Distinguishing Race Effects on Pre-Trial Release and Sentencing Decisions

Racial disparities in court dispositions and sentences might reflect systemic biases toward minorities, but they might also stem from race group differences in legal or other extra-legal factors linked to a defendant’s risk for future criminality. Analyses of over 5,000 felony defendants from an urban Ohio jurisdiction revealed that significant main effects of a defendant’s race on release on one’s own recognizance (ROR), bond amounts, and prison sentences were rendered nonsignificant when controlling for legal factors, such as offense severity. Analyses of interaction effects, on the other hand, revealed that African American males age 18–29 experienced lower odds of ROR, higher bond amounts, and higher odds of incarceration in prison relative to other demographic subgroups, even with the inclusion of rigorous controls for legally relevant criteria. The relevance of these findings for understanding disparate treatment at different stages of case processing is discussed.     

Evaluating the Role of Race in Sentencing: An Entropy Weighting Analysis

The current study builds on prior research examining racial disparities in sentencing. Entropy weighting is introduced as a new method for estimating racial disparities that has several advantages over traditionally used methods. Entropy weighting is compared to regression and propensity score methods in estimating Black-White disparities in incarceration sentences. Although all methods find non-significant racial disparities in incarceration sentences, regression and propensity score methods underestimate disparities in incarceration sentence lengths. Entropy weighting provides comparable estimates to propensity score methods, but assures that the samples are identical on all covariates aside from race. The method offers researchers a useful and flexible approach for estimating racial disparities in criminal justice, and its use may lead to alternative conclusions about the size and presence of racial disparities in sentencing.     

Sentencing Female Misdemeanants: An Examination of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Race/Ethnicity

Little is known about the predictors of sentencing for the typical female offender—one who commits a misdemeanor or lesser offense. Moreover, although ample discussions of racial/ethnic disparity in sentencing may be found in the extant literature, most researchers have focused on what happens to males who commit felonies. Thus, to help fill a void I examine the likelihood of receiving a jail sentence among a sample of cases for female misdemeanants. All were convicted in New York City's Criminal Court. I account for direct and indirect effects by estimating a causal model that predicts the sentencing outcome. Race/ethnicity did not directly affect sentencing. Indirect effects, however, were found. Black and Hispanic females were more likely to receive jail sentences than their White counterparts due to differences in socio‐economic status, community ties, prior record, earlier case processing, and charge severity.     

Difference, Disparity, and Race/Ethnic Bias in Federal Sentencing

Federal sentencing guidelines were enacted to reduce unwarranted disparities in sentencing. In this paper we examine the degree to which disparity in sentencing on the basis of race and ethnicity occurred in federal sentencing after the guidelines were implemented. We consider how much of the disparity is explained by offense-related factors as specified in the guidelines. We find that African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans receive relatively harsher sentences than whites and that these differentials are only partly explained by offense-related characteristics. We interpret our findings in light of attribution, uncertainty avoidance, and conflict theories.     

Older and more recent evidence on racial discrimination in sentencing

Examination of previous studies of racial discrimination in sentencing indicates more widespread evidence of discrimination than allowed in three separate reviews by M. J. Hindelang [(1969).J. Crim. Law Criminal. Police Sci. 60: 306–313], J. Hagan [(1975). InThe Aldine Crime and Justice Annual, Aldine, Chicago], and G. Kleck [(1981).Am. Social. Rev. 46: 783-805]. It is not the case, as these reviewers suggest, that racial discrimination is a thing of the past, shown almost exclusively for capital offences from the American South, and often supported only because relevant legal variables were not controlled. In addition, analysis of recent (1977) data from a non-Southern state (Pennsylvania) covering noncapital offenses and including recommended controls shows that evidence of racial disparity in sentencing is revealed more clearly when separate analyses are conducted within levels of urbanization. The labeling perspective and conflict theory guide our interpretation.     

