Public Perceptions of Child Pornography and Child Pornography Consumers

Understanding the public’s perceptions of child pornography helps identify gaps in awareness and knowledge, impacts legislative decision making, quantifies stigmatization, and provides a baseline for identifying differences between lay and offender populations for clinical purposes. This research provides a comprehensive public survey assessing these issues. An Internet-based sample of 524 adults (mean age = 47 years, 51% female) within the USA were asked about their understanding and beliefs related to child pornography and individuals who view child pornography. The questions covered three topic areas—general perceptions of child pornography, endorsement of child pornography beliefs, and opinions related to the legality of various forms of child pornography as well as the decision making related to sentencing and sex offender registration for child pornography consumers. The research found that the public viewed these offenses as more severe than most other crimes and that there was an overestimation by the public of risks related to recidivism and contact offending. Additionally, the research found that there was support for most of the current sentencing guidelines in the USA, including sex offender registration, and that there was limited support for treatment over incarceration.

The Role of Bias in Economic Models of Law

Behavioral economics has highlighted the impact of various biases on economic outcomes. This essay reviews how biases have been incorporated into economic models of the law and the resulting implications for the assessment of different legal rules and policies. It focuses on two contexts. The first concerns biases that affect consumer purchases of risky products. Using a standard accident model that incorporates various forms of consumer bias, we discuss how bias can affect the efficient assignment of liability for product-related accidents. The second context concerns biases that affect the administration of law, particularly regarding the adjudication of guilt, the lawmaking function of trials, and criminal sentencing. We examine procedural rules like precedent and sentencing guidelines, both of which are aimed at curtailing judicial bias.

Sentencing Drug Offenders Justly While Reducing Mass Incarceration

In my paper, I discuss what I believe is the most effective approach to sentencing drug defendants. I start with the proposition that in many, if not most cases, incarcerating drug offenders does more harm than good. Imprisonment contributes to mass incarceration, does not deter unlawful drug activity and has an adverse racial impact. Thus, if a judge can reasonably avoid imposing a prison sentence, he or she should do so. Fortunately, this is the judge’s duty under the law. 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) requires a judge to impose a sentence that is “sufficient but not greater than necessary…” or, in other words, the least restrictive reasonable sentence. Thus, in every case, the judge must first consider whether a non-incarcerative sentence is sufficient. It often will be. In determining the appropriate sentence, a judge should focus on what the offender did and why and what he or she will likely do in the future and pay less attention to such factors as drug type and drug weight. Sometimes, a mandatory minimum sentence will apply and prevent a judge from imposing a fair sentence, but that is outside the judge’s control. Fortunately, because of Booker and its progeny, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines do not pose a similar problem. The judge, of course, must calculate and consider the applicable guideline but in many cases the guideline will be irrelevant to a just sentence. This is so because the guidelines are excessively oriented toward prison sentences and thus frequently conflict with the sufficient but not greater than necessary command of §3553(a). In my paper, I provide numerous examples of sentences that I have imposed and explanations of those sentences to illustrate this approach.

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).

Punishing for the Past (Sometimes): Judicial Perspectives on Criminal History Enhancements

Prior criminal record is routinely cited as one of the primary determinants of sentencing, and the common view is that prior record was a leading factor in non-guidelines jurisdictions going back decades. Yet, recent findings from a non-guidelines state failed to conform to this account. This study uses interviews with judges from a non-guidelines state to understand the role of prior record in sentencing in an unstructured sentencing state. This study also reexamines some of the early sentencing guidelines formation literature and finds some indications that pre-guidelines, prior record was not universally an instrumental predictor of sentence length.

UNIFIED FORMULA OF PUNISHMENT ON THE EXAMPLE OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT

Введение: цель статьи – вывести единую формулу наказания. Полученный фундаментальный научный результат может использоваться как в общей теории права, так и во всех отраслевых юридических дисциплинах для анализа феномена наказания и применения в законотворческой, правоохранительной, судебной деятельности, связанной с применением наказаний. Материалы и методы: эмпирические данные о системах уголовных наказаний (United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines); методы классического математического анализа, геометрические методы – нахождение периметра, площади, объема; построение функций Кобба-Дугласа. Результаты исследования: получена единая формула наказания в виде любой из равнозначных: A – WL или A – LP:2 – L2 или A – WP:2 – W2 и дана ее интерпретация.

21. Sentencing Procedure and the General Principles of Sentencing

This chapter explains the procedure on passing sentence and the general principles that govern a court’s decision when passing sentence. It discusses the role of the Crow Prosecution Service (CPS) on sentence; the procedure on sentencing; hierarchy of sentences; sentencing aims; the basis of sentencing under the Criminal Justice Act 2003; Sentencing Council for England and Wales; sentencing guidelines in the Crown Court; how the defence solicitor assesses the seriousness of an offence; Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines (MCSGs); the importance of the pre—sentence report, personal offender mitigation; discount for timely guilty pleas; the Crown Court’s sentencing powers; victim impact statements; and taking other offences into consideration.