Penal ideology, sentencing and the legitimacy of trial justice

The paper explores the link between penal ideology and international trial justice from the perspective of sentencing. The argument is based on the premise that the perceived legitimacy of punishment is directly related to effective governance in criminal justice. As such, loss of faith, or lack of moral empathy by individuals and communities with the ideologies, processes and outcomes of punishment compromises the ability of criminal trials to function effectively in maintaining the ‘rule of law’. The paper argues that more emphasis should be given explaining the moral foundations that underpin perceptions of ‘justice’ in sociological accounts of the ‘reality’ of sentencing, and proposes an analytical framework for conceptualising this. Adopting this approach, the paper draws on examples from national and international criminal justice to illustrate how the hegemony of penal ideology and its implementation compromises the ability of sentencing outcomes to resonate with the trial‘s ‘relevant audience’. The paper then focuses on how penal ideology influences the construction of the factual basis for sentencing in international criminal trials, and considers the consequences of this for the perceived ‘legitimacy’ of international trial justice.     

Developing Contextualized Rationales for Sentencing in International Criminal Trials: A Plea for Empirical Research

The aim of this article is to illustrate how the pervading ideologyof retributivism has affected the norms and practice of sentencingin international criminal trials. It examines the nature andoperation of international sentencing law and procedure andthe parameters set for the exercise of discretionary power,suggesting how these militate against the development of moreconstructive rationales for punishment because of their continuedemphasis on principles of consistency and proportionality. Itis argued that the rationales for international sentencing needto engage more with the aspirations for justice of victims andpost-conflict societies. This would suggest a re-evaluationof punishment and a change in the sentencing practices of internationalcriminal tribunals. The article concludes that comparative contextualanalysis could provide important insights, which would be ofgreat assistance for international sentencing.     

Recent Trends in Sentencing Policies in the Netherlands

This article considers sentencing in the Netherlands and in particular the changes that have been introduced since the 1980s, both in the adult and in the juvenile justice system. Several questions will be treated in the article. Sentencing in the Netherlands in the last two decades is analysed and some explanations for the changing trends are presented. Results indicate that the Netherlands is following a general pattern, prevalent in Europe and the US, of more punitive and repressive punishment. Also, the extent to which new sentencing options, such as community sanctions have made a difference to the upward trend in imprisonment, will be analysed. In an effort to reduce the costs of the system new policies are being developed, introducing both 'front door' and 'back door' varieties in sentencing. These will lead to some important and radical changes in the criminal justice system.     

量刑实体公正的影响因素研究

影响量刑实体公正的因素有刑罚的设置、刑事政策、法官自由裁量权等法律因素以及法官情感因素、民意、领导干预等法律外因素.上述因素以各自的方式影响着量刑的公正与否,因而,探究影响量刑实体公正的因素对采取相应措施保障量刑公正具有重大意义.     

Blended Sentencing Laws and the Punitive Turn in Juvenile Justice

In many states, young people today can receive a “blended” combination of both a juvenile sanction and an adult criminal sentence. We ask what accounts for the rise of blended sentencing in juvenile justice and whether this trend parallels crime control developments in the adult criminal justice system. We use event history analysis to model state adoption of blended sentencing laws from 1985 to 2008, examining the relative influence of social, political, administrative, and economic factors. We find that states with high unemployment, greater prosecutorial discretion, and disproportionate rates of African American incarceration are most likely to pass blended sentencing provisions. This suggests that the turn toward blended sentencing largely parallels the punitive turn in adult sentencing and corrections—and that theory and research on adult punishment productively extends to developments in juvenile justice.     

