Questioning Blackmun's Thesis: Does Uniformity in Sentencing Entail Unfairness?

It is commonly believed among criminal justice scholars that sentencing guidelines increase uniformity in sentencing at the cost of fairness. They reason that guideline systems rarely take all relevant case characteristics into consideration, and as a result, impose sentences in particular cases that are biased relative to the ideal or best sentence. This bias effect is one of the primary theoretical and practical challenges faced by courts and sentencing commissions in the last 30 years, and provides one of the strongest arguments against mandatory sentencing guidelines. This article identifies a second effect of guidelines on fairness, which has not been sufficiently acknowledged by the scholarly literature: the variance effect increases the fairness of sentences directly by increasing uniformity. This article uses statistical simulation to examine the relationship between the variance effect and the bias effect. The results provide substantial evidence that the variance effect is comparatively large, and that it may often outweigh the negative effects of bias. Under these conditions, sentencing guidelines will both increase uniformity and increase fairness.     

COURT COMMUNITIES UNDER SENTENCING GUIDELINES: DILEMMAS OF FORMAL RATIONALITY AND SENTENCING DISPARITY

Efforts to structure sentencing through guidelines involve a fundamental dilemma for the sociology of law—guidelines attempt to emphasize formal rationality and uniformity (Savelsberg, 1992) while allowing discretion to tailor sentences to fit situations and characteristics of individual defendants when courts deem it warranted (substantive rationality). This exercise of substantive rationality in sentencing based on "extralegal" criteria deemed relevant by local court actors risks the kind of unwarranted disparity that guidelines were intended to reduce. We view local courts as arenas in which two sets of sentencing standards meet—formal rational ones articulated by guidelines vs. substantive, extralegal criteria deemed relevant by local court actors. We use statistical and qualitative data from Pennsylvania, a state whose courts have operated under sentencing guidelines for over a decade. Our analysis examines extralegal differences in three county courts' sentencing outcomes, and then documents ways in which substantive rational sentencing criteria are intertwined with defendants' exercise of their right to trial and their race and gender.     

Ordinary Sentences for Extraordinary Crimes

In comparison to sentences meted out by international tribunalsat Nuremberg, Tokyo and Arusha, and by domestic courts, sentenceshanded down at the International Criminal Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia (ICTY) have been inexplicably lenient. Factors thatmay have contributed to the high proportion of low sentencesat the ICTY include undue emphasis on mitigating factors, particularlythose of particular importance to the Tribunal, the use of pleaagreements, the absence of a separate sentencing hearing followingconviction and the practice of using global (rather than separate)sentences. To make sentences more proportionate to the crimescommitted, the objectives of sentencing should be clarifiedand re-evaluated. Greater weight should be given to deterrence.In assessing the gravity of the offence, the quantum of harmcaused to and suffering experienced by direct and indirect victimsof the crime merits more detailed evaluation. The importanceof mitigating circumstances (such as combating historical revisionism,pleading guilty, expressing remorse and voluntary surrender)should continue to be fully recognized but those factors shouldnot attract excessive weight. Plea bargaining and plea agreementsshould be encouraged because they are indispensable to the Tribunal,an institution with significant temporal, practical and resourcelimitations. The sentencing process should take place afterconviction. A sentencing Chamber should be obliged to statethe starting point of the sentence which it deems appropriateand then quantify the discounts it gives to each mitigatingfactor. Greater consideration should be given to imposing consecutiverather than concurrent sentences. The decision not to adoptsentencing guidelines represents a missed opportunity.     

Sentencing Councils and Victims

This article explores the place victims have, and should have, in bodies that formulate sentencing guidelines, with particular reference to sentencing guidelines in England and Wales and the Sentencing Council's obligation under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to have regard to ‘the impact of sentencing decisions on victims of offences’ when devising guidelines. The issues are situated in political and penological contexts; the place of victims in sentencing commissions or advisory bodies in the USA, England and Australia is analysed and the meaning and significance of the Sentencing Council's obligation towards victims is considered, relating the specific obligation to broader issues concerning the place of victims within bodies that formulate sentencing guidelines. While incorporating victims within sentencing commissions might undermine commissions’ aims, it can play an important role in helping to boost public confidence in criminal justice, a touchstone for all western governments’ criminal justice policies.     

