The place of public fear in sentencing and correctional policy

Public opinion about sentencing and correctional issues has emerged in recent decades as a salient topic in criminology. Empirical studies have suggested that the public has dynamic perceptions about these criminal justice issues. Sentencing and correctional policy have become key issues confronting legislators and policymakers, as correctional budgets and public interest in these areas have increased. Despite the focus on public opinion about sentencing and corrections, previous research has largely ignored how the public feels about the role of policymakers regarding these issues, and what influences opinions about whether public fear should be an important consideration in policy decisions. The current study partly replicated the work of Cullen and colleagues by examining perceptions of crime salience, crime causation, goals of the criminal justice system, and attitudes towards imprisonment and rehabilitation. It uniquely examined perceptions about the importance of legislator consideration of a specific determinant, namely, public fear, in decision making about sentencing and correctional policy.     

Crime,public opinion and trial courts: An analysis of sentencing policy

Much recent research on public opinion and trial courts demonstrates a link between local attitudes and sentencing in highly visible criminal cases. However, such crimes are not typical of most trial court work. Our research examines relationships between public opinion, crime rates, and sentencing in routine cases, including armed and unarmed robbery, burglary, larceny, and possession of narcotics. The research includes over 6000 cases and measures public opinion in all twenty of Florida's trial court circuits. Except for possession of narcotics, no significant correlations were discovered between public opinion and sentencing, but high crime rates generally produced lenient sentences. The research questions the impact of public opinion on most litigation and suggests that judicial elites usually act without concern for local public opinion.     

Economics of discriminatory sentencing

The legal and social professions have long been concerned with the problem of whether the fact that those incarcerated in prison tend to be drawn from the ranks of the poor unemployed and low social status is indicative of willful discrimination against the underprivileged. In this paper we apply the traditional analytical tools of economics to develop the conditions required for an efficient tradeoff between the probability of conviction and the length of prison sentence for both rich and poor. We show that the generally accepted approach of equal punishment for equal crimes tends to overdeter the rich and underdeter the poor, which results in a gross overrepresentation of the poor in the prison population. In order to eliminate this overrepresentation, the poor must receive a more severe sentence than the rich for an equivalent crime. This appears to contradict normal definitions of equity and we address this issue. We also show that an increase in the total crime budget when used efficiently must always result in longer sentences but can, under appropriate conditions, require a lower probability of apprehension.     

新闻媒体刑事扣押的界限

新闻媒体刑事扣押对刑事诉讼实体价值的实现具有重要意义，但是，由于其会影响到新闻自由以及采访自由，从而导致相应的利益冲突与对垒，因此，为保证体现于刑事扣押与新闻自由上的两种价值达到有机共生，二者都应当有一定的边界。对于这个问题，以德、日为代表的两种解决模式提供了范例，应当借鉴二者相关立法的精髓，从而为我国新闻媒体刑事扣押立法建言。     

Courts and sentencing research on contemporary China

As a leading player in the international community and the projected economic powerhouse in the twenty-first century, China's significance in the international community has been recognized around the world. The construction of its legal system, particularly the criminal justice system, has also received increasing global attention. As the cornerstone of the criminal justice system, the courts and sentencing laws and practices underlie many of the fundamental ideas of a fair and just legal system. This article reviews research on courts and sentencing in contemporary China published after 1990, focusing on the following three areas: (1) research on law and legal reforms with regard to courts and sentencing; (2) research on the determinants of criminal sentencing; and (3) research on capital punishment.     

What can be done against public corruption and fraud: Expert views on strategies to protect public integrity

A number of questions dominate the debate about public corruption and fraud. First of all, of course, there is the question of the content of these phenomena. What is corruption, what is fraud and how is it related to power abuse and public waste? Some scholars stress that these questions are unanswerable if ethnocentrism is to be avoided. Others are more positive about the possibility to grasp the central meaning of the concepts. A second type of questions has to do with understanding public corruption and fraud. To define a concept is something; to understand it is something different. Understanding means knowing the causes and consequences. To be able to understand it, corruption should be given a place in the framework of knowledge about public structure, culture and behavior. This is all but a simple endeavor because it will make a difference which theoretical and methodological framework is chosen as a starting point. This article seeks to avoid this obstacle by choosing an approach which could be categorized as pragmatic and eclectic, trying to discover whether there are causes which are seen as important by a variety of experts with different academical and occupational backgrounds: is there a common core present in different approaches? Third, there is the normative debate. What are the positive and negative consequences of corruption and fraud and how can cost and benefits be compared and judged? Nowadays, most scholars and practitioners in the field stress the negative consequences of public corruption and fraud. Such a critical attitude almost automatically leads to a fourth type of debate, about the question “what to do about it?”. Which methods and strategies are thinkable and what works? This subject is the central one in this article.     

