Police professionalism and cynicism reconsidered: An assessment of measurement issues

A hierarchical logistic model is used to analyze data on Three Strikes-eligible offenders in California and the counties in which they are sentenced. The analysis finds that discretion is widely exercised by elected prosecutors and judges in the administration of Three Strikes. Discretion functions as a “safety valve” and preserves some sentencing proportionality, but may also allow political concerns to influence sentencing decisions. A more conservative political environment is strongly associated with stricter application of the law. Consistent with racial threat theory, eligible felons are more likely to receive Three Strikes sentences in counties with larger Latino populations. However, the size of the black population has no significant effect. Higher unemployment rates are associated with more stringent application of the law. Prosecutorial and judicial discretion benefits offenders unequally. Controlling for legally relevant factors, black offenders are more likely to receive Three Strikes sentences, while younger ones are less likely.     

实用主义审判:一种结果导向的判决理论——读麦考密克《法律推理与法律理论》

与强调“依法裁判”的严格适法模式不同的是,英美法学理论推崇一种强调“后果考量”的实用主义审判哲学,即法官以判决可能导致的结果为依据而非绝时按照制定法规则决定裁判的内容。这种司法哲学由于违背了立法和司法的分权关系等理论而引起了很多严厉的理论批判。但是不容否认的是,实用主义审判哲学在各国司法实践中都实际地存在着,对于过于压制法官裁量权限的大陆法系国家而言,如果控制得当,实用主义司法甚至能起到诸多有益的功能,并可以借其消解严格适法模式带来的某些僵化之处。     

Assessing the influence of the Columbine shooting on federal sentencing outcomes

School shootings are not a new phenomenon in the United States or internationally. In comparison to other acts of violence experienced by youth, such tragedies are uncommon but garner extensive media attention. The Columbine High School shooting received more attention across a broader range of issues than any other school shooting, with only the Sandy Hook tragedy rivaling it for media attention. In the aftermath of the Columbine shooting, public sentiment regarding violence in schools became a central point of contention that bred fear and panic. Given the embeddedness of judges within the larger community context and the effects of community characteristics on sentencing outcomes, we wondered if the Columbine shooting – via moral panic and community upheaval – might have had an impact on judges imposing criminal sentences. To assess the effect of the Columbine shooting on judicial decision-making outcomes, the current study uses United States Sentencing Commission data from 1998 through 2001. In doing so, it contributes to the extant literature concerning the embeddedness of judges within communities and answers recent call for more research on the temporal context of sentencing disparities.     

论量刑规范化的实现路径——以刑罚差异性为切入点

量刑是法官在遵循犯罪事实和刑法规范的基础上,运用自身经验和司法逻辑进行理性判断的过程,科学的量刑结果不可能完全整齐划一。电脑或数学量刑均无法代替法官自身经验和智慧。因此量刑规范化的实现,有赖于在立法完善的前提下,发挥和提高法官自身的司法智慧。     

中国量刑程序改革：误区与正道

对抗化的量刑程序改革试点效果不尽如意,某种程度上可以归因于制度改革所赖于支撑的理论根据。该理论认为,量刑制度的主要问题是量刑程序不公正,解决之道是借鉴英美模式,建立对抗式量刑程序。然而,真正引起社会普遍关注乃至广泛质疑的是量刑不均衡与量刑僵化问题,这主要是实体法问题;认为英美法系在传统上采用对抗式量刑程序的观点在一定程度上也是对英美法系量刑制度与实践的误读。未来的量刑制度改革应以实体性改革为主,程序性改革为辅;而在量刑程序改革方面,不宜大改,可以小改或微调。     

The dynamics of unemployment and imprisonment in England and Wales, 1946–1985

This paper explores the dynamic relationship between unemployment and prison admissions in the English criminal justice system. First, by adopting econometric procedures designed to test between alternative forms of dynamic equilibria, it finds that there has been a steady-state growth rate in prison admissions and that unemployment growth has played an important role in determining that equilibrium. Second, by developing a behavioral model of judicial expectations, it argues that judges have used their expectations as heuristic devices for simplifying sentencing decisions and that the unanticipated changes in unemployment have played a key role in determining changes in sentencing patterns. Due to individualized sentencing practices characteristic of English judges, unemployment plays a much larger role in determining prison sentences than warranted under Anglo-American legal traditions.     