量刑规范化问题研究——以西安市碑林区人民法院为例

量刑规范化改革是党中央确定的重大司法改革项目,也是人民法院＂三五改革纲要＂的重要内容。量刑规范化问题的研究,对于规范司法行为,统一法律适用标准,促进社会公平正义,提高人民法院公信力,树立司法权威都具有重大意义。量刑规范化就是要进一步规范法官审理刑事案件的刑罚裁量权,将量刑纳入法庭审理程序,增强量刑的公开性与透明度,统一法律适用标准,更好地贯彻落实宽严相济的刑事政策。     

“从技术到制度”：我国量刑程序改革述论

中国的量刑程序改革需要"从技术到制度"逐步推进.具体而言第一,确立量刑听证,实现量刑的"司法化";第二,制定量刑指南,推进量刑的"精密化";第三,革新量刑技术,促进量刑的"现代化";第四,公开量刑过程及理由,保证量刑的"透明化".     

量刑与定罪互动论:为了量刑公正可变换罪名

现行刑法理论中定罪与量刑的关系被扭曲了,刑法理论把准确定罪置于至高无上的地位,司法机关把大量精力耗费于准确判断罪名,定罪决定量刑、量刑不可能影响罪名成为刑法公理。但是,判断罪名意义上的定罪,并非刑法的目的;对被告人和社会最有意义的是量刑,判断罪名只是为公正量刑服务的;因此,如果常规判断的罪名会使量刑失当,就可以为了公正量刑而适度变换罪名。     

Lawlessness in the Federal Sentencing Process: A Test for Uniformity and Consistency in Sentence Outcomes

One of the important goals of the federal sentencing guidelines was to reduce inter‐judge disparity in sentencing. In this paper, we test the assumption that structuring discretion produced uniformity in federal sentencing and consistency in the process by which judges arrive at the appropriate sentence. We also examine whether background characteristics of judges affect the sentences they impose on similarly situated offenders. We used hierarchical linear modeling, nesting the offenders in the judges that sentenced them in order to examine the sentencing decisions of federal judges in three U.S. District Courts. While we found that significant variation between judges in sentencing is largely accounted for by our level 1 characteristics, we also found that judges arrive at decisions regarding the appropriate sentence in different ways, by attaching differential weights to several of the legally relevant case characteristics and legally irrelevant offender characteristics.     

论定罪量刑的社会学模式

现行刑事立法赋予法官享有一定的定罪量刑自由裁量权,该自由裁量权受诸多案件社会结构因素影响,案件社会结构因素影响定罪量刑的过程及其表现出的样式就是定罪量刑社会学模式。定罪量刑的社会学模式以案件社会学理论为参照,并基本被实证研究所证实。由于同性质的具体案件的社会结构不同或同一案件在不同诉讼阶段的社会结构不同,法官受其影响程度也不同,定罪量刑不公正现象由此而生。实现公正定罪量刑的关键在于避免定罪量刑社会学模式发生作用。     

美国量刑理论中的关注焦点理论

关注焦点理论是美国刑事司法领域解释量刑差异的主流理论。该理论认为,法官和其他刑事司法系统的决策者在作出量刑决定时有三个关注焦点:罪犯的可谴责性、人身危险性,以及实践中的可操作性。由于法官在量刑时缺乏完整的信息,因此使用"感官速记"把对这三个焦点的关注转化为对性别、年龄、种族等表面信息的关注,导致"类案不同判"。对关注焦点的研究,在理论上有助于理解司法过程中量刑差异的产生原因,在实践中有助于解决量刑不规范的问题。通过介绍美国的关注焦点理论,以及这个理论框架下的实证研究和对关注焦点理论的评论,反思对我国量刑理论和实践的借鉴意义。     

RACIAL THREAT,PARTISAN POLITICS,AND RACIAL DISPARITIES IN PRISON ADMISSIONS: A PANEL ANALYSIS*

Why are racial disparities in imprisonment so pronounced? Studies of alternative outcomes in the criminal justice system find positive relationships between minority presence and punitive outcomes. Therefore, it is puzzling that the studies of racial incarceration ratios find negative relationships between this presence and such discrepancies. We use a pooled time‐series design to resolve this dilemma. Successful Republican attempts to link crime with public concerns about a dangerous racial underclass also suggest that where these racial appeals are successful, African Americans should face higher incarceration rates than whites. In contrast to prior research, our results are consistent with findings about other criminal justice outcomes. They show that an inverted, U‐shaped, nonlinear relationship is present between African‐American presence and racial disparities in imprisonments. Additional results indicate that the presence of African Americans in deep southern states and greater support for Republican presidential candidates together with increases in the most menacing crime (which often is blamed on African Americans) also help to explain these discrepant racial prison admission rates.     