Sentencing Guidelines and focal concerns: The effect of sentencing policy as a practical constraint on sentencing decisions

Contemporary research on criminal sentencing has analyzed sentencing under numerous sentencing policies, yet the effect of sentencing policy on outcomes and disparity is not known. A variety of sentencing guidelines systems, one of the more common sentencing policies, exists throughout the country. In addition, recent Supreme Court decisions regarding sentencing guidelines are likely to produce alterations to several state sentencing policies over the next few years. Using data from the state of Florida, the current study examines the effects of policy transformation on sentencing disparity within the focal concerns of sentencing perspective. The authors view sentencing guidelines as a practical constraint on sentencing decisions that influence other key variables. The results indicate that sentencing policy transformation has an important effect on both sentencing decisions and on the factors that shape those decisions. The findings suggest that future sentencing research and theoretical development would benefit from incorporating measures of policy differences in its analyses.     

The impact of determinate sentencing on prisoner misconduct

Purpose

The shift from indeterminate to determinate punishment policies over the past three decades may have the unintended consequence of increasing prisoner misconduct due to the elimination or reduction of parole and earned gain-time to provide incentives for inmates to comply with institutional rules. This paper advances the existing scholarship addressing this issue.

Methods

Data on a cohort of 305,228 inmates admitted to prison in Florida over a twelve year period before and after the enactment of a “truth-in-sentencing” law in 1995 requiring all felons sentenced to prison to serve a minimum 85% of their sentence are examined to assess the impact of determinate punishment on whether inmates commit disciplinary infractions and the frequency of misconduct.

Findings

The data show that determinate punishment has had the unintended consequence of significantly increasing the level of inmate misconduct in general and across different types of misconduct; violent, property, and disorderly.

Conclusion

The findings indicate that states which currently have or are considering the implementation of determinate sentencing should examine potential changes in policies and practices to alleviate the impact of reductions in inmate incentives to abide by institutional rules.     

公关如何撬动“社会媒体”

无处不公关的互联网时代，公关产业可以轻易搭上“社会媒体”的翅膀，但也需谨慎选择，以避免遭受大众质疑。     

The sentencing reform act of 1984: A bold approach to the unwarranted sentencing disparity problem

Conclusion In 1984, after years of study and thorough debate, a bipartisan majority of the Congress enacted perhaps the most far-reaching reform of the federal criminal justice system in the history of the United States. The Sentencing Reform Act and the federal sentencing guidelines are now beginning to produce data indicating that the objectives of avoiding unwarranted disparity and invidious discrimination are being achieved.After an uncertain beginning, the guidelines are gaining acceptance by courts and criminal justice practitioners. As one appellate court observed in admonishing lower courts that the guidelines must be respected:We have embarked on a new course. Only time will tell whether the use of the guidelines will result in an improvement over the old system. But unless we follow the spirit and written directions of the guidelines, we will never know if they have been given a fair test. They at least deserve that.Indeed, the bold new approach to sentencing that is being followed today in federal courthouses throughout the United States deserves an opportunity to succeed, given its many beneficial features and the lofty goals toward which the reforms are directed. While ample work remains for the United States Sentencing Commission to monitor and improve the guidelines, indications at this still early date are that the experiment is succeeding.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the fifth conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Parliament House, Edinburgh, Scotland, August 5–9, 1990. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Sentencing Commission.B.A., Davidson College 1964; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1967.B.A., Ohio State University 1974; M.S., Arizona State University 1980; M.A., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1983.B.S., Clemson University 1971; M.S., Clemson University 1975; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1978.     