Risks of Criminal Victimization in Contemporary Urban China: An Application of Lifestyle/Routine Activities Theory

The philosophical underpinnings of youth courts rest on the notion that youths are less culpable and more reformable than adults. Some scholars argue that, ideally, when sentencing youth crime, judges should engage youthful offenders in moral communication to elicit change. But do they? What more generally do judges say to the youths? This paper analyzes the frequency and content of judicial censure and moral communication in the sentencing of youth sex offenders. Drawing on the sentencing remarks for 55 sexual violence cases, we examine the ways in which judges interact with youths and censure the offenses, and what, if any, normative guidance they give concerning gender, sexuality, and violence. We found that in most but not all cases, the judges censured the offending as both a moral and legal wrong. However, they spent more time discussing a youth’s future than past behavior, as they sought to elicit change. The judges did not degrade or exclude the offenders; rather, they addressed them in a spirit of reintegration, as worthy individuals with future potential. Although the judges set norms of appropriate sexual behavior to the youths when the offense victims were children, they did not always do so when victims were female peers. In this Youth Court, “real rape” was sexual offending by a youth against a child under 12 years of age. By contrast, in about one‐fifth of cases, all of which occurred against a female peer, the offending was censured only as a legal wrong (a “pseudo censure”) and less likely subject to judicial norm setting.     

Sentencing Recommendations by Probation Officers and Judges: An Examination of Adult Offenders Across Gender

Connecting the courtroom workgroup model with attributions and stereotyping based on the focal concerns perspective and gender sentencing literature, the present study investigates the extent to which probation officer recommendations influence judicial sentencing, and whether the gender of the offender further conditions this relationship. Results from logistic and ordinary least squares regression indicate that there is concordance between probation officer recommendations and sentencing by judges. Offender gender has both direct and indirect effects on judicial sentencing through its relationship with probation officer recommendations, and Black males tend to receive lengthier sentences than other race/gender counterparts. These findings provide evidence that probation officer recommendations are an important part of the sentencing process and offer additional insight on how extralegal factors such as gender and race impact criminal justice decision making.     

PATHWAYS TO SEX-BASED DIFFERENTIATION IN CRIMINAL COURT SENTENCING

Using a matched sampling method, this research examined the process of sex-based differentiation in sentencing outcomes for 194 men and 194 women, sentenced over a seven-year period in Christchurch, New Zealand. Consistent with past research, our results showed that judicial processing treated women more leniently than men. Path analyses revealed that judges were less likely to sentence women than men to imprisonment terms because of gendered information and decisions made earlier in the judicial process, such as criminal history, length of custodial remands, and pre-sentence recommendations by probation officers. In contrast, judges exercised considerable leniency towards women (compared with men) in setting the length of prison terms, even after statistically controlling for all sex-differentiated factors such as criminal history. Explanations and implications are discussed.     

英美两国刑事法官的证据调查权评析

人们长期认为,英美法系的法官在法庭上一般是消极、被动地听审,却不能积极调查证据。事实上,英美两国的立法与审判实践却表明:法官可以询问证人、传唤证人出庭,或进行"庭外勘验"。尤其在没有陪审团参与的审判中,法官能更加主动地调查证据。这说明,英美两国的刑事法官并非完全消极、被动,特别是当庭审主体变为一元的职业法官时,他因对案件事实最终负责,而更加具有调查证据的天然冲动。由此可见,中国刑事法官在庭审中无需亦不能塑造成纯粹的仲裁者角色,而应保留适当的且受到法律合理规制的证据调查权。     

HOW JUDGES THINK ABOUT RACIAL DISPARITIES: SITUATIONAL DECISION‐MAKING IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*

Researchers have theorized how judges’ decision‐making may result in the disproportionate presence of Blacks and Latinos in the criminal justice system. Yet, we have little evidence about how judges make sense of these disparities and what, if anything, they do to address them. By drawing on 59 interviews with state judges in a Northeastern state, we describe, and trace the implications of, judges’ understandings of racial disparities at arraignment, plea hearings, jury selection, and sentencing. Most judges in our sample attribute disparities, in part, to differential treatment by themselves and/or other criminal justice officials, whereas some judges attribute disparities only to the disparate impact of poverty and differences in offending rates. To address disparities, judges report employing two categories of strategies: noninterventionist and interventionist. Noninterventionist strategies concern only a judge's own differential treatment, whereas interventionist strategies concern other actors’ possible differential treatment, as well as the disparate impact of poverty and facially neutral laws. We reveal how the use of noninterventionist strategies by most judges unintentionally reproduces disparities. Through our examination of judges’ understandings of racial disparities throughout the court process, we enhance understandings of American racial inequality and theorize a situational approach to decision‐making in organizational contexts.     

