Portrait of the Accused as a Young Man: New Zealand’s Harsh Treatment of Young People who Commit Serious Crimes

Abstract

This article argues that although New Zealand’s unique youth justice system generally considers the whole picture of a young offender and responds holistically to the offending, in the case of those accused of serious crimes, the system draws a limited picture that depicts the young offender as a ‘young adult’. These young people are sentenced in adult courts, where their youth, inexperience and potential for rehabilitation are far less influential than they are in a youth court. The result is harsh treatment of some extremely vulnerable young people, which breaches New Zealand’s international obligations. That harsh treatment is particularly problematic, given its hugely disproportionate effect on Māori youth.     

Crime,cash, and limited options: Explaining the prison boom*

Research Summary An analysis of a state panel of prison populations from 1977 to 2005 shows that the best predictors of prison populations are crime, sentencing policy, prison crowding, and state spending. Prison populations grew at roughly the same rate and during the same periods as spending on education, welfare, health and hospitals, highways, parks, and natural resources. Current and lagged values of state spending on prison construction also accounted for a substantial amount of variation in subsequent prison populations. Public opinion, partisan politics, the electoral cycle, and social threats seem to have had little effect on the number of prisoners. Policy Implications The availability of publicly acceptable alternatives to incarceration may not be sufficient to reverse course. Federal funding of alternatives—but not prisons—would provide states with the financial incentive to reduce prison populations.     

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.     

Predicting Institutional Violence among Death Row Inmates: The Utility of the Sorensen and Pilgrim Model

The (Sorensen and Pilgrim, An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. J Crim Law Criminol 90:1251–1270, 2000) actuarial model was developed to predict institutional violence among life-sentenced murderers. However, despite its presentation at capital sentencing, the model has not been validated on death row inmates specifically. This study examined the association between Sorensen and Pilgrim model scores and five types of institutional violence (serious assaults, minor assaults, verbal assault/threats, prison order offenses, and non-violent infractions) among a sample of 155 individuals who had been incarcerated on death row in Texas. Results revealed that risk scores performed better for non-violent infractions than for serious assaults, calling into question the utility of this measure for capital sentencing evaluations.

“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。     

Investigating the Relationship Between Intimate Partner Violence and HIV Risk-Propensity in Black/African-American Women

This study explored the relationship between Intimate Partner Violence and HIV Risk-Propensity in African-American women. An anonymous questionnaire was completed by a community based sample of 200 African American women with a varied history of intimate partner violence, to determine whether being in a violent relationship impacts HIV risk. Various statistical techniques, including structural equation modeling (SEM), bivariate correlation analyses and ANOVA were used to examine the data. A strong positive correlation was found to exist between sexual coercion and Intimate Partner Violence. In the effort to fortify prevention strategies, and reduce the rates of HIV infection in African-American women, additional factors that impact disease transmission were discussed. Implications for social work/mental health practice and suggestions for future research were made.     

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。     

Examining Sentencing Patterns and Outcomes for White-Collar and Property Crime Offenders

Guided by the focal concerns perspective, the authors examine effects associated with sentencing predictors on incarceration and sentence length decisions for offenders convicted of white-collar and different forms of property crime. Using seven years of data (2004–2010) obtained from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, the authors compare direct and interaction effects of legal and extralegal covariates for white-collar, property economic, and property noneconomic offenders to assess similarities and differences in sentencing outcomes across these crime types. Results indicate more variation exists between white-collar and property noneconomic offenders, particularly in terms of age, race, and gender interaction effects on sentence length decisions. Substantive and theoretical implications are discussed.     

Institutionalizing inequality in the courts: Decomposing racial and ethnic disparities in detention,conviction, and sentencing*

A significant body of literature has examined racial and ethnic inequalities in sentencing, focusing on how individual court actors make decisions, but fewer scholars have examined whether disparities are institutionalized through legal case factors. After finding racial and ethnic inequalities in pretrial detention, conviction, and incarceration based on 4 years of felony court data (N = 83,924) from Miami-Dade County, we estimate nonlinear decomposition models to examine how much of the inequalities are explained by differences in criminal history, charging, and for conviction and incarceration, pretrial detention. Results suggest that inequality is greatest between White non-Latinos and Black Latinos, followed by White non-Latinos and Black non-Latinos, ranging from 4 to more than 8 percentage points difference in the probability of pretrial detention, 7–13 points difference in conviction, 5–6 points in prison, and 4–10 points difference in jail. We find few differences between White non-Latinos and White Latinos. Between half and three-quarters of the inequality in pretrial detention, conviction, and prison sentences between White non-Latino and Black people is explained through legal case factors. Our findings indicate that inequality is, in part, institutionalized through legal case factors, suggesting these factors are not “race neutral” but instead racialized and contribute to inequalities in court outcomes.     

Tracing the Gordian Knot: Indeterminate‐Sentenced Prisoners and the Pathologies of English Penal Politics

This article explores some of the key pathologies of English penal politics by applying an interpretive political analysis perspective to the specific issue of the plight of the ‘prisoners left behind’, the thousands of indeterminate‐sentenced IPP (imprisonment for public protection) prisoners who remain incarcerated, notwithstanding the abolition in 2012 of this sentencing option targeted at ‘dangerous offenders’. The article draws on research findings from an ESRC funded study of penal policymaking to examine why the Gordian knot of the prisoners left behind has proved to be so hard to untangle. The broader lessons of this specific story are then set out. In particular, it is argued that the public and political debate around criminal justice has become damagingly narrow over recent years.