The sentencing decision is typically the last court decision made in a case. This decision has attracted the most attention from researchers studying legal decision making. After being convicted of a crime, a defendant may be sentenced to, for example, imprisonment, a community penalty, fine, restitution or compensation, or probation. A sentence may have one or more goals, including to deter, rehabilitate, and incapacitate the offender. Crimes may have maximum and minimum penalties attached to them. However, in between these penalties, sentencers have discretion as to the sentence they pass. Efforts have been made to curb this discretion through the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Past research on sentencing has largely been conducted in the American and English criminal justice systems. Researchers have aimed to describe and explain sentencing practice. They have found that guidelines do not necessarily reduce sentencing disparity. Sentencing decisions are associated with earlier decisions in a case. In addition, sentencers may be influenced by myriad individual-level factors such as offender, victim, and case characteristics as well as higher-level factors related to the sentencer, court, and area or jurisdiction.
量刑理论和政策
一旦被告被判犯罪,他或她将被判刑。该量刑决定通常由法官或地方法官(取决于量刑法院)做出。判刑者可以使用几个量刑选项;常见的包括监禁(监狱或监狱),社区判决,罚款,赔偿或赔偿以及缓刑。其中,监禁通常是最严重的判决,尽管有些犯罪在某些司法管辖区判处死刑。被定罪的被告可能会连续或同时判处犯罪。量刑统计数据表明量刑的趋势是,不同选项的相对使用会随着时间的推移而变化,这主要是为了响应量刑政策或公众舆论的变化。
句子可以在几个理论上的一个或多个理由上是合理的。在最简单的形式中,沙漠或报应的理论建议那些犯罪的人应受到惩罚,并应接受与犯罪严重性相称的判决。威慑理论指出,量刑应旨在阻止特定的人或一般的人犯罪,而这样做则要求句子确定和严厉。康复方法还表明,判决应旨在防止进一步的再犯,但认为这应该通过治疗来完成。该判决应旨在通过拘留持续或危险的罪犯来保护公众的丧失能力。最后,恢复性和修改理论指出,判决应旨在修复犯罪造成的伤害并鼓励社会融合。
关于公众判决观点的研究发现,对惩罚目的的支持因犯罪的性质和严重性而有所不同。然而,研究一直报告说,人们认为量刑政策和实践太宽大了。实际上,公众舆论一直是几项量刑政策背后的推动力,例如美国的“三罢工”政策。但是,证据还表明,公众可能会对当前的量刑政策和实践以及犯罪率误导或误解。研究表明,当公众意识到可用的量刑方案范围时,公众不太可能受到监禁,并且在某些情况下,他们支持替代监禁的替代方案。
大多数罪行都有固定的最大罚款,通常以监禁或罚款的形式形式,有些犯罪也有强制性的最低刑期。此外,量刑选项可能因犯罪类型而有所不同。最后,成人和年轻人(少年和年轻罪犯)的量刑选择可能会有所不同。尽管如此,在通过的句子中,该句子得到了相当大的酌处权。在做出量刑决定时,判刑者有望使用法律因素,例如犯罪的性质和严重性和被告的犯罪历史。The sentencer is also obliged to take into account any aggravating factors, such as the vulnerability of the victim, whether the victim was racially/religiously targeted, the offender’s leading role in the offense, his or her profit from the offense, as well as mitigating factors, such as whether the offender was provoked, the offender’s minor role in the offense, and his or her acceptance of responsibility or show of remorse. Finally, sentencers may also have access to sentencing recommendations provided by a probation officer in what is called a presentence report.
Sentencing guidelines have been introduced in some jurisdictions to focus sentencers’ attention on legal factors and to promote predictability, consistency, transparency, and accountability in sentencing. For example, in the United States, since the 1980s, there have been both state and federal guidelines that employ a grid structure. State guidelines vary in their use of the axes of criminal history and offense seriousness, as well as the sentence ranges proposed. Some guidelines are advisory/optional (voluntary), and others are legally mandated (presumptive); some are based on past sentencing practices, while others offer a new sentencing goal or philosophy. In the English system, optional sentencing guidelines are being produced for all criminal courts since 2004. Although these guidelines are much less structured than in the United States, they are informed by public consultation and data on the effectiveness of sentences in reducing re-offending, as well as the financial cost of different sentences. However, commentators are pessimistic about the extent to which objectivity in sentencing can be achieved by the English guidelines. Research evaluating guidelines in the American system suggests that while successful in reducing extralegal disparity in sentencing in some jurisdictions, the guidelines have sharply increased such disparity in other jurisdictions.
