Justification of Sentencing Decisions: Development of a Ratio-Based Measure Tested on Child Neglect Cases

Theoretically, people’s justification of a sentencing decision involves a hybrid structure comprising retribution, incapacitation, general deterrence, and rehabilitation. In this study, a new ratio-type measure was developed to assess this structure and was tested to detect changes in the weighting of justification according to the content emphasized in a particular crime. Two child neglect scenarios were presented to participants, where they read either a severe-damage scenario (where a single mother’s selfish neglect caused her son’s death) or a moderate-damage scenario (where a single mother became apathetic due to economic deprivation and caused her child’s debilitation). Participants then indicated the proportion of importance they placed on each justification in determining the defendant’s punishment, with an overall proportion of 100%, along with responding to the sentence on an 11-point scale. This study involved a two-factor analysis of variance for justification ratios, a t-test for the sentence, and a multiple regression analysis with three demographic variables, the four justifications as independent variables, and the sentence as the dependent variable. The ratio of retribution to rehabilitation was reversed depending on the scenario: in the severe-damage scenario, retribution was weighted highest at 27.0% and rehabilitation was weighted at only 19.0%. By contrast, in the moderate-damage scenario, rehabilitation had the highest weighting of about 26.2%, while retribution was weighted at 21.5%. The sentence was more severe in the severe-damage scenario. Multiple regression analysis suggested that in the severe-damage scenario, most participants failed to deviate from choosing retribution by default and decided on heavier sentences, while some who considered rehabilitation and incapacitation opted for lighter sentences. The present measure succeeded in detecting changes in the weighting of justification, which can be difficult to detect with common Likert Scales. In addition, it was found that not only retribution but utilitarian justification was considered in the sentencing decisions of serious cases.

KEADILAN BAGI PENYALAHGUNA NARKOTIKA DI INDONESIA

This article presents the perceptions of Indonesian Judges in sentencing minor drug offenders. The judge holds a central role in the sentencing process, and because of the judicial discretion they can use it is essential to understand how judges come to their sentencing decisions. To develop an understanding of how judges perceive their actions in decision-making and sentencing of drug users, a total of 31 participants were interviewed. The data demonstrated that justice is presented as conditional, depending on various influencing factors that are primarily, though not entirely, one of tension and contradiction. One of the factors that influence the judge's decision is politics and the legal apparatus. This article contributes to the perception of judges who are influenced by juridical and sociological factors.

Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

With the use of expert evidence increasing in civil and criminal trials, there is concern jurors' decisions are affected by factors that are irrelevant to the quality of the expert opinion. Past research suggests that the likeability of an expert significantly affects juror attributions of credibility and merit. However, we know little about the effects of expert likeability when detailed information about expertise is provided. Two studies examined the effect of an expert's likeability on the persuasiveness judgments and sentencing decisions of 456 jury-eligible respondents. Participants viewed and/or read an expert's testimony (lower vs. higher quality) before rating expert persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and weight), and making a sentencing decision in a Capitol murder case (death penalty vs. life in prison). Lower quality evidence was significantly less persuasive than higher quality evidence. Less likeable experts were also significantly less persuasive than either neutral or more likeable experts. This “penalty” for less likeable experts was observed irrespective of evidence quality. However, only perceptions of the foundational validity of the expert's discipline, the expert's trustworthiness and the clarity and conservativeness of the expert opinion significantly predicted sentencing decisions. Thus, the present study demonstrates that while likeability does influence persuasiveness, it does not necessarily affect sentencing outcomes.

‘Lucky Boy!’; Public Perceptions of Child Sexual Offending Committed by Women

This exploratory study addresses the existing gaps on the public perceptions of child sexual offending committed by women. Using thematic analysis, the study extracted, coded and analysed the comments ( N = 1,651) made by the general public to nine Daily Mail online newspaper articles published from 2018 to 2019, reporting the sentencing decisions of female sex offenders, who have been charged and found guilty with the offence of sexual activity with a child. From those comments, 170 coded themes were identified, and this amounted to 3,394 coded incidences. Unlike previous research, this study cross-examines public responses to different typologies of offending behaviour; teachers, mothers, same sex offenders, co-offenders and finally those who offended for financial gain. The impact of these typologies was analysed through key descriptive case variables, which were quantitively evaluated against the prominent themes that emerged. It found that while people demand equal sentencing decisions between male and female child sex offenders, this is limited by public perception when the abuser is an attractive female and, as a result, perceived as less harmful to the child, who is not seen no longer as a victim but as a ‘Lucky Boy’. Such preconceptions fuel shame, social stigma and stereotyping towards sexual exposure and prevents victims to disclose their abuse and achieve closure and justice.

