The ‘worst of the worst’: punitive justice frames in criminal sentencing clips on YouTube

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Kevin Revier
Keyword(s):  
1991 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gayle S. Bickle ◽  
Ruth D. Peterson

2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Brown

Section 9(1)(h) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides that hate crime is to be taken into account as an aggravating factor when sentencing. Yet gender is excluded from the listed grounds of hostility. This article critically examines the exclusion of gender-based hate crime in New Zealand in relation to criminal sentencing. It advocates that there is a need to recognise such hate crime and proposes a reformulated section 9(1)(h) to achieve this.


1970 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-263
Author(s):  
Jeffrey E. Glen

In this paper, the nature and procedures of the juvenile court adjudication process, as distinguished from the disposition proc ess, are briefly discussed and related to the need for separate adjudicatory and dispositional hearings in the juvenile court. The problem of permitting certain dispositional functions to occur before the adjudication is then considered, as well as the question of whether the dispositional hearing, or dispositional phase of the hearing, must always take place at a later date than the adjudicatory hearing or phase. For the purposes of this paper, "bifurcation" refers to the separation of the adjudicatory hearing (analogous to the criminal trial) from the dispositional hearing (analogous to the criminal sentencing hearing) by a sub stantial period of time, the hearings being scheduled and held on different days. The discussion is based upon positions of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, as articulated in its Standard Juvenile Court Act (sixth edition, 1959) and the Council of Judges' Model Rules for Juvenile Courts (1969).


1971 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Didrick Castberg

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document