Drug sentencing in Brazil: factors influencing sentencing outcomes in the criminal courts of Recife/PE

Purpose This paper aims to examine sentencing decisions for drug-trafficking offences in the criminal courts of the city of Recife to address a gap in quantitative research on drug sentencing and incarceration in Brazil. Design/methodology/approach Using original data obtained from the Court of Justice for Pernambuco, the research used multivariate regression analysis to investigate the effect of case processing, offender, and offence characteristics on sentence length. Findings A key finding of the research is the influence of two legal factors on sentence length: admitting to a drug-trafficking offence and being categorized as “mitigated trafficking”. Results also indicate that first-time defendants were more likely to be categorized as mitigated trafficking, stressing the importance of criminal history on predicting sentencing outcomes. “Mitigated trafficking” is a distinct category of drug-trafficking created by the Drug Law nº. 11.343 (2006) to protect defendants considered novices in the illicit drug market from receiving longer imprisonment sentences. Practical implications The findings suggest that the policy strategy of having a legal distinction for a specific type of defendant appears to be effective in impacting sentence length for drug-trafficking convictions. Future research could explore how similar strategies could be adopted to influence sentencing for other vulnerable groups. However, focussing on a defendant records or prior convictions as an eligibility criterion could disproportionately impact defendants who are caught in a cycle of re-offending for socio-economic reasons or a need to finance a substance use disorder. Originality/value This research address a gap in quantitative sentencing research in Brazil and contributes to the broader literature by presenting results that are aligned with previous studies conducted in North America.

Qualitative Method Used in Researching the Judiciary: Quality Assurance Steps to Enhance the Validity and Reliability of the Findings

In this paper, I present a qualitative method used in researching the judiciary. This article highlights the importance of employing a number of quality assurance steps and procedures to enhance the validity and reliability of the findings. I argue that to increase safety and reduce risk, procedural risk-assessment of the study project can be useful to deal with the real time practical difficulties that emerged from the fieldwork. To develop an understanding of what judges are trying to achieve when sentencing minor drug offenders, a total of thirty-one Indonesian judges were semi-structurally interviewed. The findings highlight that my methodology evolved by working in the field. When it was clear that not all participants were willing to be recorded, I decided to take notes. Also, I decided to conduct a kind of focus group by having two judges in the room concurrently. In this regard, I captured the participant's experience without being too intrusive. This paper contributes to the study of the method. The way in which I employed a number of quality assurance steps and procedures to enhance the validity and reliability of the findings. This fastidiousness and vigilance enhance confidence that this study's findings reflect closely the reality of drug sentencing in the courts studied over the period of fieldwork.

A kinder, gentler drug war? Race, drugs, and punishment in 21st century America

This article assesses whether the kinder, gentler rhetoric through which the disproportionately white opiate crisis has been framed has been accompanied by changes in drug sentencing policy and drug law enforcement that mirror this sympathetic discourse. Toward these ends, state-level drug sentencing policies enacted from 2010 to 2016 as well as recent trends in drug law enforcement and drug-related imprisonment are analyzed. The legislative findings show that policymakers are not singling out opiate violations for particularly lenient treatment. Instead, it is the user/dealer distinction that animates recent shifts in drug policy: While state lawmakers are re-thinking their approach to drug possession, they are more likely to have enhanced penalties for drug distribution than to have reduced them. In addition, although significant racial disparities in arrests and incarceration persist, the main change that has occurred is a decline in the black share of arrests and imprisonments. The discussion explores possible explanations for these unexpected findings, including the possibility that political dynamics help explain the decline of the drug war in many urban areas and, as a result, the diminution of racial disparities in it.

What’s the Point? The Missing Piece of Criminal Justice Reform through Consensus and Compromise

Criminal justice reform has had a firm place in news headlines for more than a decade. Reform has mainly been sought through two approaches: consensus through ballot initiative or legislative compromise. But these modes of reform share a fundamental failure: both often lack a clear articulation of the purpose of criminal sentencing. In other words, “What’s the point?” Without an agreement on the underlying purpose of criminal punishment, neither method of pursuing changes in the criminal justice system can ever produce meaningful, long-standing reform. Our usual way of understanding criminal justice reform is through legislative compromise. The moves from the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to the First Step Act of 2018 were the result of this slow legislative mechanism. However, the resulting sentencing changes were not due to an effort to study the effects of drug sentencing or to any work toward agreement about what purpose Congress was actually trying to fulfill through drug sentencing. The same problem exists when it comes to consensus reform through ballot initiative – a move that has taken place in many areas of the country—from the passing of recreational marijuana laws in places like Michigan to the attempt to pass sweeping drug sentencing reform through Ohio’s Ballot Issue. When examined, these efforts at reform consensus show that agreement on the need for reform does not show agreement on the purpose of reform. This lack of true, deep consensus can ultimately defeat efforts at large-scale reform through consensus.