Empathy and socialization in repeat offenders, first offenders, and normals.

1975 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 453-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Deardorff ◽  
A. J. Finch ◽  
Philip C. Kendall ◽  
Frank Lira ◽  
Victor Indrisano
Keyword(s):  
Repeat Offenders ◽  
First Offenders

Retributivist Perspectives on an Offender’s Criminal or Crime-Free Past

2019 ◽  
pp. 23-40
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Repeat Offenders ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
First Offenders ◽  
A Minor

Proponents of retribution (Just Deserts) as a punishment rationale sharply disagree about whether repeat offenders are more culpable for a new offense, in comparison to offenders with little or no prior record. Some retributivists assert that prior convictions should have no bearing on the offender’s culpability and deserved punishment for his latest offense. Other retributivists argue that first offenders are less culpable and deserve sentence mitigation; some of these writers would extend a lesser degree of mitigation to offenders with only a minor record. A third group of retributivists views prior crimes as an aggravating factor, justifying steady increases in punishment severity as offenders acquire more convictions. This chapter critiques each of these three approaches. It argues that first offenders deserve substantial mitigation, that sentence severity should rise only modestly with additional convictions, and that such enhancements must be “capped” to preserve proportionality to the crime being sentenced.

Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Drunk Drivers: Beyond Incarceration

1988 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald R. Wheeler ◽  
Rodney V. Hissong
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Survival Time ◽  
Drunk Driving ◽  
Population At Risk ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Drunk Drivers ◽  
First Offenders ◽  
Alternative Sanctions

Proponents of mandatory jail laws contend that alternative sanctions such as probation and fines have failed to modify behavior of those convicted of drunk driving (DWI). In order to test this proposition, we evaluated the effects of probation, fines, and jail sentences on DWI recidivism of a randomly selected DWI population at risk for 36 months. Utilizing survival time statistical analysis, the findings showed no significant differences in outcome among sanctions. As predicted, persons with a DWI history recidivated significantly sooner than first offenders. We conclude by advocating a policy of alternative sanctions to incarceration for drunk drivers.

The Societal Cost of the Exclusionary Rule: An Empirical Assessment

1983 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter F. Nardulli
Keyword(s):  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Societal Costs ◽  
Physical Evidence ◽  
Using Data ◽  
First Offenders ◽  
The Impact

A key criticism that has emerged in the debate over the search and seizure exclusionary rule is that it exacts heavy societal costs in the form of lost prosecutions and that such costs outweigh any demonstrated social benefits. This article examines the costs of three exclusionary rules using data collected for 7,500 cases in a nine-county study of criminal courts in three states. It emphasizes motions to suppress physical evidence but for comparative purposes also includes motions to suppress confessions and identifications. The results show that the various exclusionary rules exact only marginal social costs. Motions to suppress physical evidence are filed in fewer than 5% of the cases, largely drug and weapons cases, while serious motions to suppress identifications and confessions are filed in 2% and 4% of the cases. The success rate of motions to suppress is equally marginal. Successful motions to suppress physical evidence occur in only 0.69% of the cases, while successful motions to suppress identifications or confessions occur much less often. Moreover, not all who successfully suppressed evidence escaped conviction, especially when only an identification or a confession was suppressed. In all, only 46 cases—less than 0.6% of the cases studied—were lost because of the three exclusionary rules combined, most of them involving offenses that would have incurred less than six months’ imprisonment or first offenders. Finally, the impact of unsuccessful motions on subsequent plea bargaining was found to be marginal; only unsuccessful motions to exclude confessions resulted in any real sentencing concessions.

scholarly journals Cryptography for #MeToo

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-429
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kuykendall ◽  
Hugo Krawczyk ◽  
Tal Rabin
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Assault ◽  
Difficult Problem ◽  
Protocol Design ◽  
Security Model ◽  
Repeat Offenders ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Software Libraries ◽  
Security Guarantees ◽  
Cryptographic Techniques ◽  
False Accusations

Abstract Reporting sexual assault and harassment is an important and difficult problem. Since late 2017, it has received increased attention as the viral #MeToo movement has brought about accusations against high-profile individuals and a wider discussion around the prevalence of sexual violence. Addressing occurrences of sexual assault requires a system to record and process accusations. It is natural to ask what security guarantees are necessary and achievable in such a system. In particular, we focus on detecting repeat offenders: only when a set number of accusations are lodged against the same party will the accusations be revealed to a legal counselor. Previous solutions to this privacy-preserving reporting problem, such as the Callisto Protocol of Rajan et al., have focused on the confidentiality of accusers. This paper proposes a stronger security model that ensures the confidentiality of the accuser and the accused as well as the traceability of false accusations. We propose the WhoToo protocol to achieve this notion of security using suitable cryptographic techniques. The protocol design emphasizes practicality, preferring fast operations that are implemented in existing software libraries. We estimate that an implementation would be suitably performant for real-world deployment.

The Model Regime

2019 ◽  
pp. 207-220
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Racial Disparities ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Nonviolent Offenders ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Counting Rules ◽  
First Offenders

This chapter outlines a model regime of prior record enhancement (PRE), designed to promote more rational, parsimonious, and humane sentences. It provides general principles and specific rules reflecting what is known about PRE justifications, costs, benefits, and adverse consequences. The principles specify which punishment purposes justify PRE, while also recognizing the overarching importance of maintaining proportionality to conviction offense seriousness, ensuring that PREs are necessary and cost-effective, minimizing racial disparities and imprisonment of aging and nonviolent offenders, avoiding interference with offender efforts at desistance, and striking a reasonable balance between rule and discretion. The model’s PRE counting rules exclude juvenile and misdemeanor priors, convictions more than 10 years old, upweighting of felonies based on their severity or similarity, and custody status points. First offenders receive substantial sentence mitigation, after which PRE magnitude increases modestly and is capped. High-history offenders are punished no more than twice as severely as first offenders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document