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.     

Sentencer orientation and case details

Qualitative measures of magistrates' sentencing orientations were incorporated with archival case data into a multivariate statistical model to examine the contribution of orientation-case variable interactions to penalties imposed on 678 drink-drivers by 8 magistrates in two Australian courts. Sentencing orientations included severity, emphasis on deterrence, use of tariffs, and attention to accident potential. The 44 case variables included blood alcohol concentration, prior offenses, and type of legal representation. Penalties included fine and license loss. Five orientation-case variable interactions contributed 20% of the explained variance in penalties after controls for case variables. Court effects were strong regardless of individualized orientations. The authors conclude that sentencing disparties reflect both personal schemas and court context. Reforms involving information systems should attend to the effects of sentencing orientations on individuals' use of case information.     

An experimental study of sentencing by magistrates

A pilot study was carried out with 23 magistrates to develop a sentencing severity scale. An experiment was then conducted with 168 magistrates deciding sentences for simulated cases in 56 groups of three. The results showed that sentences were more severe when offenses were more serious, when offenders had a more serious criminal record, when offenders were male, and when offenders were of higher social status. The age of the offender, the race of the offender and victim, the plea, the prevalence of the offense, and whether breack of trust was involved, did not have significant effects on sentence severity. A comparison between real and simulated sentencing decisions showed that they were similar, and a comparison between individual and group decisions showed that the group decisions were more likely to be relatively severe than relatively lenient.This research was completed while Mr. Kapardis was supported by a Social Science Research Council studentship.     

Making just decisions in magistrates' courts

Professional magistrates' sentencing procedures were examined as prototypic cases of expert processes involved in making just decisions, with analysis of their attention to information and the inferences they drew from case details and their own patterned knowledge. Magistrates' sorting and verbalized sentencing of six shoplifting cases revealed that they were accessing and using three schemas for categorizing shoplifters, with different emphases and valences, and different penalties. The schemas categorized shoplifters as cases of greed, need, or troubled persons. Tough magistrates followed the greed schema more than the lenient who followed the need and troubled schemas more consistently. Information use and inferences in a sample case illustrate schema differences.     

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。     

Training,experience, and magistrates' sentencing philosophies

The lay magistracy is unique to the English legal system, and this study investigates how those appointed as magistrates change in their sentencing policy and attitudes toward defendants as a result of the experience gained during the first year on the bench and as a result of the mandatory training program. An experimental design was used to evaluate the effects of training in which a group of newly appointed magistrates was randomly assigned to defer their training for one year and compared to those who completed their training during the first year in the usual way. In addition, the use of a group of nonmagistrates as controls enabled a quasiexperimental evaluation of the effects of experience on the bench. Magistrates and controls completed a questionnaire in which they sentenced a number of cases at the time of the magistrates' appointment to the bench and again one year later. The results showed that magistrates as a result of their experience became more committed to the aims of deterrence and punishment, became more pessimistic about the prospects of reforming defendants, regarded the severe sentences as more appropriate, and took a less sympathetic view of defendants. The training program, however, tended to ameliorate these effects. Possible explanations for these findings and the implications for the training of magistrates are discussed.This study was supported by a grant from the Nuffield Foundation     

香港与内地毒品犯罪量刑比较研究

为打击毒品犯罪,香港以立法中的《危险药物条例》和司法实践中的量刑准则为基础,发展出了一整套针对毒品犯罪的量刑模式。香港的毒品犯罪量刑模式具有灵活、统一、适应对新兴毒品犯罪的量刑及符合现代刑法理论发展等诸多特点,值得内地借鉴。     

被告人不认罪案件量刑程序的理想模式

被告人不认罪案件的量刑程序如何设计是当前量刑规范化改革试点过程中一个争议较大的问题,在司法理论和实践中有两种不同的模式——相对独立的量刑程序模式和隔离的量刑程序模式。量刑规范化改革的目的在于使量刑过程程序化、公开化,从而实现量刑公正,达到罪责刑相适应的要求。针对被告人不认罪案件,建立理想的量刑程序模式,将定罪程序与量刑程序有效地分隔开来,有利于达到量刑规范化改革的目的。     

Sentencing rationales, judicial discretion, and the practice of criminal fines in Israel

Much attention has been paid over the last three decades to the examination of the criminal fine, its administration, enforcement policies, and effectiveness. Yet, one research topic has often been overlooked: the link between sentencing rationales, judiciary discretion, and fining policy. The present research, based upon ninety hours of phenomenological semi-structured interviews undertaken in a random sample of forty active Israeli magistrates, six hundred verdicts, and quantitative data regarding the fining policy in Israel, analyzed the degree of harmony/disparity between these variables. The main findings revealed lack of confidence in the ability of the criminal fine to successfully achieve different penal objectives, scarcity of knowledge of actual fining administration procedures, and a high degree of harmony between fining rationales and ideology.     