Is the Offense Serious Axis Free of Extralegal Influence?: Assessing the Predictors of a ‘Legally Relevant’ Guideline Criterion

Grid based sentencing guidelines, composed of offense seriousness and offender criminal history axis, have become a staple of US sentencing in recent decades. As such, extensive research explores whether they reduce extralegal sentence disparity. However, to date, no study has examined whether extralegal disparity is present in how either axis of guideline sentencing are constructed. Using federal sentencing commission data along with both single and multi-level analyses, this research explores the legal and extralegal factors that predict one of these key grid axes: the offense seriousness score. The results call into question not only some assumptions underlying guideline sentencing but also recent analytical strategies for assessing sentencing outcomes in guideline systems.     

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING DEPARTURES ACROSS MODES OF CONVICTION*

Recent analyses of guideline sentencing practices have demonstrated that sentences departing from guidelines serve as a significant locus of racial/ethnic and other extralegal disparity. Little is known, however, about the ways that different courtroom processes, such as modes of conviction, condition these effects. Using recent data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS), I analyze the overall effects of race/ethnicity and other factors on judicial decisions to depart from the sentencing guidelines, and then I reexamine these relationships according to four modes of conviction (non‐negotiated pleas, negotiated pleas, bench trials, and jury trials). I argue that the mode of conviction provides a useful indicator of the differential exercise of discretion by different courtroom actors in the sentencing process. As such, it is likely to condition the use of stereotypical patterned responses, thus moderating the effects of race/ethnicity and other relevant sentencing factors. Findings support this expectation, demonstrating that extralegal effects vary considerably across modes of conviction. These results raise important questions about the role of different courtroom actors in contributing to racial and ethnic disparities under sentencing guidelines.     

论劳动合同法的立法宗旨

立法宗旨集中地体现了一部法律的基本价值判断准则。从《劳动合同法》立法过程中的激烈争辩可以看出,立法宗旨问题关乎我们对劳动合同法的定位以及对其根本性质的认识。在承继劳动法立法宗旨的基础上,倾斜保护的社会法思路应该成为劳动合同法的基本指导思想。     

Short‐ versus long‐term effects of Ohio's switch to more structured sentencing on extralegal disparities in prison sentences in an urban court*

Research Summary The impact of Ohio's presumptive guidelines on sentencing disparities was examined for one of the state's largest jurisdictions to determine whether the switch to more structured sentencing in 1996 had any enduring effects. Sentencing patterns were examined both before and shortly after the 1996 reform, as well as 9 years later. Findings revealed weaker race and marital status effects on imprisonment under guidelines versus stronger age effects, no changes in disparities based on a defendant's sex and means of support, and (virtually) no changes in the magnitude of legally relevant effects. Policy Implications Ohio's guidelines are more flexible relative to other guideline schemes, possibly accounting for the general stability in effects across regimes. Ohio has since transitioned to voluntary guidelines, which raised concerns that the change will yield higher levels of sentencing disparities. Findings suggest that the transition may coincide with no changes in legal effects, yet with greater disparities based on a defendant's race and marital status.     

