Risk Technology in Sentencing: Testing the Promises and Perils (Commentary on Hannah-Moffat, 2011)

The target article is a critique of the movement toward using structured risk assessment tools to inform decisions about sentencing. In this commentary, I analyze (a) the conditions under which it may be more or less fair to use well-validated risk assessment tools in this manner and (b) the extent to which doing so is likely to exacerbate, ameliorate, or have no effect on existing racial and other biases in sentencing. I recommend a policy-relevant research agenda that would specifically test whether and how adding well-validated risk assessment tools to the routine sentencing process alter the severity or nature of sentences. This agenda would also evaluate the extent to which these tools are implemented in “real world” settings faithfully enough to bridge the usual divide between science and practice.     

Predicting Proportionality: The Case for Algorithmic Sentencing

A basic principle in sentencing offenders is proportionality. However, proportionality judgments are often left to the discretion of the judge, raising familiar concerns of arbitrariness and bias. This paper considers the case for systematizing judgments of proportionality in sentencing by means of an algorithm. The aim of such an algorithm would be to predict what a judge in that jurisdiction would regard as a proportionate sentence in a particular case. A predictive algorithm of this kind would not necessarily undermine justice in individual cases, is consistent with a particularistic account of moral judgment, and is attractive even in the face of uncertainty as to the legitimate purposes of punishment.     

Chapter 6. Psychosocial Stressors,Psychiatric Diagnoses and Utilization of Mental Health Services Among Undocumented Immigrant Latinos

Abstract

The combined effects of minority status, specific ethnic group experiences (political, economic, trauma and immigration history), poverty, and illegal status pose a set of unique psychiatric risks for undocumented Latinos in the United States. Restrictive legislation and policy measures have limited access to health care, and other basic human services to undocumented immigrants and their children throughout the nation. However, little is known about the patterns of mental health care use, psychiatric diagnoses and psychosocial problems prevalent among the undocumented who do succeed in presenting to clinical settings and to the mental health sector. To begin to address the need for further understanding in this area, we completed a clinical chart review of 197 outpatient adult psychiatric charts in a Latino mental health outpatient treatment program located in an urban hospital system.

We compared the diagnoses and mental health care use of undocumented Latino immigrants (15%) with that of documented (73%) and US born Latinos (12%) treated in this clinical setting. The undocumented Latinos in our study were more likely to have a diagnosis of anxiety, adjustment and alcohol abuse disorders. The undocumented also had a significantly greater mean number of concurrent psychosocial stressors (mean number = 5, p < .001) ascompared to documented immigrants and US born groups, which both had a mean number of 3 stressors identified at evaluation. The undocumented were more likely to have psychosocial problems related to occupation, access to healthcare and the legal system. However, the undocumented had a lower mean number of total mental health appointments attended (mean visits = 4.3, p < .001) in which to address these stressors as compared to documented immigrants (mean visits = 7.9) and US born (mean visits = 13.3). In terms of other previous mental health service use, the undocumented group had lower rates of lifetime inpatient and outpatient treatment use.

The results of this study suggest the importance of early assessment of psychosocial stressors, substance use and barriers to care when treating undocumented immigrants. Although all Latino groups included in this investigation demonstrated numerable concurrent stressors, our investigation highlights the particular importance of accessible social services and supports for addressing psychosocial stressors in the lives of undocumented patients. Our results stress the importance of reexamining policies, that restrict access to social services and healthcare for the undocumented. Our results also suggest the importance of culturally appropriate evaluation and treatment of substance abuse disorders as well as addressing other psychological and behavioral responses to multiple stressors among undocumented individuals.     

Contemporary prison overcrowding: short-term fixes to a perpetual problem

Since the United States began using incarceration as its cornerstone of punishment for those who transgress the law, this method of discipline has been fraught with problems. One of the most ubiquitous problems found within correctional institutions are the conditions inmates are forced to live in particularly, when penal facilities are overcrowded. These conditions have led to extensive litigation, compelling the judicial system to change. Although overall conditions have improved, a perpetually increasing inmate population continues to plague correctional systems as costs continue to rise. As state budgets have become strained during the economic downturns, many states’ officials view less punitive measures as possible solutions to the excessive costs of administering punishment and overcrowded inmate populations. Due to facility overcrowding, several states have actually been placed under federal court order to reduce their inmate population in order to protect inmates’ constitutional rights. Although this has resulted in a change of policies to help alleviate prison overcrowding, there is little evidence these are anything more than short-term fixes to a problem with no end in sight.     

