On the Puzzles of Precision of Sentencing Recommendations

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Sentencing Recommendations

scholarly journals Investigating the Impact of Jury Sentencing Recommendations Using Procedural Justice Theory

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianni Ribeiro ◽  
Emma Antrobus
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Frustration Effect ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Justice Theory ◽  
Perceptions Of Fairness ◽  
Sentencing Recommendations ◽  
The Impact

Public confidence in the criminal justice system is critical for the system to function effectively. Two studies investigated the impact of jury sentencing recommendations on public confidence using procedural justice theory. The first study (N = 80) manipulated the presence of jury involvement in sentencing (voice present versus voice absent) and the punitiveness of the minimum non-parole period (more punitive versus less punitive) to examine whether giving juries a “voice”—a key element of procedural justice—would increase public confidence in the courts, as well as perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. Contrary to predictions, results revealed that a more punitive sentence led to increased perceptions of legitimacy, which was associated with higher confidence. The second study (N = 60) examined whether manipulating the Judge’s agreement with the jury’s recommendation—as well as the Judge’s reason for disagreement—would elicit the “frustration effect,” leading to a decrease in confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. There was no evidence to suggest that the frustration effect was present. Results of both studies could suggest that jury sentencing recommendations may not effectively increase public confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy in the courts, however alternate explanations are discussed.

Examining the Impact of Proximate Culpability Mitigation in Capital Punishment Sentencing Recommendations: The Influence of Mental Health Mitigators

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 698-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lane Kirkland Gillespie ◽  
M. Dwayne Smith ◽  
Beth Bjerregaard ◽  
Sondra J. Fogel
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Sentencing Recommendations ◽  
The Impact

Probation Recommendations and Sentences Received

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 494-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Leifker ◽  
Lisa L. Sample
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Probation Officers ◽  
Minimal Impact ◽  
Sentencing Recommendations ◽  
Extralegal Factors

Although an association has been established between sentencing recommendations made by probation officers and the actual sentences received by offenders, to date, few scholars have examined the role of offender and officer characteristics in these recommendations. This article uses quantitative data from one small California jurisdiction between 2004 and 2006 to explore the role of legal and extralegal factors in sentencing recommendations. The minimal impact of extralegal factors is discussed and conclusions are made about why this may be the case. Ultimately, this research is intended to shed further light on the sentencing process and the previously documented sentencing disparities that exist.

Accounting for Pre-Sentencing Recommendations: Typologies and Probation Officers' Theory of Office

1987 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kriss A. Drass ◽  
J. William Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Probation Officers ◽  
Sentencing Recommendations

Sentencing Guidelines

Criminology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian D. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Two Dimensional ◽  
Us States ◽  
Sentencing Recommendations ◽  
History Of ◽  
Administrative Body

Sentencing guidelines are formal sentencing recommendations that provide benchmarks for appropriate punishments to judges at sentencing. They often consist of two-dimensional grids that rank the seriousness of the current offense along one axis and the prior offending history of the offender on the other. Cells within the grid provide specific ranges of punishments that are presumed to be appropriate in typical cases involving typical offenders. Many sentencing guidelines are established and monitored by a specialized administrative body known as a sentencing commission. Since the early 1980s, sentencing guidelines have been implemented in numerous US states and in the federal justice system with the express goals of reducing unwarranted disparity and increasing consistency, uniformity, and transparency in punishment.

scholarly journals Slippery scales: Cost prompts, but not benefit prompts, modulate sentencing recommendations in laypeople

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. e0236764
Author(s):  
Eyal Aharoni ◽  
Heather M. Kleider-Offutt ◽  
Sarah F. Brosnan ◽  
Sharlene Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
Sentencing Recommendations
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document