Life or death decisions

The penalty phase deliberation experiences of capital jurors guided by the “special issues” sentencing instructions were investigated. These instructions ask jurors to consider three specific issues to determine whether a defendant should receive a sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty: whether the crime was committed deliberately; whether there is a probability that the defendant would pose a continuing threat to society; and whether the conduct of the defendant was unreasonable in light of any provocation on the part of the victim. In-depth interviews with 27 jurors explored the organization of the penalty deliberation, the topics discussed, influential factors in the decision-making process, the impact of sentencing instructions, the importance of the possibility of parole, and the stress associated with capital jury service. Jurors relied heavily on sentencing instructions to guide their deliberations and to determine their responsibilities. Future dangerousness and the possibility of parole were critical considerations in deciding between life and death. Although jurors found the capital trial to be stressful, most believed that the life or death decision should be made by jurors. Findings are discussed in light of constitutional concerns about the administration of the death penalty.     

Determinate sentencing, formal rationality, and khadi justice in Maine: An application of Weber's typology

In the 1980s over twenty-five jurisdictions, including Maine, changed their sentencing policies. Nevertheless, only a few states approximated the goal of determinancy proposed by advocates of reform. Recent extensions of Weber's work on law finding to the area of punishment provide a means to reconceptualize the problem addressed by advocates of determinacy. This article refocuses debates about sentencing reform in terms of Weber's concept of formal rationality.It explains why one state—Maine—did not reduce judicial disparities and why determinacy failed to be introduced. Sentences from an experiment conducted among all members of Maine's judiciary are compared with guideline sentences in two states—Minnesota and Pennsylvania. This comparison clearly supports national criticism of Maine's failure to reduce judicial disparities in sentences. It is concluded that widespread sentencing disparities in Maine result from a criminal code legitimating substantively irrational decisionmaking or khadi justice. No attempt was made to move toward a formally rational system advocated by proponents of determinacy.     

EVALUATING THE COOK COUNTY SENTENCING GUIDELINES

This article examines the empirical basis for current criminal sentencing guidelines being used in Cook County, Illinois. Unlike in many other sentencing reforms, guidelines have generally been developed out of an empirical analysis of past sentencing decisions through the identification of variables most predictive of sentence. However, when the statistical analysis is inadequate or faulty, the resultant sentencing guidelines must be questioned. Presented is a reanalysis of the original data used to develop Cook County's sentencing guidelines. Generally, the current sentencing guidelines used in Cook County are not found to be predictive of sentence. Implications of this finding are discussed.     

量刑思维规律下的量刑方法构建

量刑在本质上不是＂刑之量化＂,而是＂刑之裁量＂。这决定了量刑思维不只是形式逻辑思维或辩证逻辑思维,而是二者的有机统一。量刑方法作为量刑思维的表现手段,需遵循量刑思维的以上逻辑规律。传统的经验量刑法虽然是辩证逻辑思维的充分展现,但没有融入现代形式逻辑的现代科技手段;而所谓现代量刑方法虽然使用了现代科技手段,但又只是遵循现代形式逻辑规律,规避了辩证逻辑规律。刑法现代化下的量刑方法构建,应是基于量刑思维的逻辑规律,把传统经验量刑法与各所谓现代量刑方法进行整合,以形成定量与定性相结合的量刑方法。     

Structuring Judicial Discretion in China: Exploring the 2014 Sentencing Guidelines

In recent years, a range of western jurisdictions has introduced reforms designed to restrict and guide judicial discretion at sentencing. The reforms enacted include mandatory sentencing laws and guiding statutes prescribing sentencing purposes and principles as well as important aggravating and mitigating factors. However, formal guidelines are the most promising and well-studied innovation. We may now add China to the growing list of countries that have recognized the utility of guidelines. Over the past decade, China has slowly developed sentencing guidelines for its courts. The new guidelines contain both general directions with respect to the determination of sentence as well as specific numerical guidelines for common offences. The guidelines do not follow the approach taken by the US schemes, many of which employ a two-dimensional sentencing grid. Instead, China has adopted a strategy consisting of “Starting Point” sentences which are then adjusted by the court to reflect relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. This approach is much closer to the guidelines developed in England and Wales and those proposed but not yet implemented in New Zealand and Israel. In this article, we explore the new Chinese guidelines and provide a limited comparative analysis with guidelines in other jurisdictions. England and Wales is selected as the principal comparator since it has developed and implemented a comprehensive system consisting of both offence-specified guidelines as well as generic guidelines.     

