Criminal Labelling,Publicity, and Punishment

This paper considers whether publicizing criminal labels is justified as a form of punishment. It begins by arguing that making criminal labels public is inevitably stigmatizing and that stigmatization is not, as is often implied, a defining aspect of censure, but needs independent justification. It argues that justifying grounds for public criminal labelling cannot be found in either the communicative account of punishment or deterrence theory. Rather, public criminal labelling should be understood as undermining of both the communicative and the deterrent functions of punishment. Recent empirical work is drawn upon to support the claims about public criminal labelling and deterrence.     

Race,Crime, and Criminal Justice

Fifty years ago, the U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson did not frequently mention race and ethnicity in its discussion of and recommendations for the criminal justice system, but it did have a lot to say about race and crime. Through the use of arrest rates to measure racial differentials in criminal involvement, the Commission concluded that Blacks commit more crime as a consequence of Black people living in greater numbers in criminogenic “slum” conditions. To address racial differences, the Commission favored the Great Society programs of Johnson's War on Poverty. Contemporary criminologists continue to debate the racial distribution of crime, the causes of crimes, and the best policies to reduce crime and racial differentials. The Commission did not anticipate the current debate among scholars regarding how much racial disproportionality exists in the criminal justice system and its causes and consequences. The policies that led to mass incarceration have been significant drivers of continued criminal justice racial disparity. Those policies are inconsistent with the recommendation in The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967), upending the pursuit of a more fair and just system.     

Criminal Decision Making: The Development of Adolescent Judgment,Criminal Responsibility,and Culpability

Theories of judgment in decision making hypothesize that throughout adolescence, judgment is impaired because the development of several psychosocial factors that are presumed to influence decision making lags behind the development of the cognitive capacities that are required to make mature decisions. This study uses an innovative video technique to examine the role of several psychosocial factors—temporal perspective, peer influence, and risk perception—in adolescent criminal decision making. Results based on data collected from 56 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 18 years revealed that detained youth were more likely to think of future-oriented consequences of engaging in the depicted delinquent act and less likely to anticipate pressure from their friends than nondetained youth. Examination of the developmental functions of the psychosocial factors indicates age-based differences on standardized measures of temporal perspective and resistance to peer influence and on measures of the role of risk perception in criminal decision making. Assessments of criminal responsibility and culpability were predicted by age and ethnicity. Implications for punishment in the juvenile justice system are discussed.     

Policy, Politics, and the Criminal Courts

This case study of criminal process in a middle-sized western city in the United States employs quantitative data, interviews, and library research to explore the politics of criminal process and its impact on the operative policies of the criminal courts from I964 through 1980. The research reveals significant policy change but a very elusive relationship between politics and policy. Judges and prosecutors preserve a significant measure of autonomy for dealing with the bulk of their caseload by giving up much of their independence in those cases that are inescapably politicized. Both judges and prosecutors use this partial political insulation to advance their own versions of criminological wisdom. On the other hand, they are constrained by the prevailing ethos and by institutional limitations to operate well within conventional definitions of crime and criminality—even when those conventional views run counter to their own practical experience.     

Sanctions,Perceived Anger,and Criminal Offending

In articulating models of offender decision-making, researchers have tended to focus on either deterrence/rational choice or situational/emotional considerations. In this paper, we merge these two lines of inquiry and examine how rational choice considerations and perceived angry reactions inter-relate in predicting assaultive violence. Using data collected on a random sample of young adults, we assess three hypotheses. First, that both rational choice and perceived anger exhibit additive effects on assault. Second, that perceived anger influences how rational choice considerations are interpreted. Third, that rational choice considerations influence assault under different levels of perceived anger, and in particular, that the effect of sanction threats fall apart under high perceived anger. Future theoretical and empirical directions are outlined.     

Criminal Contemplation,National Context,and Deterrence

Using random samples of adults from three European countries rarely surveyed about crime-related issues, this study seeks to identify, with more extensive indicators than is typical, individuals who are likely to contemplate the commission of criminal acts. Then, it assesses the contextual universality of deterrence claims by estimating the deterrent effectiveness of perceived formal and informal sanctions for theft and violence among crime contemplators in Greece, Russia, and Ukraine. With criminal contemplation taken into account, our findings confirm the patterns established in past research. Whereas the threat of formal punishment shows little deterrent effect, perceptions of informal sanctions appear to influence projected crime. However, supportive findings hold only in Russia and Ukraine. Overall, it appears that the deterrent effectiveness of sanctions may be to some extent contingent on cultural or contextual characteristics.     