量刑比例初探——以江苏省姜堰市人民法院《规范量刑指导意见》为视角

引入量刑比例原则是尝试用数学的方法解决刑罚裁量的难题,探求刑事司法的正义,还给多数人公平。司法实践中,因为量刑幅度的存在,加之法官个体素质的差异,致使同罪异罚、量刑不当的现象大量存在。因此,制定一个统一的量刑规范,特别是设定具体的量刑基准和确立针对不同的量刑因素出现时如何换算的量刑比例就成为司法实践中的当务之急。     

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。     

论相对独立的量刑程序

量刑程序的正当性与量刑程序与定罪程序分离的可行性属于两个不同层面的问题。现阶段我国尚不具备将定罪与量刑程序完全分离的制度条件,而只能构建相对独立的量刑程序,即在法庭审理的主要环节,将定罪与量刑活动相对分离。在将量刑活动纳入法庭审理程序时,应当注意处理好量刑建议与量刑裁量权之间的关系。     

SENTENCING IN CONTEXT: A MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS

Criminal sentencing is, along with arresting and prosecuting, among the most important of formal social control decisions. In this study we use hierarchical modeling to test hypotheses about contextual level influences and cross level interaction effects on local court decisions. Most of the explanatory "action," our analysis shows, is at the individual case level in criminal sentencing. We also find evidence that local contextual features–such as court organizational culture, court caseload pressure, and racial and ethnic composition–affect sentencing outcomes, either directly or in interaction with individual factors. We conclude by discussing theoretical implications of our findings, and how our study points out some dilemmas among civil rights, local autonomy and organizational realities of criminal courts.     

论被害人量刑意见的提出：现状与重构

被害人量刑意见是被害人表达诉求的重要载体.被害人量刑意见的提出有助于恢复被害人的受损利益,弥补公诉权行使之不足,实现刑罚裁量的客观公正.目前我国被害人量刑意见的提出还存在一系列问题,应从提出主体、内容、时机、方式以及效力等方面对被害人量刑意见提出程序进行重构.     

The Strasbourg Court and Indirect Race Discrimination: Going Beyond the Education Domain

Prohibiting indirect discrimination has been hailed as guaranteeing substantive equality by addressing issues of structural discrimination and inequalities in a way that direct discrimination cannot and will not. However, Article 14, the ECHR's non‐discrimination provision, does not distinguish between direct and indirect discrimination. Only in 2007 the European Court of Human Rights explicitly included the notion of indirect (race) discrimination under Article 14 in DH and Others v Czech Republic, its famous judgment on Roma education segregation. Since then it has applied the prohibition of indirect race discrimination in a limited manner to similar education cases. However, in its recent Grand Chamber decision, Biao v Denmark, the Strasbourg Court started clarifying some unsolved issues in the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination in its case law and finally applied the concept to the much broader area of immigration and citizenship.     

量刑建议：实践、问题和对策——以重庆市某检察分院及辖区检察机关的实践探索为例

重庆市某检察分院及辖区基层院通过开展量刑建议改革试点,促进了刑罚裁量的公开公正。但调研发现,量刑建议在适用范围、形成机制、建议内容、提起方式、变更机制、评价机制等方面还存在一些问题,须通过转变司法理念、强化诉讼构造、完善配套机制等来加强和改进量刑建议工作。     

Alcohol and Drug Mitigation in Capital Murder Trials: Implications for Sentencing Decisions

Analyses of the impact on sentencing when alcohol and drug‐related mitigation is used in the sentencing phases of capital murder trials is virtually absent from the existing literature. The present study addresses this by exploring the effect of having mitigation with alcohol and drug themes accepted in a large sample (n = 804) of capital murder trials in North Carolina. Logistic regression analyses that include a number of relevant control variables reveal no substantive impacts of having alcohol mitigation accepted by capital murder juries, but drug mitigators that were either accepted or rejected by juries were associated with an increased risk of receiving a death sentence. Possible reasons for the results and their implications are discussed and suggestions are made for further study of the effects of alcohol/drug mitigation in capital trials.