The Comparability of Data on Convictions and Sanctions: Are International Comparisons Possible?

This article looks at the availability of data on convictions and on sanctions and measures in European countries, on the basis of the European Sourcebook data. It emphasises the limitations in the use that can currently be made of this data, although it has a wide potential in helping to understand criminal justice policy. The differences are, for instance, to be found in offence definitions, statistical rules, and political changes. Moreover the data collection for the Sourcebook on the four categories of sanctions/measures (fines, non-custodial sentences, suspended custodial sentences and unsuspended custodial sentences) was sometimes difficult. Attention is paid to the information collected, the comparability and, as an illustration, to three specific offences (completed homicide, rape and all thefts). The conclusion is that wide differences exist in the level of convictions found and the use of sanctions by the courts. Such differences will reflect both different levels of criminality, diversion away from the courts but also different recording practices. However, even with these caveats what is available does provide a useful starting point in identifying countries on which further research may be carried out.     

Sybil Campbell,first woman judge and supporter of higher education for women

ABSTRACT

Sybil Campbell was appointed a Metropolitan stipendiary magistrate in 1945, the first woman to become a full-time judge in the courts of England and Wales. She sat for 16 years, at Tower Bridge Magistrates’ Court, where she met with a great deal of opprobrium from the national and local press, trade unionists and individuals, much of it directed to the fact that she was a woman dispensing justice, with some severity, in a working-class community. She weathered the criticism with indifference and continued until her retirement, in 1961. Her pioneering example, however, did not encourage the appointment of other women to a judicial role until the appointment of Elizabeth Lane as a county court judge in 1962. This article examines her judicial career and her work for the British Federation of University Women, of which she was Honorary Secretary and its honorary vice-president.     

刑事缺席审判程序的理论检视

最高立法机关将缺席审判程序引入《刑事诉讼法》,既应遵守国际共识,又须彰显中国特色。改革者宜遵循"凸显权利属性、淡化义务属性"的思路,尊重被追诉人明示或者暗示放弃出庭受审权利的意愿,进而采取二元化的方案。其一,针对简单轻微犯罪案件,以认罪认罚从宽制度改革为契机,允许被追诉人以签署具结书的形式放弃审判在场权,实现书面审理与缺席审判的"合二为一"。其二,针对重大贪污贿赂犯罪案件,慎重地权衡国家公共利益与被追诉人利益的关系,采取"四步走"的规划,最大限度地实现制度反腐的法治化。同时,完善缺席审判程序立法规则还要明确"五个区别",涉及弃权自愿性审查、被追诉人诉讼权利、审理活动、司法救济途径、被害人权益等方面。     

The “Distance Traveled”: Investigating the Downstream Consequences of Charge Reductions for Disparities in Incarceration

Abstract

Relatively little work examines the impact that charging decisions exert on sentencing. We investigate this issue by estimating the “distance traveled” in charge bargaining, or the expected change in the likelihood of incarceration associated with reductions in charges across different stages of prosecution. Using data from New York County, we examine how the probability of incarceration shifts as a result of charging decisions and how this potentially contributes to social inequalities in incarceration. Findings indicate that charge reductions are associated with sizeable decreases in the probability of incarceration, particularly at the plea bargaining stage. On average, the “distance traveled” is substantially greater for female than male defendants and for White compared to Latino and Black defendants, even after accounting for a host of relevant punishment factors. Findings are discussed as they relate to contemporary theoretical perspectives on prosecutorial decision-making and social inequality in punishment.     

量刑基准确定方法研究

就量刑基准确定方法的求证路径而言,应提倡逻辑推演与实证分析相结合的思维方式。基于"主要因素论"的立场,量刑基准的确定方法总体上应以法益被侵害的程度作为主要因素,并根据相应法律后果即法定刑的设定加以判断。具体应结合犯罪类型,尤其是既遂犯的不同模式,确定各种犯罪的主要因素,并最终形成量刑的初始点。     

Defending the Homeland: Judicial Sentencing Practices for Federal Immigration Offenses

In the last decade, immigration prosecutions in federal court have increased 165%, with immigration offenses comprising over 28% of the federal criminal caseload in 2008. Despite this increase, research has yet to fully examine the sentencing outcomes for these offenders. Exploration of sentencing outcomes for immigration offenders is particularly salient due to the racial/ethnic composition of these defendants and the documented history of disparate treatment of minorities at this decision point. To explicate these issues, we examine the sentence length of immigration cases to assess the impact of legal, extra-legal, and case-processing factors. We further disaggregate by offense type to explore if correlates of sentencing are consistent across specific categories of immigration violations. Finally, we examine southwestern border districts, which process over 70% of all cases, to assess their specific sentencing practices. Model results, theoretical implications, and avenues for future research are also discussed.     

(Dis)order in the Court: Examining Neighborhood Disorder Prosecutions in Miami-Dade County

Abstract

This study examines race, space, perceptions of disorder, and nuisance crime prosecution in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Research has examined nuisance policing, yet little attention has been devoted to nuisance crime prosecutions, especially at the neighborhood level. Aggregating data on defendants arrested for nuisance offenses from 2012 to 2015 up to the neighborhood level, we estimate count models for pretrial detention, case acceptance, conviction, and sentencing outcomes in neighborhoods. We find two patterns of nuisance crime prosecution. Drug disorder prosecutions are concentrated in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods with large Black defendant populations, suggesting a more suppressive treatment of these “marginalized” spaces. In contrast, greater enforcement of homelessness and alcohol nuisance crimes in White non-Hispanic neighborhoods suggests disorder prosecutions are also used to impose order and containment in more economically “prime” spaces. These countervailing patterns highlight the spatial contingency of nuisance enforcement, whereby prosecutors differentially enforce nuisance crimes in prime and marginalized spaces.     

The Effects of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders on Institutional Misconduct Among Female Inmates

The US Sentencing Guidelines are among the most ambitious attempts in history to control sentencing discretion. However, a major sea change occurred in January of 2005, when the US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Booker and Fanfan, that in order to be constitutional, the federal guidelines must be advisory rather than presumptive. The impact of the Booker/Fanfan decisions on interjurisdictional variation and sentencing disparity is an opportunity to examine the issue of whether the increased opportunity to sentence according to substantively rational criteria entails increased extralegal disparity. We draw on a conceptualization of courts as communities and a focal concerns model of sentencing decisions to frame expectations about federal sentencing in the wake of Booker/Fanfan. We test these expectations using USSC data on federal sentencing outcomes from four time periods: prior to the 2003 PROTECT Act, the period governed by the PROTECT Act, post-Booker/Fanfan, and post-Gall v US. In general, we find that extralegal disparity and between-district variation in the effects of extralegal factors on sentencing have not increased post-Booker and Gall. We conclude that allowing judges greater freedom to exercise substantive rationality does not necessarily result in increased extralegal disparity.