Parent-to-Child Violence: Does Gender Matter in Sentencing Decisions?

The purpose was to examine gender differences (a) in the sentencing severity for parent-to-child violence (PCV); and (b) in severity of PCV patterns. We analyzed 99 verdict cases in Israel. Two models, a logistic regression model and a generalized ordered logistic regression model, were applied. The findings of the first model indicated that being a woman reduced the odds of imprisonment by .106; furthermore, being tried after implementation of the 2012 reform in judicial discretion in sentencing significantly increased the odds of sentence severity by 2.85. The second model indicated that women had lower odds of being involved in severe violent offenses against their minor children compared with men ( OR = 0.31). The findings highlight the source of sentencing differentials.

Imposition of Restitution

Chapter 4 describes seven multimethod studies that look at the imposition of restitution from the state, multi-county, and single-county perspectives and that examine both legally relevant factors (e.g., offense type, prior record) and demographic factors (race, age, gender) in judges’ decisions. Across studies, restitution was more likely to be imposed when damages could be easily estimated and proved (e.g., property crimes) and when the victim was a business. A statewide analysis of sentencing decisions indicated that a law mandating restitution significantly increased the imposition of restitution. A subsequent survey study of judges, prosecutors, and probation officers indicated general support for restitution, and an analysis of statewide county-level sentencing data indicated that contextual factors relating to crime victims were also related to the imposition of restitution. Comparisons of counties with and without specialized collection units suggested that specialized collections units were less effective at collecting economic sanctions.

Correctional “Free Lunch”? Cost Neglect Increases Punishment in Prosecutors

Prosecutors can influence judges’ sentencing decisions by the sentencing recommendations they make—but prosecutors are insulated from the costs of those sentences, which critics have described as a correctional “free lunch.” In a nationally distributed survey experiment, we show that when a sample of (n=178) professional prosecutors were insulated from sentencing cost information, their prison sentence recommendations were nearly one-third lengthier than sentences rendered following exposure to direct cost information. Exposure to a fiscally equivalent benefit of incarceration did not impact sentencing recommendations, as predicted. This pattern suggests that prosecutors implicitly value incorporating sentencing costs but selectively neglect them unless they are made explicit. These findings highlight a likely but previously unrecognized contributor to mass incarceration and identify a potential way to remediate it.

Growing Enlightenment: Sentencing Offenders with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Australia

The number of defendants raising an Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’) diagnosis in criminal proceedings is increasing. Australian courts treat this neurodevelopmental disorder as a mental impairment that they may take into account in sentencing. A few studies nonetheless exposed deficiencies in judicial officers’ understanding of ASD symptoms and their potential forensic relevance. Courts’ willingness to rely on expert evidence did not always lead to them sentencing offenders with ASD in a consistent or enlightened manner. Building on those investigations and drawing on research into ASD, this article examines sentencing decisions involving eight offenders with ASD in various Australian jurisdictions between 2014 and 2020. This analysis demonstrates that judicial officers’ knowledge about ASD and appreciation of its possible relevance to sentencing considerations are growing, but there remain gaps in both respects. The article speculates on possible reasons for this and proposes reforms to improve courts’ approaches to sentencing offenders with ASD.

Supporting Responsive Federal Drug Sentencing Through Education in the Workshop on Science-Informed Decision Making

On the federal level, judicial education in sentencing has been focused primarily on preparing judges to calculate and apply the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. But in an advisory guidelines context, making individualized assessments in drug cases requires education in the science of addictions, the drivers of behavior, and the prospects for behavior change when substances are involved. Neuroscience and the sciences of human behavior provide clarifying insight into substance-driven behaviors and cognitions that are routinely encountered in federal drug cases. These disciplines support individualized sentencing by shedding new light on the nature of inhibitory control, the reasonable expectations for relapse, and the distinctions that can be drawn based on science between different treatment interventions. In this Article, we report on the Workshop on Science-Informed Decision Making, an education initiative in the federal judiciary. Since 2016, it has provided education in neuroscience and behavioral science, as well as skills training in individualizing sentences using insights from that science, to U.S. district judges, magistrate judges, and pretrial services and probation officers in thirty-two federal districts. We describe the case-study-based instructional approach of the workshop, including some of the misconceptions about addiction behavior it addresses, and explain why we believe that this kind of education helps federal judges, and pretrial services and probation officers, craft more responsive sentencing decisions and recommendations.