The Power of Penal Populism: Public Influences on Penal and Sentencing Policy from 1999 to 2008

<p>This thesis explains the rise and power of penal populism in contemporary New Zealand society. It argues that the rise of penal populism can be attributed to social, economic and political changes that have taken place in New Zealand since the postwar years. These changes undermined the prevailing penalwelfare logic that had dominated policymaking in this area since 1945. It examines the way in which 'the public' became more involved in the administration of penal policy from 1999 to 2008. The credibility given to a law and order referendum in 1999, which drew attention to crime victims and 'tough on crime' discourse, exemplified their new role. In its aftermath, greater influence was given to the public and groups speaking on its behalf. The referendum also influenced political discourse in New Zealand, with politicians increasingly using 'tough on crime' policies in election campaigns as it was believed that this was what 'the public' wanted when it came to criminal justice issues. As part of these developments, the thesis examines the rise of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, a unique law and order pressure group that advocates for victims' rights and the harsh treatment of offenders. The Trust became an increasingly authoritative voice in both the public and political arena, as public sentiments came to overrule expert knowledge in the administration of penal policy. Ultimately, it argues that the power of penal populism is so strong in New Zealand that attempts to resist it are likely to come to little, unless these forces that brought it to prominence can be addressed and negated. To date, this has not happened.</p>

The Power of Penal Populism: Public Influences on Penal and Sentencing Policy from 1999 to 2008

<p>This thesis explains the rise and power of penal populism in contemporary New Zealand society. It argues that the rise of penal populism can be attributed to social, economic and political changes that have taken place in New Zealand since the postwar years. These changes undermined the prevailing penalwelfare logic that had dominated policymaking in this area since 1945. It examines the way in which 'the public' became more involved in the administration of penal policy from 1999 to 2008. The credibility given to a law and order referendum in 1999, which drew attention to crime victims and 'tough on crime' discourse, exemplified their new role. In its aftermath, greater influence was given to the public and groups speaking on its behalf. The referendum also influenced political discourse in New Zealand, with politicians increasingly using 'tough on crime' policies in election campaigns as it was believed that this was what 'the public' wanted when it came to criminal justice issues. As part of these developments, the thesis examines the rise of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, a unique law and order pressure group that advocates for victims' rights and the harsh treatment of offenders. The Trust became an increasingly authoritative voice in both the public and political arena, as public sentiments came to overrule expert knowledge in the administration of penal policy. Ultimately, it argues that the power of penal populism is so strong in New Zealand that attempts to resist it are likely to come to little, unless these forces that brought it to prominence can be addressed and negated. To date, this has not happened.</p>

SENTENCING SCOPES (RANGES) IN THE CRIMINAL CODE OF MONTENEGRO AND THE SENTENCING POLICY

The fixing of sentence is one of the most important issues in both criminal law theory and practice. In a certain sense, all provisions of the criminal legislation are embodied precisely in the fixing of sentence. The fixing of sentence depends on the manner in which the legal sentencing scopes have been set normatively. This paper is dedicated to the analysis of the sentencing ranges in the Criminal Code of Montenegro. It first discusses the three systems of imposition of a sentence of imprisonment, and then the different models of sentencing scopes (closed, open and semi-open). This is followed by a presentation of the prevalence of said models in the criminal legislation of Montenegro in terms of the normative determination of individual sanctions in a separate part of the Criminal Code and its practical application. There is also an examination of the relationship between the legislative sentencing policy and the judicial sentencing policy.

Crack 2.0

The 1984 Sentencing Reform Act charged the U.S. Sentencing Commission with developing sentencing guidelines that advanced the purposes of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). After the Supreme Court cases Booker, Kimbrough, Gall, and Spears, it is now well established—at least with federal drug trafficking offenses—that the Commission did not fulfill that directive. The magnitude of that failure (coupled with some of Congress’s own misguided decisions) has previously been highlighted by the evolution of federal crack sentencing policies, the Fair Sentencing Act, the related line of Supreme Court cases, and more recently the First Step Act. Congress’s compromise correction of over twenty years (essentially a generation) of a failed war on crack did nothing to further correct similar defects with federal drug sentencing policies for other controlled substances—particularly with respect to methamphetamine. Given the resurgence of methamphetamine trafficking, use, and prosecutions, this paper will analyze post-1988 federal methamphetamine sentencing policy to illustrate how the drug-type, quantity, and purity model for punishing drug trafficking offenses still produces unwarranted sentencing disparities between similar controlled substances or different forms of the same controlled substances—and in the end plainly fails to effectively deter the targeted criminal conduct or advance the purposes of federal sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

5. The criminal justice system

This chapter focuses on the criminal justice system. It contains summaries of the different social theories that underpin both the criminal justice system and the fundamental principles relating to sentencing policy. The system is examined in three segments: pre-trial stages, trial stage, and post-trial stages. Each is discussed in turn. This chapter emphasizes the holistic approach by looking not only at what happens in courts, but also the police station and in post-trial contexts such as parole and criminal cases review. The place of the victim in the system is also considered. Attention is given to the need to improve the criminal justice system.