我国刑罚裁量模式与刑事判例机制

当前对量刑平衡的相关探索和研究主要是从法律的细密化、具体化这一向度出发的。在司法实践中,量刑本身所要求的定量化与决定量刑诸因素的非定量性之间形成了尖锐矛盾。更具有可能性与可行性的路径应当是:从增强刑事司法的确定性出发,辅之以适应性,使刑罚裁量的统一性与个别化尽可能趋于协调。刑事判例机制的功能与改革和完善我国现有刑罚裁量模式具有内在契合性。     

Punishment justifications in rape cases: a community study

Norway is one of the countries with the most progressive criminal justice systems in the Western world. Traditionally, the Norwegian criminal justice system has been mainly based on treatment and deterrence perspectives. While it is believed that criminal justice practices should be in accordance with public attitudes, few studies in Scandinavia have investigated public attitudes towards criminal justice sanctions in a methodologically sound manner. The current study is the first to investigate the attitudes of the Norwegian public towards punishment of rapists. In a Norwegian community sample (N = 475) from 2005, participants found the typical sentencing severity of a convicted rapist too lenient. The participants did report that as a global sentencing orientation, they preferred incapacitation. When presented with a specific rape case, their sentencing judgements were oriented towards both incapacitation and retribution, but their global orientation were not related to their specific judgements. Aggravating circumstances (e.g. violence was used) were found to influence the participants’ judgements more than when no aggravating circumstances were present (e.g. no violence was used). Few gender or educational differences were found, which indicates that these attitudes towards punishment of rapists are quite consistent across demographical groups.     

Legal Responses and Sentencing in Murder Cases – A Comparison of Law and Judicial Reactions in India and Germany

While there are huge cultural, social and socio-legal differences between India and Germany, the sentencing laws of the two countries show a couple of similarities. In India and Germany alike, the substantive law makes only little specifications for the sentencing process. There are no sub-statutory sentencing guidelines, within the range provided by the penal codes the courts have a wide discretion in the sentencing process. It is, however, interesting to see that the courts exercise their discretion in similar ways which can specifically be observed in murder cases. The article describes the legal framework which is applicable in murder cases in India and Germany and compares the judicial decisions in selected cases: hold-up murder, sexually motivated murder, domestic violence killings and honor killings. The comparison gives evidence of the communicative function of punishment. After a serious crime like murder the public – typically well informed by the media, agitated and highly troubled – will in both countries only be settled by a judgment considered as fair, just and proportionate. Peace under the law and internal security, however, do not seem to be dependent on specific forms of punishment. Capital punishment and life imprisonment appear as penalties which may be necessary reactions to murder in a given cultural context, but which are not indispensable to a criminal justice system.     

Against Prevention? A Response to Harcourt's Against Prediction on Actuarial and Clinical Predictions and the Faults of Incapacitation

This article reviews Bernard Harcourt's Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age (2007), in which he criticizes the use of actuarial prediction methods in the contexts of policing and sentencing. I focus on the latter context. I argue that Harcourt has identified an important, and not exclusively American, trend and develops a valid critique of it that should be pushed further. From a theory of punishment perspective, I argue that Harcourt's critique is no less applicable to clinical prediction methods than to the use of actuarial ones. Harcourt's arguments, however, beg a more general explanation of the flaws of incapacitation as a justification for punishment. If we base our objection to the use of prediction methods on such larger grounds, questions arise as to the legitimacy of other practices that are not considered punitive but rather "regulatory" or "preventive."     

The Justice Model in the Juvenile Justice System: Washington State's Experience

In 1977, the Washington State Legislature enacted radical modifications of its juvenile justice code. Explicitly abandoning the parens patriae philosophy of the juvenile justice system, a "justice" philosophy was adopted. Provisions of the law include a determinate sentencing structure, the divestiture of status offenses, greater due process rights for juveniles, and a formalized diversion process which emphasizes accountability rather than treatment. This paper brings together the available research on the implementation of the law to assess how the introduction of a justice approach has influenced equality, fairness, and punishment levels in Washington State's juvenile justice system.     

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.     

论死刑案件的量刑

死刑是一种最严厉的刑罚方法,死刑制度是一项极其重要的刑事司法制度。把握好死刑案件的量刑,对于实现罪责刑均衡进而实现刑事法治至关重要。死刑案件的量刑应秉持责任主义观念,以责任刑制约预防刑,综合考虑量刑的法律效果、政治效果和社会效果,追求个案量刑的综合平衡,并辅之以隔离式相对独立的量刑程序,改善当前死刑案件的审理现状和量刑情况,严格控制和审慎适用死刑,以实现司法的公平公正。     

Predicting Proportionality: The Case for Algorithmic Sentencing

A basic principle in sentencing offenders is proportionality. However, proportionality judgments are often left to the discretion of the judge, raising familiar concerns of arbitrariness and bias. This paper considers the case for systematizing judgments of proportionality in sentencing by means of an algorithm. The aim of such an algorithm would be to predict what a judge in that jurisdiction would regard as a proportionate sentence in a particular case. A predictive algorithm of this kind would not necessarily undermine justice in individual cases, is consistent with a particularistic account of moral judgment, and is attractive even in the face of uncertainty as to the legitimate purposes of punishment.     