Focally Concerned About Focal Concerns: A Conceptual and Methodological Critique of Sentencing Disparities Research

Abstract

“Focal concerns” is the predominant theoretical framework in criminology for explaining disparities in sentencing outcomes. While the framework has generated a large body of empirical scholarship, its postulates remain inadequately tested in the criminological literature. In this paper, I offer a conceptual and methodological critique of focal concerns as it is being deployed in a large body of sentencing research. I first trace the genealogy of the “focal concerns” concept and detail its current articulation. I then describe the body of work that has reduced “focal concerns” to a commonsense psychological construct, and illustrate the fallacies of logic and paucity of direct theory development and testing that weaken the explanatory value of the framework. I conclude by building on Ulmer’s recent call to treat criminal courts as “inhabited institutions” to assess approaches that are more social scientifically robust and empirically testable for understanding how sentencing disparity is produced.     

Deserved Delayed Release? The Communicative Theory of Punishment and Indeterminate Prison Sentences

Indeterminate sentencing is a sentencing practice where offenders are sentenced to a range of potential imprisonment terms and where the actual release date is determined later, typically by a parole board. Although indeterminate sentencing is often considered morally problematic from a retributivist perspective, Michael O’Hear has provided an interesting attempt to reconcile indeterminate sentencing with the communicative version of retributivism developed by Antony Duff. O’Hear’s core argument is that delayed release, within the parameters of the indeterminate sentence, can be seen as an appropriate retributivist response to the violations of prison rules. This article highlights several problems in O’Hear’s proposal and argues that the communicative theory is not easily reconciled with his proposed model for indeterminate sentencing. In conclusion, it is argued that proponents of the communicative version of retributivism should resist indeterminate prison sentences.     

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。     

论量刑程序的独立性——一种以量刑控制为中心的程序理论

中国现行刑事审判制度确立了定罪与量刑一体化的程序模式,主流的诉讼理论也是以定罪控制为中心确立起来的。然而,法院的量刑依据与定罪依据有着明显的差异,在缺乏诉权制约的情况下,量刑裁决存在着滥用自由裁量权的可能性。只有将量刑与定罪在程序上分离开来,并使其具有基本的诉讼形态,公诉权才可以从单纯的定罪请求权发展出量刑建议权的内涵,被告人的量刑辩护才可以成为独立的辩护形态,被害人的量刑参与权才可以得到充分的保证,那种以量刑控制为中心的证据规则也才可以得到建立。为有效制约法院在量刑上的自由裁量权,确保量刑程序的公正性,量刑程序有必要从现行审判制度中独立出来。     

“量刑规范化”解读

何谓"量刑规范化"是研究和探索量刑规范化问题的基础和前提,可理论上尚无明确或有价值之界定。基于对刑法现代化及量刑的实质和规律的考量,量刑规范化应是对"量刑",即把抽象的法律规则与具体的案件事实相结合并上升为理性与具体的过程的规范化。它表现为量刑统一化与量刑个别化的有机统一,是在尊重量刑实质和遵循量刑规律的前提下,通过设置和适用完备的程序制度,使量刑生产出公正有效及符合刑罚目的的量刑判决。     

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.     

中美量刑机制比较研究

中美在量刑的指导思想、量刑的模式、量刑的依据、量刑的主体、量型的程序和方法等方面均有很大不同,美国的量刑机制对我国量刑制度的改革和完善有借鉴意义。     

“Fixed” Sentencing: The Effect on Imprisonment Rates Over Time

Objective

Sentencing guidelines, statutory presumptive sentencing, determinate sentencing, truth in sentencing, and three strikes are important components of the criminal justice system. The main purpose behind a relatively-fixed sentence is to remove judicial discretion by insuring that convicted felons receive a reasonably-assumed sentence depending on the crime committed. The current study assessed shifts in year-to-year changes in incarceration rates within all 50 states from the years 1965–2008 due to the adoption of sentencing reforms.

Methods

The study tests two competing theories, a normative theory and critical theory of the expected effects of reforms on imprisonment. Data was analyzed using panel regression with unit-specific fixed effects, conditional change scores, panel corrected standard errors, and a new measure of reforms.

Results

This study, possibly due to differences in model specification, ran counter to a number of previous studies and suggests some “front-end” sentencing reforms and “back-end” release changes are, on average, related to changes in imprisonment.

Conclusions

The study concluded, that when significant, reforms increased more than decreased prison growth in comparison to indeterminate sentencing. Additionally, the analysis concludes that changes in release mechanisms and parole decision structures are driving increased growth more than changes in sentencing structures.     

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。     

检察机关提出量刑建议的合理模式——以职务犯罪案件为视角

近年来,职务犯罪案件出现了量刑失衡的现象,这与我国现阶段量刑程序中存在问题有着密切的关系。理论界和司法实务界在规范量刑程序,限制法官的自由裁量权方面进行了有益地尝试。在职务犯罪刑事诉讼中,保证控辩双方掌握证据的完整性,加强控辩双方之间对抗性是检察机关提出合理量刑建议的重要因素。     

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。