FEDERAL SENTENCING AS A COMPLEX COLLABORATIVE PROCESS: JUDGES,PROSECUTORS, JUDGE–PROSECUTOR DYADS,AND DISPARITY IN SENTENCING

Investigations of how criminal justice actors contribute to variation in sentencing typically focus on the role played by the judge. We argue that sentencing should be viewed as a collaborative process involving actors other than the judge and that the role of the prosecutor is particularly salient. We also contend that the courtroom workgroup literature has suggested that sentences may vary depending on the particular judge and prosecutor to whom the case is assigned. By using a unique data set from three U.S. district courts (N = 2,686) that identifies both the judge and the prosecutor handling the case, we examine how the judge, the prosecutor, and the judge–prosecutor dyad contribute to variance in offender sentences. We do this by employing cross‐classified random‐effects models to estimate the variance components associated with judges, prosecutors, and judge–prosecutor interactions. The results indicate that disparity attributable to the prosecutor is larger than disparity from the judge. Moreover, the role that the judge plays is moderated by the prosecutor to whom the case is assigned, as the judge–prosecutor effect is consistently larger than other random effects across the models. We also find that results vary by judicial district.     

Crime,time, and punishment: An exploration of selection bias in sentencing research

The sentencing decision reflects the culmination of a long series of processing and, thus, selection decisions, with cases leaving the system at each decision point. Accordingly, the substantive implications of bias due to sample selection are of particular concern for sentencing research. In an effort to assess the existence and manifestations of selection bias, the sentencing decision is modeled for three samples, each of which was selected from different stages of the justice process. Event-history data on felony arrests in the State of California over a 3-year period are used, along with a relatively simple analytic technique which reduces such bias. Results indicate that biasis introduced when censored observations are excluded from the analyses. Also, the effects of certain exogenous variables on sentence length differ, depending upon the selection criteria. Of these, the influence of pleading guilty rather than going to trial is especially interesting. Overall, our findings are consistent with the possibility that selectivity bias has concealed effects of sentence bargaining in some earlier studies.The data utilized in this study were collected and made available by the State of California Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Statistics. The Department of Justice bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here.     

THE MULTILEVEL CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL SENTENCING: INTEGRATING JUDGE‐ AND COUNTY‐LEVEL INFLUENCES*

This study extends recent inquiries of contextual effects in sentencing by jointly examining the influence of judge and courtroom social contexts. It combines two recent years of individual sentencing data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) with data on judicial background characteristics and county court social contexts. Three‐level hierarchical models are estimated to investigate the influence of judge and county contexts on individual variations in sentencing. Results indicate that nontrivial sentencing variations are associated with both individual judge characteristics and county court contexts. Judicial background factors also condition the influence of individual offender characteristics in important ways. These and other findings are discussed in relation to contemporary theoretical perspectives on courtroom decision making that highlight the importance of both judge and court contexts in sentencing. The study concludes with suggestions for future research on contextual disparities in criminal sentencing.     

论共同过失犯罪

从主客观相一致原则和罪责刑相适应原则论证共同过失犯罪统一定罪量刑的合理性,并提出共 同过失犯罪成立的条件和立法献言。     

检察机关量刑建议制度若干问题探讨

量刑建议制度是根据求刑权设置的用以确保罪刑统一的相关制度,建立健全量刑建议制度,对保障量刑公正、增强检察监督、防范司法腐败、提高诉讼效率都有十分重要的意义。     

美国反垄断刑事政策及其对我国反垄断立法的启示

美国反垄断刑事政策由成文法、反垄断判决指南与宽免政策三部分组成。近年来,美国司法部加大了反垄断刑事政策的实施力度,收效显著。美国的反垄断刑事政策对许多国家的反垄断立法产生了重要影响,其中以英国最为显著。中国应当借鉴美国的成功经验,对固定价格、划分市场、串通投标等卡特尔进行严厉制裁,包括追究卡特尔的刑事责任;建立透明、可预测的宽免政策,加强反垄断执法的国际合作等等。     

我国量刑程序的构建——以英美量刑程序为视角的分析

量刑不均衡是我国刑事司法实践中面临的一个普遍问题。量刑程序相对独立于定罪程序,有利于被告人辩护权的实现,并形成对法官自由裁量权的制约,实现量刑的一致性。英美两国独立的量刑程序对我国量刑程序的构建有重要的借鉴价值,但在我国有效的案件分流机制未形成的情况下,构建相对独立的量刑模式是理性的选择。     

辩护律师的量刑建议权初探

刑事司法审判中量刑之轻重不仅直接事关被告人的切身利益,而且关乎到能否真正落实罪刑法定原则和罪责刑相适应原则,关系到法律的统一。在当前因刑法法定刑规定幅度较大而致实践中法官量刑畸轻畸重的情况下,赋予维护被告人合法权益的辩护律师以量刑建议权,充分发挥辩护律师的作用,对促进被告人的公正量刑,不仅是必要的,而且也是可行的。     

American politics,British policy: whole of life imprisonment and transatlantic influence

Since the abolition of the death penalty, life imprisonment in England and Wales has had a literal meaning with exceptional rarity. Now though, in the rejection of perceived interference by the European Court of Human Rights in domestic sentencing, the politics of whole of life imprisonment have become exposed, specifically, in the widening applicability of the tariff to those who kill police officers or prison guards. Borrowing from the politics of capital punishment in the United States, in both “acting out” after a particular crime, and the prioritising of victim groups, the most severe penalty in England and Wales is increasingly beginning to mirror how the most severe punishment across the Atlantic is used, represented, and politicised.