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.

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.

Shock Probation in Ohio

1980 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gennaro F. Vito ◽  
Harry E. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Probation Officers ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Criminal Record ◽  
Attribute Analysis ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
First Offenders ◽  
Predictive Attribute

In this study of Ohio's shock probation program, base expectancy rates were developed through the use of predictive attribute analysis. These rates were used to evaluate the stated guidelines of the program; namely, that shock probation should be targeted for use with youthful first offenders. Therefore, the base expectancy rates were utilized to test a prediction which was being made by relevant decision-makers within the program (judges, probation officers). Analysis of the research sample of 1,081 shock probationers released in 1975 revealed that prior record was the best predictor of failure (reincarceration over a two year period). The shock probationers who had a previous criminal record were more than twice as likely to fail. These rates were not cross-validated and were not recommended for application in a mechanical fashion by decision-makers.

Paying for the Past

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian V. Roberts ◽  
Richard S. Frase
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Repeat Offenders ◽  
Offense Severity ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Three Strikes ◽  
Sentencing Policy ◽  
Prison Populations ◽  
Severity Of Punishment

Virtually all modern sentencing systems consider the offender’s prior record to be an important determinant of the form and severity of punishment, often carrying more weight than the crime being sentenced. Repeat offenders “pay for their past,” even though they have already been punished for their prior crimes. And the majority of sentenced offenders have at least one prior conviction. This topic thus lies at the heart of the sentencing process; every well-designed sentencing scheme needs to have a carefully conceived approach to the use of prior convictions. But the vast literature on sentencing policy, law, and practice has generally overlooked this issue. Moreover, the apparent justifications for prior record enhancement—the repeat offender’s assumed greater culpability and risk of re-offending—are uncertain, and have rarely been subjected to critical appraisal. Nor has sufficient attention been paid to the substantial negative consequences of such enhancements, which: increase the size and expense of prison populations; impose penalties disproportionate to offense severity; fill prisons with nonviolent and aging, lower-risk offenders; increase racial disproportionality in prison populations; and undermine offenders’ efforts to reintegrate into society. This book focuses on prior record enhancements under sentencing guidelines systems in the United States because sentencing rules operate more transparently in those systems. But the policy implications are much broader. Similar enhancements are informally applied, with substantial impacts, when judges sentence without guidelines. And most jurisdictions have statutes (three-strikes and career-offender laws; higher penalties for second and subsequent violations) that impose much more severe penalties on repeat offenders.

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

Rating Post-Operative Backs (Part I)

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Foot Drop ◽  
Neurogenic Claudication ◽  
Root Damage ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Minor Strain ◽  
Injury Model ◽  
Strain Type ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Anterior Tibialis

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, uses the Injury Model to rate impairment in people who have experienced back injuries. Injured individuals who have not required surgery can be rated using differentiators. Challenges arise when assessing patients whose injuries have been treated surgically before the patient is rated for impairment. This article discusses five of the most common situations: 1) What is the impairment rating for an individual who has had an injury resulting in sciatica and who has been treated surgically, either with chemonucleolysis or with discectomy? 2) What is the impairment rating for an individual who has a back strain and is operated on without reasonable indications? 3) What is the impairment rating of an individual with sciatica and a foot drop (major anterior tibialis weakness) from L5 root damage? 4) What is the rating for an individual who is injured, has true radiculopathy, undergoes a discectomy, and is rated as Category III but later has another injury and, ultimately, a second disc operation? 5) What is the impairment rating for an older individual who was asymptomatic until a minor strain-type injury but subsequently has neurogenic claudication with severe surgical spinal stenosis on MRI/myelography? [Continued in the September/October 1997 The Guides Newsletter]

Pelvic Impairments

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 9-10
Author(s):  
James Talmage ◽  
Jay Blaisdell
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Ring ◽  
Reproductive Organs ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Pelvic Fractures ◽  
Motor Dysfunction ◽  
Impact Event ◽  
Concomitant Injuries ◽  
Rating Process ◽  
Pass Through ◽  
A Minor

Abstract Pelvic fractures are relatively uncommon, and in workers’ compensation most pelvic fractures are the result of an acute, high-impact event such as a fall from a roof or an automobile collision. A person with osteoporosis may sustain a pelvic fracture from a lower-impact injury such as a minor fall. Further, major parts of the bladder, bowel, reproductive organs, nerves, and blood vessels pass through the pelvic ring, and traumatic pelvic fractures that result from a high-impact event often coincide with damaged organs, significant bleeding, and sensory and motor dysfunction. Following are the steps in the rating process: 1) assign the diagnosis and impairment class for the pelvis; 2) assign the functional history, physical examination, and clinical studies grade modifiers; and 3) apply the net adjustment formula. Because pelvic fractures are so uncommon, raters may be less familiar with the rating process for these types of injuries. The diagnosis-based methodology for rating pelvic fractures is consistent with the process used to rate other musculoskeletal impairments. Evaluators must base the rating on reliable data when the patient is at maximum medical impairment and must assess possible impairment from concomitant injuries.

The Effect of Path Length and Display Size on Memory for Spatial Information

2012 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Guérard ◽  
Sébastien Tremblay
Keyword(s):  
Path Length ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Minor Role ◽  
Length Effect ◽  
Serial Memory ◽  
Fixed Reference ◽  
A Minor

In serial memory for spatial information, some studies showed that recall performance suffers when the distance between successive locations increases relatively to the size of the display in which they are presented (the path length effect; e.g., Parmentier et al., 2005) but not when distance is increased by enlarging the size of the display (e.g., Smyth & Scholey, 1994). In the present study, we examined the effect of varying the absolute and relative distance between to-be-remembered items on memory for spatial information. We manipulated path length using small (15″) and large (64″) screens within the same design. In two experiments, we showed that distance was disruptive mainly when it is varied relatively to a fixed reference frame, though increasing the size of the display also had a small deleterious effect on recall. The insertion of a retention interval did not influence these effects, suggesting that rehearsal plays a minor role in mediating the effects of distance on serial spatial memory. We discuss the potential role of perceptual organization in light of the pattern of results.

Psychoanalysis—A Minor Classic

1956 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
pp. 366-367
Author(s):  
EPHRAIM ROSEN
Keyword(s):  
A Minor

Social Psychology As A Minor Footnote

1978 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 376-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
HENRI TAJFEL
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
A Minor
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document