Logos and Pathos in Sentencing Dr William Parry

The focus of this article is on the sentencing remarks concerning a sixteenth century Welsh traitor. Before analysis of the logos track, thematic structure and the surface tropes of these remarks, the origins of this genre from 1307 are examined, demonstrating their formal drafted style and the extemporised style that fully emerged in 1600, which was presaged in the remarks examined here. The discussion that follows the analysis is in five sections which cover the external impacts on this genre; on sentencing remarks in genre theory; on sentencing remarks and social conflict; on censure and sanctions; and on sentencing remarks in the liturgy of criminal process.     

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.     

Sentencing data-driven cybercrime. How data crime with cascading effects is tackled by UK courts

This paper contributes to research seeking to understand if and how legislation can effectively counter cybercrimes that compromise personal data. These ‘data crimes’, which are the ‘dark side’ of big data and the data economy enabled by cloud computing, display cascading effects, in that they empower disparate criminals to commit further crimes and victimise a broad range of individuals or data subjects. The paper addresses the under-researched area of sentencing, which, as the last step of the judicial process, plays a crucial role in how the law is interpreted and implemented.This paper investigates courts’ approach to the evolving technological environment of cybercrime captured by data crime and the cascade effect and whether the cascade effect can assist courts in dealing with data-driven cybercrime. The paper examines original data collected from UK courts, namely 17 sentencing remarks relating to cybercrime court cases decided in England & Wales between 2012 and 2019. The analysis shows that courts appreciate the impact of data crime and their cascading effects, but that the complexity of the offences is lost at sentencing, arguably due to the negative impact of systemic factors, such as technology neutral law and the lack of legal authorities.After examining such systemic factors, the paper suggests how the cascade effect could aid sentencing by adding specificity and context to data crime. The paper ends with avenues for further research relating to debates on fair cybercrime sentencing and open justice.     

The impact of state sentencing policies on the U.S. prison population

This article examines the aggregate effects of neoclassical sentencing reforms on three often contested outcomes of these reforms. The rate of new court commitments, the average length of time inmates serve, and prison population rates across the fifty U.S. states and the District of Columbia are examined. Data from 1973 to 1998 across these jurisdictions are analyzed using hierarchical multivariate linear models (HMLM). Results show that on the aggregate, sentencing reforms are not directly related to changes in state prison populations; however, abolition of parole is negatively associated with state prison population rates. Two types of sentencing reforms, the voluntary sentencing guidelines and the ‘three-strikes’ laws are indirectly related to changes in prison populations and have opposite influences on rates of new court commitments. Of six sentencing practices examined, not one is associated with length of incarceration. These results do not support the contention that neoclassical changes to the nation's sentence policies account for the rapid increase in the state prison populations between the early 1970s and late 1990s.     

Three Strikes Legislation and Sentencing Commission Objectives

Between 1993 and 1997, state legislatures across the country passed legislation popularly known as "three strikes and you're out" laws. These laws appeared at a time when sentencing commissions existed in many states, and the commissions were involved in the legislative debates leading to the votes on three strikes laws. Thus, the passage of three strikes laws can shed light on one type of interaction between sentencing commissions and legislatures. This article posits a variety of objectives for sentencing commissions during three strikes debates, each a response to the recurring "pathologies" that appear when legislative, judicial, and executive branch officials create sentencing policy. A survey of states that have passed three strikes laws indicates that sentencing commissions have not made any systematic difference in the legislative debates on these statutes. Commissions have little reason to oppose these laws absolutely, and could lose political credibility by doing so. Commissions have incentives instead to argue for limiting the scope of these statutes. Where commissions have been involved in the debates about habitual felon legislation, they have emphasized limits on judicial discretion, focused on the quality of legislative deliberations rather than on legislative outcomes, and devoted little attention to prosecutorial charging decisions.     

Public Attitudes and Sentencing Policies Across the World

Many Western countries have experienced a boom in prisoners rates, characterised as “carceral hyperinflation” or “new punitiveness”. Politicians and opinion makers assume that this reflects the demand of the public for more severe sentencing. This article analyses data on the attitudes of the population towards punishment from over thirty different countries taken from the International Crime Victim Surveys of 2004/2005. First, some key findings on punitivity are presented showing that in many countries the public prefers non-custodial sentences for recidivist buglars. Next, results are presented from a multi-level analysis of the correlates of punitiveness at both the individual and country level. This multi level analysis shows that individual characteristics explain very little variance in country differences in punitiveness. On country level, the level of common crime and the Gini coefficient, a measure for income differences in the country, have significant explanatory power. The often mentioned tougher attitude towards sentencing in the English speaking/common law countries is fully explained by this. Finally, the relation between the publics attitude towards sentencing and a measure of actual sentencing severity showed a weak and inverse relationship at country level.     