Prison sentences: last resort or the default sanction?

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the sentencing purposes for penal penalties, judges’ perceptions of sentencing purposes and prison sentences, and the effects of penal sanctions. We examine judges’ positions towards different penalties, with a focus on imprisonment, since their views on the different penalties are related to their sentencing decision-making. Understanding these views is then critical for several practical and political purposes, including bridging the gap between academic discourse and legal practice. We accessed judges’ views on penal sanctions through a questionnaire and an interview. Our sample is compounded by the judges of the criminal courts from the three major cities in Portugal. Despite the most recent criminological empirical knowledge, judges valued imprisonment as the most adequate sentence, both for different crimes and for different judicial purposes. This result is not consistent with viewing imprisonment as a ‘last resort’ solution. Indeed, we did not find this ‘last resort’ position in our data, and it is not apparent in the judicial statistics on imprisonment rates. Our data highlight the importance of increasing judges’ training on criminological and sociological issues as well as the importance of changing the influence of their personal beliefs regarding penal sanctions into research-based positions.     

被害人视角与刑法理论的重构

被害人的公法主体地位的确立构成在刑事实体法领域引入被害人视角的正当性根据。整合规范的被害人视角之于刑事实体法具有重要的意义。它不仅将促成对刑罚、危害、刑事责任等基本范畴的重构,而且对刑事立法、刑法解释与司法推理具有指导作用,同时还影响到量刑理论及实务。     

Fitness to be sentenced: a historical, comparative and practical review

A Canadian judicial decision recently held that a person convicted of a criminal offence who suffered a substantial deterioration in mental condition since the trial could be found unfit to be sentenced. The court based its conclusion on both historical arguments and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are compelling justifications for recognizing this concept. The paper looks at the history of fitness and how the sentencing phase became disconnected from claims of unfitness in the late 19th century. It then considers theoretical justifications based on fairness, viewing sentencing as a moral discourse, and the effect of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Because of the number of practical questions that need to be addressed before implementing a concept of unfitness at the sentencing stage, the paper looks at some common law jurisdictions for guidance: Australia, New Zealand, and the American states of New York, Illinois, Connecticut, and Ohio. From these comparisons comes the idea of a "provisional cap". That is, the recognition of unfitness at the sentencing stage should be followed by a form of sentencing that takes into account the gravity of the offence, the prosecutor's position, any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors that can be adduced, and then results in a "provisional" sentence, whether custodial or community-based, which stays in effect until the offender becomes fit. The paper ends with a model that incorporates this approach while providing both that offenders will be confined, if necessary, in hospitals and not prisons, and also that the dispositions will be reviewed annually to ensure that the least restrictive and least onerous sanctions are imposed.     

论罪刑均衡的司法模式

罪刑均衡原则作为刑法的一个重要基本原则,是支撑刑法学发展的一个重要指标。在具体的司法实践中,错综复杂的案情以及层出不穷的社会问题,为实现刑法的公平正义以及追求最为均衡的刑罚裁量,带来了不小困难。现代文明社会要求严格恪守罪刑法定原则,罪刑均衡更成为一个司法层面的问题。然而,司法的过程是复杂的,在司法的过程中,司法界精英们发挥了重要的引导和规范功能。通过对刑罚裁量过程中各种辩证关系的分析和论证,努力寻求一种适合我国国情的罪刑均衡的司法模式。因此,在刑罚裁量的过程中,既要实现公平与效率的平衡,又要从法益侵害及行为人特质二元的衡量标准出发,实现应罚性与需罚性的平衡。最后,以刑罚的效果和民众的接受度作为刑罚适当的重要衡量标准,将刑罚裁量的量刑法理学模式与量刑社会学模式有机结合起来,并建议引入量刑听证制度,从司法的层面积极实现罪刑的均衡。     

Exploring the relationship between sentencing and the legitimacy of trial justice