One perspective on sentencing reform in the United States

Summary and Conclusion The most difficult part of constructing a system of criminal sentencing is to be able to give a rationale for each sentence. Historically, this has been an unsurmountable hurdle because it required reformers to resolve the irresolvable conflict between utility and desert as sentencing goals and to measure the immeasurably complex relative utility of the alterative utilitarian strategies of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The good news is that we need not try to leap these insurmountable hurdles: the greatest utility is found in a desert distribution of liability and punishment. By following desert, the criminal law can establish its moral credibility with the public and thereby harness the real sources of social control—the power of social sanctions and internalized norms. In the context of criminal sentencing, this means the system must establish a reputation for giving offenders the precise amount of punishment they deserve. Despite the utilitarian importance of desert, however, nondesert concerns can govern the selection of the sanctioning method. As long as the total punitive bite of all aspects of an offender’s sentence is what the offender deserves, judges otherwise can be left free to construct the sentence they think will best avoid future crime. With a system of punishment units and punishment equivalencies, a desert-based determination of the amount of punishment can co-exist with a selection of sanctioning methods looking to nondesert, utilitarian considerations, such as the need for deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. This essay is based upon lectures given at the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI) for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan. B.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1970; LL.M., Harvard University 1975; J.D., University of California-Los Angeles 1973; Dip. Leg. Stud., Cambridge University 1976.     

One perspective on sentencing reform in the United States

Summary and Conclusion The most difficult part of constructing a system of criminal sentencing is to be able to give a rationale for each sentence. Historically, this has been an unsurmountable hurdle because it required reformers to resolve the irresolvable conflict between utility and desert as sentencing goals and to measure the immeasurably complex relative utility of the alterative utilitarian strategies of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The good news is that we need not try to leap these insurmountable hurdles: the greatest utility is found in a desert distribution of liability and punishment. By following desert, the criminal law can establish its moral credibility with the public and thereby harness the real sources of social control—the power of social sanctions and internalized norms. In the context of criminal sentencing, this means the system must establish a reputation for giving offenders the precise amount of punishment they deserve. Despite the utilitarian importance of desert, however, nondesert concerns can govern the selection of the sanctioning method. As long as the total punitive bite of all aspects of an offender’s sentence is what the offender deserves, judges otherwise can be left free to construct the sentence they think will best avoid future crime. With a system of punishment units and punishment equivalencies, a desert-based determination of the amount of punishment can co-exist with a selection of sanctioning methods looking to nondesert, utilitarian considerations, such as the need for deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. This essay is based upon lectures given at the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI) for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan. B.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1970; LL.M., Harvard University 1975; J.D., University of California-Los Angeles 1973; Dip. Leg. Stud., Cambridge University 1976.     

An experimental study of sentencing by magistrates

A pilot study was carried out with 23 magistrates to develop a sentencing severity scale. An experiment was then conducted with 168 magistrates deciding sentences for simulated cases in 56 groups of three. The results showed that sentences were more severe when offenses were more serious, when offenders had a more serious criminal record, when offenders were male, and when offenders were of higher social status. The age of the offender, the race of the offender and victim, the plea, the prevalence of the offense, and whether breack of trust was involved, did not have significant effects on sentence severity. A comparison between real and simulated sentencing decisions showed that they were similar, and a comparison between individual and group decisions showed that the group decisions were more likely to be relatively severe than relatively lenient.This research was completed while Mr. Kapardis was supported by a Social Science Research Council studentship.     

量刑建议制度运作构思

为规范法官的自由裁量权，实现公平与正义，有必要实行量刑建议制度。量刑建议制度运作的核心在于，量刑规则的建立、量刑建议内容的详细而具体且在判决书中予以全部表达、量刑建议的庭审吏锋这三方面内容的确立。     

News media reporting on civil litigation and its influence on civil justice decision making

The news media have the potential to act as a powerful influence on the civil litigation system, influencing decision making in particular cases and on the system more generally as media reports influence the decision making of various participants in the system. This paper reviews the research that has examined the relationship between news media reporting and civil litigation and proposes a framework that integrates this work and provides guidance for future research efforts. Specifically, we discuss the nature of media reporting on civil litigation, perceptions of the civil litigation system held by the public and legal actors, and the potential influence of news reporting about civil litigation on the decision making of jurors, judges, civil litigants, and policymakers. Overall, the research suggests that news reporting of civil litigation presents a systematically distorted picture of civil litigation and that this reporting can influence perceptions and outcomes of civil litigation in various ways. However, there are many gaps in the existing research that need to be filled. The proposed organizational scheme helps to identify ways that future research can provide links between the findings of existing research and to identify ways in which this research can be extended to new areas.