Statute has long been clear that a convict's need for rehab can't be used as a reason to imprison him (as opposed to probation), but before Tapia, circuits were split on whether or not the need for rehabilitation can be used to lengthen a sentence (after the prison/probation decision has been made). In Tapia, the SC ruled that a sentence cannot be lengthened due to a convict's need for rehab. After the decision, the circuits quickly split again. Some circuits allow a sentencing judge to consider rehab during sentencing, as long as it isn't the dominant factor or doesn't explicitly lead to a longer sentence (judges often list a litany of reasons as to why they are passing a particular sentence, and removing/adding a reason would not necessarily change the sentence). Others say that any consideration of rehab during sentencing violates Tapia. The before-and-after splits look like this:
Post-Tapia | ||||
Not Permitted | Silent | Permitted | ||
Pre-Tapia | Not Permitted | 7th, 10th, 11th | DC | 2nd, 3rd |
Silent | 1st, 4th | |||
Permitted | 9th | 5th, 6th, 8th |
Does this sound like the best plan to you guys? I'll obviously use as many controlling variables as I can, and I'm not worried about the law side of things. Is there a different tool I could use that could use the reshuffle to my advantage and show me the separate effects of both the end of the first split and the onset of another? Any advice specific to Stata? Thanks.
(To avoid duplicated efforts, please know that I've cross-posted with StackExchange here: https://stats.stackexchange.com/ques...ervening-event.)
0 Response to Difference-in-differences or something else? Regrouping after an intervening event.
Post a Comment