刑事一体化视野中的犯罪心理学

刑事一体化是指刑事立法、刑事司法、刑事科学三方面及其内部各方协调一致,形成有机统二的完整系统。在刑事一体化的视野中,犯罪心理学在关于“犯罪”这一基本概念上,应当与处于规范地位的刑法学保持一致。犯罪心理学是刑事科学的基础理论学科和应用学科,同时,由于其独特的学科性质、研究视觉和研究方法,使其在一体化的刑事科学中,具有不可替代的地位和作用。     

论刑事政策与刑法

刑事政策可表述为:国家或政党基于犯罪态势而制定的控制(预防)犯罪的方略,可分为基本的刑事政策和具体的刑事政策。指导刑法立法的刑事政策是基本刑事政策;影响刑法司法的刑事政策是具体刑事政策。只有在较长时期内涉及全过程的主要的刑事政策才是基本刑事政策。具体刑事政策,它相对于基本刑事政策而言,指在犯罪控制的某一领域或某一阶段中起作用的刑事政策。就刑事政策与刑法立法来讲,刑事政策即基本刑事政策是刑法的灵魂,刑事政策高于刑法;就刑事政策与刑法司法来讲,刑法则高于刑事政策即具体刑事政策,具体的刑事政策只能在刑法的框架内运作,但可以影响定罪与量刑。     

刑法理论与刑事立法

在刑事立法非常活跃的时代,刑法理论不可能只是单纯地解释刑法,而是需要同时关注刑事立法本身.刑法理论不仅要规制司法,而且要规制立法.刑法理论尤其是法益保护主义与有关刑罚的正当化根据的学说,对刑事立法起着重要规制作用;刑法理论必须对刑法条文作出有价值的判断,促进刑事立法的不断完善.但是,如果能够通过修改理论或者重新解释应对社会生活事实的,就不应当修改刑法;任何知识都是一种偏见,都是不完善、不全面的,但刑法学绝不是始终拘泥于条文的形式论解释的枯燥无味的学问;刑法学者应当善于了解社会生活事实的变化,勇于反省自己的前理解,正确对待自己的偏见,从而使旧法条适应新时代.对刑事立法的批判与解释并不是对立关系,批判性解释可以使刑事立法的形式缺陷得到弥补,也能为刑事立法的完善奠定基础.刑事立法也应当善于类型化,从而为解释提供应有的空间,使刑事立法与刑法理论形成良性互动关系.     

“罪名“与“犯罪行为“之辨——对刑法第十七条第二款的解读

理论上和实务中对刑法第十七条第二款的规定有不同的理解,有人认为是八种具体犯罪的罪名,有人认为是八种犯罪行为。但是从文义解释、刑法第十七条第二款的立法精神和规范目的、“犯罪行为说”的弊端以及“罪名说”能满足实践需要四个方面能够证明:“罪名说”的观点是正确的。应该站在成文刑法的特点和罪刑法定原则的立场上去理解现实上存在的值得科处刑罚却不能解释到刑法第十七条第二款中去的行为。     

Duress, International Criminal Law and Literature

This paper uses parallels between Sophocles’ Theban Playsand the House of Lords decision in Dudley and Stephens, to questionthe decision in the Erdemovi case before the International CriminalTribunal for the former Yugoslavia. One should distinguish betweencausal, moral and criminal responsibility. If a man who commitsa crime, not by the action of his free will, is to be foundguilty, we are essentially equating causal responsibility withcriminal guilt. This logic clearly does not correspond withthat of the rest of international criminal law. The storiesof Erdemovi, Oedipus, Dudley and Stephens are tragedies. Eachof the victims/perpetrators felt an overwhelming sense of remorse.Whether they should be considered morally guilty of murder isa matter of individual conscience. The International CriminalTribunal for the Former Yugoslavia majority erred in using anabsolute moral position in Erdemovi. The majority's moral condemnationof the killing of innocents was confused with the question ofwhether Erdemovi should have been criminally punished. The contentof the majority opinion is largely of an irreproachably moralisticnature, though shrouded and mystified by the discussion of precedent.More generally, the decision to try Erdemovi at the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was itself self-defeating.Erdemovi should never have stood trial at The Hague. The internationalcommunity should not aid in self-flagellation. While his actionscannot be approved of, they should not be punished internationally.He could have been helped, supported and reintegrated with fargreater benefit to all.         ‘Heroesare hard to find in an atmosphere of total terror.’¹     

Criminal record stigma,race, and neighborhood inequality

Justice-involved people experience high levels of housing instability and residential mobility, making the housing search a recurrent part of life. Little is known, however, regarding how criminal record stigma functions in the rental housing market. This article examines how housing providers use criminal records to screen tenants in the rental housing market and whether it varies by type of neighborhood. I conduct an online correspondence audit to test discriminatory behaviors and find an adverse criminal record effect on housing opportunities. Many housing providers disqualify all tenants with a criminal record, even without information about the severity or timing of offenses. The criminal record effect is significantly stronger in gentrifying neighborhoods and in neighborhoods where the proportion of Black residents is dwindling. Tenant screening emerges as a central obstacle faced by the justice-involved population, vital to understanding the web of disadvantages that traps so many in the wake of the carceral state.     

Criminal Law,Parental Authority,and the State

In the recently published collection, Criminal Law and the Authority of the State, two contributions allude to an analogy with parental authority as a means to a better understanding of the institution of criminal punishment, but reach different conclusions. Malcolm Thorburn uses the parental authority analogy to justify the institution of state punishment as an assertion of robust authority over offenders. Antje du Bois-Pedain uses the same analogy to advocate the idea of punishment as an inclusionary practice, designed to reintegrate offenders into society. I argue that Thorburn’s theory of robust authority is inconsistent if not self-contradictory when it tries to assume a liberal posture, and that du Bois-Pedain’s reintegrative model provides a better account of the justification and objectives of state punishment.