Disproportional Imprisonment of Black and Hispanic Males: Sentencing Discretion,Processing Outcomes,and Policy Structures

Disproportional incarceration of black and Hispanic men has been the subject of much critical commentary and empirical inquiry. Such disproportionality may be due to greater involvement of minority men in serious crime, to discretionary decisions by local justice officials, or to the differential impact of sentencing policies, such as mandatory minimums or sentencing guidelines, that differentially impact minority men. This study investigated the extent to which the disproportional punishment of black and Hispanic men, and local variation in such disproportionality, can be attributed to unexplained disparities in local sentencing decisions, as opposed to the extent to which such differences are mediated by sentencing policies, or case-processing and extralegal factors. We use 2005–2009 federal court and Pennsylvania state court data. Our findings suggest, particularly in Federal courts, that most disproportionality is determined by processes prior to sentencing, especially sentencing policies that differentially impact minority males.     

认罪认罚案件量刑建议“分类精准”模式之提倡

量刑建议权是公诉权的应有之义,对于认罪认罚案件而言,检察机关提出精准量刑建议是量刑协商的根本要求,不仅不会侵犯审判权而且有利于审判权更加合理地行使,为实现审判中心主义创造条件,具有正当性基础。精准量刑建议包括确定量刑建议和"最小化幅度"量刑建议,按照认罪认罚案件的不同类型,遵循比例原则和诉讼经济原则之间的制约与被制约关系,并根据量刑建议精准化程度与程序简化力度之间成正比、与案件重大程度成反比的关系,构建出"分类精准"模式,分为速裁程序及有期徒刑三年以下简易程序案件的确定量刑建议、有期徒刑三年以上五年以下简易程序案件的确定量刑建议为主"最小化幅度"量刑建议为辅等五种类型。检察机关分类测算精准量刑建议时,在量刑基准上应坚持责任优先主义,根据行为的不法与罪责确定责任刑,并采取"点的理论"确定起点刑和基准刑,把认罪认罚作为独立的预防刑情节予以考量。通过建立与"分类精准"相适应的量刑指南、量刑协商、量刑建议说理、量刑调整等机制,提高量刑建议精准化水准。     

The Decision to Become a Police Officer in a Legitimacy Crisis

This study examines how individuals make the decision to become police officers in the context of a police legitimacy crisis and how men and women’s decision-making processes may be different. In-depth interviews were conducted with 42 criminal justice college students who want to become police officers. Prospective police officers anticipated facing challenges as a direct result of the current climate surrounding American policing, which is characterized by decreased police legitimacy. On top of this, women anticipated facing more challenges than male officers due to their gender and underrepresentation in police work. However, women were uniquely motivated to enter policing to overcome gender-specific challenges and felt that they offered special skills that would provide solutions to the police legitimacy crisis. The paper draws implications for how agencies can identify more quality candidates and increase their representation of women.     

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。     

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.     

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。     

Punishment in Indian Country: Ironies of Federal Punishment of Native Americans

Native Americans are US citizens, but they are also tribal nationals subject to complex and unique criminal jurisdiction arrangements over Indian lands. Tribal nations typically have tribal court jurisdiction over less serious crimes, but for serious crimes the federal justice system often supersedes tribal authority, exposing Native Americans to more severe punishments. In addition, recent federal programs have attempted to foster greater tribal/federal criminal justice coupling. Yet, examinations of criminal punishment of Native Americans are few, and most are outdated and/or of very limited generalizability. We examine the punishment of Native American defendants in federal court, focusing on 28 federal districts with substantial Indian presence. Using recent US Sentencing Commission data, as well as contextual data from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal courts, we focus on differences in the federal sentencing of Native American defendants, and how these differences are conditioned by indicators of tribal-federal criminal justice coupling.