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.     

News media influences on public views of sentencing

Opinion polls in Canada, the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and elsewhere suggest that most members of the public would like their criminal courts to be harsher. Does media coverage of criminal sentencing contribute to a preference for harsher sentencing? Most people derive their information about sentencing from the news media and content analyses of news stories in Canada and the United States demonstrate that crimes of violence and sentences of imprisonment are overrepresented. Moreover, the news media provide little systematic information about the sentencing process or its underlying principles. This article reports the results of three studies examining the effects of media coverage on public opinion about sentencing. Subjects who read actual newspaper stories about sentencing that appeared in Canadian newspapers rated most reported sentences as too lenient. However, the specific account they read influenced their leniency judgments. Furthermore, in one experiment, participants assigned to read a newspaper account of a sentencing decision supported harsher sentences than participants who read a summary of actual court documents from the sentencing hearing.     

Emotion,Authority, and Death: (Raced) Negotiations in Mock Capital Jury Deliberations

This article explores the role of emotion in the capital penalty‐phase jury deliberations process. It is based on the qualitative analysis of data from ninety video‐recorded four to seven person simulated jury deliberations that examined the influence of race on death sentencing outcomes. The analysis explores when and how emotions are expressed, integrated into the jury's sentencing process, and deployed in penalty‐phase decision making. The findings offer critical new insights into the role that emotion plays in influencing these legal judgments by revealing how jurors strategically and explicitly employ emotion in the course of deliberation, both to support their own positions and neutralize or rebut the opposing positions of others. The findings also shed light on the various ways that white male capital jurors utilize a panoply of powerful emotion‐based tactics to sway others to their position in a manner that often contributes to racially biased outcomes.     

Revising Images of Public Punitiveness: Sentencing by Lay and Professional English Magistrates

England grants unusually broad responsibility for sentencing of criminal offenders to voluntary part-time lay magistrates who, like their legally trained professional colleagues, sentence a wide range of offenders. Using simulated cases, archival analyses, and observational techniques, this article compares the sentencing decisions of the lay and professional magistrates in London. The study reveals no evidence of the lay preference for more severe sentencing that is typically shown in public opinion polls. The extent to which legal training, court experience, panel decisionmaking and role within the court system can explain the relative leniency of the lay magistrates are considered Consistent with results from other studies, these findings suggests that when laypersons assign sentences to particular offenders rather than express generalized satisfaction or dissatisfaction with current sentencing practices, laypersons are no more punitive than professional judges.     

Sentencing practices under the Arkansas sentencing guideline structure

In the last thirty years, research on differential sentencing practices became one of the dominant thrusts of academic interest in criminal justice studies. This was mainly because several reforms had been added to the various sentencing structures in the United States, one of which was the adoption of guideline based sentencing strategies. Although several studies were conducted regarding the impact of these guidelines, these were provided by a limited number of sources. For instance, the majority of this research was conducted on data collected by the United States Sentencing Commission and the Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission. This study attempted to further the discussion on sentencing practices by examining data from a new source, the Arkansas Office of Courts. This study first examined the judge's decision to imprison and jail the defendant using logistic regression, and second, for those individuals incarcerated, OLS and negative binomial regression analyses were conducted to explore potential disparities in the length of prison and jail sentences. The results of this analysis in Arkansas illustrated striking comparisons to studies that were conducted on other guideline structures. The legally relevant variables were the greatest predictors of whether or not an offender was sentenced to prison. Extralegal variables, on the other hand, had negligible effects. Implications for policy are also discussed.     

DISCRETION AND DISPARITY UNDER SENTENCING GUIDELINES: THE ROLE OF DEPARTURES AND STRUCTURED SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES*

This article examines the use of alternative sentencing provisions as mechanisms for departing from sentencing guidelines in Washington State and as structural sources of unwarranted sentencing disparity. The authors argue that these structural features of guidelines not only serve as “windows of discretion” through which disparities arise, but they also may encourage disparities by requiring consideration of substantive criteria that disadvantage certain offender groups. The analyses find that males and minority offenders are less likely to receive alternative sentences below the standard range, but that race‐ethnicity and gender have inconsistent effects on departures above the standard range. Theoretical implications of the study are discussed.     

