The hidden discount: Examining racial disparity in the use of suspended sentences

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.