This paper argues that recent sustained criticism of judicial sentencing in England and Wales reflects a much deeper malaise afflicting the legitimacy of punishment in the late post-modern era. It suggests that this phenomenon not only threatens the liberal-consensus view of the judiciary as pivotal to the rule of law, but also undermines the rationality which underpins conventional paradigms of criminal justice more generally. The paper goes on to argue that there are important lessons to be learned from engaging with the debates about punishment and sentencing which are taking place on the international stage, suggesting that the crisis in domestic sentencing is really symptomatic of a more fundamental crisis in penal legitimacy affecting the whole of civil society; one that touches upon the role of punishment in the governance of so-called democratic states. The paper concludes that the time may have come to modify the predominant neo-liberal paradigm prevalent in western democracies by developing notions of punishment and sentencing as relational contexts which provide meaningful links between trial outcomes and aspirations for justice.     

Judges’ sentencing decisions with older offenders

Older offenders tend to be treated with more leniency in the criminal justice system. A number of studies show that older offenders are less likely to be incarcerated, and when they are incarcerated, are more likely to receive shorter sentences. However, to date, no research has directly examined why such leniency occurs. This study asked U.S. state trial court judges to reflect on their sentencing practices with older offenders and to rate the factors considered most important when sentencing this population. Responses were received from 212 judges. Only 31% of judges acknowledged treating older offenders with greater leniency. These judges also indicated that they predominantly rely on legal factors when making decisions about sentencing with older offenders rather than factors specifically associated with age. Only cognitive impairment was identified by judges as one of the five most important factors to consider when sentencing older offenders. These results are discussed in terms of judges’ awareness of how they weigh information to make legal decisions. The influence of judges’ age and attitudes about aging on sentencing decisions are also explored.     

Similar Facts in Civil Cases

This essay evaluates the recent restatement in O’Brienv Chief Constable of South Wales Police of the law on similarfacts in civil proceedings. The two-stage approach propoundedin O’Brien contains a number of conceptual problems. Apparentsimplicity was achieved by avoiding fundamental issues underlyingthis area. Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, judges recognizedthat the common law similar facts rule had a role to play inboth civil and criminal trials; but they gave the rule a widerexclusionary scope in criminal than in civil cases. Adoptionof a moral perspective helps to explain this state of affairs.The rule, so it will be argued, protects the legitimacy of trialdeliberation by forbidding reliance on an assumption that disrespectsthe moral autonomy of the person whose conduct is being judged.This moral objection can arise in civil cases; but it arisesmore frequently and usually with greater force in criminal proceedings.Hence, while there is a need to reserve some judicial powerto disallow proof of similar incidents in the civil context,there is usually less reason for the exercise of that powerin civil cases than at criminal trials.     

Sentencing Contempt of Court in International Criminal Justice: An Unforeseen Problem Concerning Sentencing and Penalties

International criminal tribunals, like any criminal court, havebeen faced with offences against the administration of justice,such as contempt of court. The power of the UN ad hoc Tribunalsto punish these offences has raised problematic issues mainlyconcerning respect for the principle of legality (includingfrequent amendments to contempt-provisions, and the substantialincrease of the sentencing frame for contempt within only afew years). This article seeks to clarify some aspects concerningapplicable penalties and sentencing for contempt of court throughthe examination of the case law of the ad hoc Tribunals andthe Special Court for Sierra Leone, discussing its implicationsfor the principle of legality. It is argued that the processfollowed in sentencing contempt is in many aspects not dissimilarto the traditional judicial practice of the Tribunals concerningpurposes of punishment, aggravating and mitigating circumstancesand guilty pleas.     

Gender dynamics in the sentencing of white-collar offenders

Theory and empirical research often have agreed that female and white-collar offenders benefit from leniency at the sentencing stage of criminal justice system processing. An untested research question emerging from these distinct bodies of literature is whether the greatest leniency is afforded to female white-collar offenders. We investigate the individual and interactive influences of gender and white-collar conviction on judicial leniency by analyzing Florida sentencing guidelines data from 1994 to 2004 using multinomial logistic regression to model the decision to incarcerate nonviolent economic offenders in jail or prison rather than sentence them to community control. Results indicate that female street offenders sentenced by male judges receive the most lenient sentences, while male offenders are punished the harshest regardless of the gender of the sentencing judge or type of crime. Theoretical and policy implications of the findings are discussed in terms of focal concerns, familial paternalism, and attributional perspectives on judicial decision-making.