The Evolution of the Determinate Ideal of Sentencing: An Illinois Case Study

The past two decades have witnessed enormous changes in state sentencing structures. While many of the fundamental tenets of the determinate sentencing reform movement have changed since the 1970s, one bedrock principle has remained constant: the belief that the sentencing power of post-conviction administrators must be curbed. Yet, in many jurisdictions, the goal of the reform movement has been frustrated as sentencing discretion has merely shifted from parole boards to prison officials. This article presents a case study from Illinois to illustrate how institutions' adaptive responses to externally imposed reforms can enlarge the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of public policy.     

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.     

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.     

Hidden Disparities: Decomposing Inequalities in Time Served in California, 1985–2009

While a large literature establishes the racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing, we know comparatively little about the role of race and ethnicity in prison release. Using data from the National Corrections Reporting Program contextualized in California's political and legislative atmosphere, this article explores the role of race and ethnicity in prison release between 1985 and 2009 by studying components of sentencing and release. Limiting the evaluation of disparities to sentencing or time served in prison at release may inadvertently mask racial and ethnic inequities in the judicial process because events and actors can introduce circumstances between sentencing and release from prison that ultimately influence time served. The analysis confirmed that the measures used at the time of sentencing do not provide enough information to determine the differential experiences of groups in the real amount of time served in prison.© 2014 Law and Society Association     

Assessing the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Reforms: A Closer Look at the Criteria and the Impacts on Diverse Stakeholders

Research to date has taken a relatively narrow view of the criteria by which the effectiveness of juvenile justice sentencing policies are to be assessed. This narrowness is particularly striking given the comprehensive "get tough" reforms that recently have been enacted in nearly every state. Drawing on previous research and an analysis of the potential effects of a recent juvenile justice sentencing reform in Texas, this paper argues for greater attention to conceptualizing and empirically assessing effectiveness broadly, including reference to intended and unintended effects, multiple goals and means, and diverse stakeholders. The argument is sustained first by outlining and discussing these key dimensions and then by empirically illustrating the potential importance of one of these dimensions – diverse stakeholders and their respective interests.     

Lay-Perspectives on Criminal Deviance,Goals of Punishment,and Punitivity

Empirical studies corroborate a relatively close relation between goals of sentencing and punitiveness. However, it is not clear what aspects of sentencing goals motivate harsh punishment. This study analyzes the structure of sentencing goals and scrutinizes in particular whether the idea of retribution is associated with punitiveness, or whether punishment considerations from a societal perspective (macrolevel) are the source of more punitive responses. A questionnaire was mailed to a random sample drawn in Bern, Switzerland. A total of 357 persons responded to items measuring constructs including goals of sentencing, punitiveness, target of justice considerations, and perceived threat to society, after reading one of three short stories about specific crimes (fraud, physical injury, assault). Results of this study reveal a two-dimensional structure of sentencing goals. One dimension represents readiness to punish and exclude the offender socially. The other dimension refers to concerns of the victim versus the needs of the society as a whole. The analysis provides a new interpretation of sentencing goals.     

重考量刑公正与量刑差异——德阳市五个基层法院的定量研究证据

主流观点认为中国普遍存在量刑差异,但该结论实证依据不足。本文借助于德阳市5个法院的1039个样本,检测盗窃、抢劫、故意伤害罪的量刑情况。研究按四组配对比较后发现,三组法院量刑均衡。盗抢罪量刑受数额、前科、审理程序、自白、律师参与、从严处罚等影响,故意伤害罪因伤害程度、受害人个数、赔偿等有别。2010年量刑意见有助于规范量刑,但法官更倾向于从严处罚。中国未来的量刑改革,还需具体规定如何适用从宽从严集合情节。     

Blind or Biased? Justitia's Susceptibility to Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom Based on Given Numerical Representations

This article presents an integrative review of recent research on anchoring effects in the courtroom as one example for the strong impact of representation norms on sentencing decisions. Anchoring effects – the assimilation of numerical judgments to a given standard – have been demonstrated in many judgmental domains. Even sentencing decisions are subject to anchoring effects. In court proceedings this gives disproportionate weight to the prosecutor, whose sentencing demand serves as an anchor. The prosecution's sentencing demand even affects defense attorneys, who assimilate their own sentencing recommendation to it. This influence seems to remain outside of defense attorneys' awareness. Expertise does not attenuate this bias. Accordingly, defendants might be better off if defense attorneys could make their final case prior to the prosecutor's case.