Attitudes toward sentencing guidelines and simulated sentencing among Missouri circuit court judges

This study examines attitudes toward sentencing guidelines and simulated sentencing practices among Missouri circuit court judges. In addition, the study investigates the efficacy of sentencing workshops by comparing judges who attended or did not attend workshops. All Missouri circuit court judges were mailed surveys and 97 judges responded. Results indicated that judges generally felt positive toward Missouri’s voluntary sentencing guidelines, but often failed to refer to the guidelines when sentencing sample cases. Attendance at a sentencing workshop was not associated with attitudes about Missouri sentencing guidelines or sentencing in simulated cases. Sentencing in simulated cases varied by nature of the crime and circuit type. Judges from metropolitan areas tended to sentence more leniently than judges from rural areas. In their written comments, many judges expressed fear about the possibility of mandatory guidelines. Results suggest that there is ambivalence among Missouri judges over the acceptance and use of sentencing guidelines.     

故意杀人罪的死刑裁量基准——“丁汉忠案”的文本梳理和法理审视

目前我国有关故意杀人罪中死刑裁量因素的审查难有真切、统一的基准,而在司法实践中对相关刑法条文含义的理解和阐释较为草率;最高人民法院的指导性案例体现的裁判趣旨未得到充分领会;各量刑因素的作用莫衷一是、标准不一,“估堆”量刑的困境萦绕其间,因而须探索故意杀人罪中相对合理的死刑裁量基准。具体而言,须区分各量刑因素的轻重、位阶,建构以责任刑为主、预防刑为辅的死刑裁量基准。至于是否入围死刑圈主要是仰仗责任刑阶段的判断。若责任刑阶段均是从严因素,基本会入围死刑圈的审查。死刑圈内的三种准刑种如何抉择,取决于对行为人的人身危险性判断。在预防刑阶段若均是从宽因素,一般死缓的判决即可满足要求;若从宽因素和从严因素交错,死缓限制减刑的判决基本可满足要求;若只有从严因素,则有判决死刑立即执行的可能。     

From Disparity in Sentencing Towards Sentencing Equality: The German Experience

This article addresses movements in Germany towards greater uniformity in sentencing since the entry into force of the first federal criminal code in 1871, with a particular focus on developments since the second half of the twentieth century. The author reviews the empirical evidence for sentence disparity; addresses the limitations of the constitutional principle of equality as a means for overcoming sentencing disparity; identifies the causes of sentence disparity and tracks practical efforts made to overcome that disparity, specifically through the introduction of prosecutorial guidelines and judicial manuals for certain frequent types of offending. He also explains and critiques different theoretical models for increasing sentencing equality, and reviews the advantages and potential uses of sentencing information systems such as a judgment database created in Japan. The author then turns to the contribution made by the appellate courts to greater uniformity in sentencing and expresses the hope that recent trends towards intensified guidance for trial courts in appeals concerning tax offences will be extended to other types of offences as well.     

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。     

Lay Participation in Danish Crime Trials: On the Interaction between Lay and Professional Judges during Deliberation

While there is abundant research on common law jury systems, we know less about lay participation in civil law crime trials, often called ‘mixed courts’ or alternately ‘mixed tribunals'. Here, a professional judge and a number of lay judges deliberate together on the issues of guilt and sentencing. This joint deliberation has naturally led both public opinion and research to focus on power relations such as lay judges’ dependence on the professional judges. Based on an ethnographic study of deliberation processes, the present article offers a different perspective on lay judges’ contribution and argues that their decision making rests on a hybrid construction of knowledge in the continuous interaction between the professional judge and lay participants during deliberation. The analysis of this decision‐making process contributes to our understanding of how ordinary people selected for this civic duty create knowledge about justice.