on a narrow set of sentencing values. These patterns suggest the influence of cognitive heuristics, particularly “anchoring effects,” in sentencing decisions. While the use of numerical fractions may enhance consistency and predictability, it may also constrain individualization—raising concerns about mechanical decision-making and reduced responsiveness to case-specific circumstances. The article discusses the implications of these findings for judicial training, institutional reform, and public policy. It argues for a more data-informed and psychologically aware approach to sentencing, capable of balancing the dual demands of consistency and individualization within both common law and civil law traditions.

By Kevin Petersen, Brian D. Johnson, Allison D. Redlich, Miranda A. Galvin

Extant research on criminal sentencing generally concludes that racial/ethnic disparity is concentrated in the “in–out” decision, and that racial differences in sentence lengths are small and inconsistent. However, sentence length analyses rarely focus on the fact that criminal sentences are often partially or fully suspended, creating situations in which the sentence formally imposed differs from the sentence served. In many jurisdictions, suspended sentencing is used widely and is a highly discretionary decision that carries considerable potential to mask racial inequality in punishment. This study uses 24 years of sentencing guideline data (2000–2023) from the state of Maryland to test for racial/ethnic disparity in the use of suspended sentences. Using a novel modeling approach capable of simultaneously estimating the probability of receiving a fully suspended sentence, a fully executed sentence, and variation in the proportion of the total sentence suspended, we test for racial disparities in the application of suspended sentencing outcomes. We identify significant and meaningful disparities in suspended sentences that are largest for minority defendants convicted at trial. However, we also find that this disparity has been declining over time. Ultimately, we emphasize the importance of distinguishing between active and suspended sentences in ongoing research on punishment inequalities.