描述和解释量刑实践的研究
Much of the past research has investigated sentencing decisions in the American and English criminal justice systems. Studies have been conducted by psychologists, sociologists, criminologists, and legal scholars using methodologies such as experiments involving sentencers being presented with simulated cases, interview and questionnaire surveys of sentencers, analyses of sentenced case records and sentencing statistics, and analyses of sentencing policies. Researchers have examined both sentencing decisions generally as well as the choice of specific sentencing options. They have documented the influence of legal and extralegal factors on sentencing, variations in sentencing practice across areas or jurisdictions, and disparities in the sentences passed on subgroups of defendants.
通常要求判刑者为其判决决定提供理由。法院或自我报告研究中给出的原因通常与基于量刑行为的分析的研究结果一致。
量刑行为研究的证据表明,量刑决定与诸如保释设定决定和被告的恳求之类的案件中的早期决定有关。特别是,在控制了一些法律上相关的变量(例如犯罪类型)之后,被拒绝保释或被拘留的被拘留的被告更有可能接受监护权刑期。此外,可能会给那些认罪的被告提供判决折扣。量刑决定与早期决定之间的某些关系得到了政策的支持,例如英语制度中的认罪折扣和美国联邦系统中的认罪协议。但是,量刑政策不要求保释设定决定与量刑决定之间的关联。
研究已经检查了判刑者可能受到多种个人水平因素的影响,例如罪犯,受害者和案件特征以及与判刑者,法院,地区或管辖权相关的高级因素。关于个人级别的因素,有证据表明,除了法律禁令外,判刑者还可以使用被告的种族或种族和性别等外部因素。尤其是,据报道,黑人被告比白人被告更受惩罚性的对待,即使在控制了被告的罪行和犯罪历史之后,女性也比男性对待更宽容。但是,可能还有其他与这些法律相关的案例变量与这些外部因素也需要控制,并且外部因素对量刑的影响也可能部分由这些因素在刑事司法的早期阶段的影响来解释在保释阶段等过程。
关于高级因素,美国的犯罪学研究表明,可以通过刑事特征(例如年龄,法院和地区因素(例如法院规模),托管费用,托管人士的可用性来预测监禁和监禁期限的决定空间和族裔人口比例。例如,已经发现少数派法官比白人同行更宽大。在小法院中,判决比在大法院中更为严重。发现保管空间的可用性增加了监禁的可能性。在某些地区,已经发现,随着属于少数民族的人口的比例,监禁的时间也增加了。英语系统中的犯罪学研究类似地报道说,对于类似严重程度或类似类型的罪犯的罪行,句子似乎因地区,法院类型和句子而有所不同。在这里,皇家法院对判决的刑期往往比地方法院(下)法院对类似罪行的判决更为严重,而且专业法官的判决往往比外行法官(治安法官)的刑期更为严重。
尽管心理学家通常没有研究高级变量对量刑决策的影响,但他们已经证明了句子者的个人特征(例如他或她的态度和经验)如何影响判决决定。心理学研究还指出了判刑者可能使用的启发式决策策略的类型。
More recently, criminologists such as Brian Johnson have begun to argue for the importance of studying sentencing decisions using multilevel theories. These allow the researcher to simultaneously examine the relative (direct) impact of individual- and higher-level factors on sentencing decisions and to measure the interactive effects of individual- and higher-level factors. Therefore, theories of sentencing can better consider how sentencers are influenced by the individual offender, case, or victim and how sentencing behavior is affected by the characteristics of the sentencer and his or her environment such as court or area.
参考:
- Albonetti,C。A.(1997)。根据《联邦量刑指南》的量刑:被告特征,有罪的恳求和离开对毒品犯罪的判决结果的影响。法律与社会评论,第31卷,第789-822页。
- Daly,K。和Bordt,R。L.(1995)。性别影响和量刑:统计文献的分析。司法季刊,12,141-175。
- Mitchell,O。(2005)。种族和量刑研究的荟萃分析:解释不一致。定量犯罪学杂志,第21卷,第439-166页。
- Roberts,J。V.和Hough,M。(2005)。了解公众对刑事司法的态度。英国伯克希尔:开放大学出版社。
- 约翰逊,B。(2006)。刑事量刑的多层面背景:整合法官和县级影响力。犯罪学,44,259-298。
- Von Hirsch,A。和A. A. A.(编辑)。(1998)。原则量刑(第二版)。英国牛津:哈特。