死刑案件中刑事和解的正当性探究

刑事和解与刑法理论相契合,与法治环境相融合,与多元化的利益需求和和谐社会的构建相吻合,并与刑事附带民事诉讼制度以及刑事被害人国家补偿制度存在功能上的互补。据此,刑事和解制度具有普遍正当性。死刑案件中的刑事和解与＂以钱买命＂存在的本质区别决定了二者不能混为一谈。刑事和解与司法腐败没有必然联系。刑事和解是限制死刑适用的有效途径。＂重罪不和解＂的观念存在正当性缺失。据此,死刑案件中的刑事和解具有特殊正当性。在刑事和解制度被法律明文规定之前,死刑案件中的刑事和解应被视为限制死刑适用的酌定量刑情节。     

略论我国刑事案件的证明责任

在我国刑事诉讼中,通常认为公诉案件由控方举证,自诉案件由自诉人举证。针对刑事案件中出现的与证明责任问题有关的情况笔者提出以下观点：刑事案件证明责任的分配划分为定罪情节和量刑情节两个方面,定罪情节和量刑情节的证明责任分配通常遵循＂谁主张、谁举证＂原则,但是不同的量刑情节要有不同的证明责任分配规则。     

量刑说理研究：现状、标准、成因及改革--以2014年8月1日中国裁判文书网公布的刑事裁判文书为样本

长期以来,作为刑罚问题的重要一环,量刑结果得出的过程,即量刑说理在刑事裁判文书写作中的地位并没有得到应有的重视。随着司法体制和工作机制改革的深化,量刑规范化改革从2010年10月1日起在全国法院全面试行、从2014年1月1日起在全国法院正式实施,改革对裁判文书中的量刑说理亦作出了明确要求。然而,量刑规范化工作的实施对我国刑事裁判文书的量刑说理有何启示,会产生什么影响?因而有必要在考察量刑说理取得的成果、存在的问题的基础之上,全面分析探讨问题成因、说理标准及改革对策。     

我国检察机关量刑建议的几个问题

我国量刑建议是司法改革的产物,但是,量刑建议的实践情况却不尽如人意,在理论和实践中还存在许多问题需要探讨。量刑建议具有可行性和必要性,但否定论者指出的问题也客观存在,需要认真对待。对于我国量刑建议的法律地位,应从行为说和权力说两个角度进行界定。量刑建议的运作机制涉及提出时机、案件范围、表现形式、提出方式等具体问题。量刑建议的实体标准应与法院的量刑标准一致,在遵循基本标准的前提下,根据具体的诉讼程序作相应的调整。     

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。     

论罪刑均衡的司法模式

罪刑均衡原则作为刑法的一个重要基本原则,是支撑刑法学发展的一个重要指标。在具体的司法实践中,错综复杂的案情以及层出不穷的社会问题,为实现刑法的公平正义以及追求最为均衡的刑罚裁量,带来了不小困难。现代文明社会要求严格恪守罪刑法定原则,罪刑均衡更成为一个司法层面的问题。然而,司法的过程是复杂的,在司法的过程中,司法界精英们发挥了重要的引导和规范功能。通过对刑罚裁量过程中各种辩证关系的分析和论证,努力寻求一种适合我国国情的罪刑均衡的司法模式。因此,在刑罚裁量的过程中,既要实现公平与效率的平衡,又要从法益侵害及行为人特质二元的衡量标准出发,实现应罚性与需罚性的平衡。最后,以刑罚的效果和民众的接受度作为刑罚适当的重要衡量标准,将刑罚裁量的量刑法理学模式与量刑社会学模式有机结合起来,并建议引入量刑听证制度,从司法的层面积极实现罪刑的均衡。