Overview of State Sentencing Commissions’ Drug Data Reporting Practices

Data are essential for good sentencing policy. It is impossible to act intelligently without knowing what is happening on the ground. This is especially true with drug offenses, which drive a significant portion of prosecutions and sentences every year. Accessible, high-quality drug-conviction and sentencing data enable sentencing commissions and legislatures to act decisively on the basis of reason and not anecdotes. Commissions can play a vital role in understanding the decades-old war on drugs and charting a path for the future. This article provides an overview of the drug data that state sentencing commissions are providing to the public. Each state-specific snapshot offers a brief explanation of the strengths and challenges of that commission’s approach to communicating drug data.

The Quest for Coherence in Kenya’s Judicial Sentencing Policy: A Review of the Jurisprudence Following the Muruatetu Case

The Supreme Court decision in the now-infamous case Francis Karioko Muruatetu v Republic1 seemed to settle the enduring debate whether sentencing is a judicial or a legislative function. The court’s ruling was that sentencing is a judicial function and that the mandatory nature of the death penalty for murder2 was unconstitutional because it took away the courts’ discretion to determine a just and proportionate punishment to impose on a convicted person. In its judgment, the court ordered that the judiciary sentencing policy3 be revised to reflect the court’s guidelines on the obligation of courts to listen to the accused’s mitigation before sentencing. The court also directed that a framework for sentence rehearing be prepared immediately to allow applicants who had been sentenced in circumstances similar to those of the petitioners to apply for sentence a rehearing from the trial court. This article examines the aftermath of this judgment in terms of whether the Supreme Court’s decision helped to cure the challenge that lies in the current sentencing process; achieving coherence and proportionality in the sentencing process. By using jurisprudential arguments, we intend to demonstrate that, despite the court’s direction to all courts to ensure that no person should be subjected to a disproportionate sentence, the problem of disproportional sentencing is one that goes beyond merely reviewing of the sentencing guidelines but also demands a reform of the entire criminal justice system.

Strafverzachting door Hof van Assisen van West-Vlaanderen in de Hollandse periode (1814-1830)

This contribution deals with the softening of sentences by the Assize Court of West Flanders in the Dutch period (1814-1830). It is successively examined how the judges in this Court made use of a number of provisions in the Code pénal of 1810 to pursue their own sentencing policy, secondly, how the same judges, by re-qualifying the facts that the public prosecutor had brought to them defendant, succeeded in imposing a lesser sentence than that claimed by the prosecutor, third, how those same judges made use of the decisions of September 9, 1814 and January 20, 1815, invoking extenuating circumstances, to impose a lesser penalty than that determined in the Code pénal of 1810 and finally how King William I converted some death sentences into lesser punishments with his right of grace.

Who Controls Criminal Law? Racial Threat and the Adoption of State Sentencing Law, 1975 to 2012

Threat theory argues that states toughen criminal laws to repress the competitive power of large minority groups. Yet, research on threat suffers from a poor understanding of why minority group size contributes to social control and a lack of evidence on whether criminal law is uniquely responsive to the political interests of majority racial groups at all. By compiling a unique state-level dataset on 230 sentencing policy changes during mass incarceration and using data from 257,362 responses to 79 national surveys to construct new state-level measures of racial differences in punitive policy support, I evaluate whether criminal sentencing law is uniquely responsive to white public policy interests. Pooled event history models and mediation analyses support three primary conclusions: (1) states adopted new sentencing policies as a nonlinear response to minority group size, (2) sentencing policies were adopted in response to white public, but not black public, support for punitive crime policy, and (3) minority group size and race-specific homicide victimization both indirectly affect sentencing policy by increasing white public punitive policy support. These findings support key theoretical propositions for the threat explanation of legal change and identify white public policy opinion as a mechanism linking minority group size to variation in criminal law.