This book addresses the fundamental ethical and legal aspects, penal consequences, and social context arising from a citizen's acceptance of guilt. The focus is upon sentencing people who have pleaded guilty; in short, post-adjudication, rather than issues arising from discussions in the pretrial phase of the criminal process. The vast majority of defendants across all common law jurisdictions plead guilty and as a result receive a reduced sentence. Concessions by a defendant attract more lenient State punishment in all western legal systems. The concession is significant: At a stroke, a guilty plea relieves the State of the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and in open court. Plea-based sentencing has become even more visible in recent years. The book provides insightful commentary on the following questions: - If an individual voluntarily accepts guilt, should the State receive this plea without further investigation or any disinterested adjudication? - Is it ethically acceptable to allow suspects and defendants, to self-convict in this manner, without independent confirmation and evidence to support a conviction? - If it is acceptable, what is the appropriate State response to such offenders? - If the defendant is detained pretrial, the ability to secure release in return for a plea may be particularly enticing. Might it be too enticing, resulting in wrongful convictions?

Predictive Sentencing addresses the role of risk assessment in contemporary sentencing practices. Predictive sentencing has become so deeply ingrained in Western criminal justice decision-making that despite early ethical discussions about selective incapacitation, it currently attracts little critique. Nor has it been subjected to a thorough normative and empirical scrutiny. This is problematic since much current policy and practice concerning risk predictions is inconsistent with mainstream theories of punishment. Moreover, predictive sentencing exacerbates discrimination and disparity in sentencing. Although structured risk assessments may have replaced 'gut feelings', and have now been systematically implemented in Western justice systems, the fundamental issues and questions that surround the use of risk assessment instruments at sentencing remain unresolved. This volume critically evaluates these issues and will be of great interest to scholars of criminal justice and criminology.

Restorative Justice has emerged around the world as a potent challenge to traditional models of criminal justice,and restorative programmes, policies and legislative reforms are being implemented in many western nations. However, the underlying aims, values and limits of this new paradigm remain somewhat uncertain and those advocating Restorative Justice have rarely engaged in systematic debate with those defending more traditional conceptions of criminal justice. This volume, containing contributions from scholars of international renown, provides an analytic exploration of Restorative Justice and its potential advantages and disadvantages. Chapters of the book examine the aims and limiting principles that should govern Restorative Justice, its appropriate scope of application, its social and legal contexts, its practice and impact in a number of jurisdictions and its relation to more traditional criminal-justice conceptions. These questions are addressed by twenty distinguished criminologists and legal scholars in papers which make up this volume. These contributions will help clarify the aims that Restorative Justice might reasonably hope to achieve, the limits that should apply in pursuing these aims, and how restorative strategies might comport with, or replace, other penal strategies. Contributors: Andrew Ashworth, Anthony E Bottoms, John Braithwaite, Kathleen Daly, James Dignan, R A Duff, Carolyn Hoyle, Barbara Hudson, Leena Kurki, Allison Morris, Kent Roach, Julian V Roberts, Paul Roberts, Mara Schiff, Joanna Shapland, Clifford Shearing, Daniel van Ness, Andrew von Hirsch, Lode Walgrave, Richard Young.

The first collective work devoted exclusively to the ethical and penal theoretical considerations of the use of artificial intelligence at sentencing Is it morally acceptable to use artificial intelligence (AI) in the determination of sentences on those who have broken the law? If so, how should such algorithms be used-and what are the consequences? Jesper Ryberg and Julian V. Roberts bring together leading experts to answer these questions. Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence investigates to what extent, and under which conditions, justice and the social good may be promoted by allocating parts of the most important task of the criminal court-that of determining legal punishment-to computerized sentencing algorithms. The introduction of an AI-based sentencing system could save significant resources and increase consistency across jurisdictions. But it could also reproduce historical biases, decrease transparency in decision-making, and undermine trust in the justice system. Dealing with a wide-range of pertinent issues including the transparency of algorithmic-based decision-making, the fairness and morality of algorithmic sentencing decisions, and potential discrimination as a result of these practices, this volume offers avaluable insight on the future of sentencing.

This innovative volume explores a fundamental issue in the field of sentencing: the factors which make a sentence more or less severe. All sentencing systems allow courts discretion to consider mitigating and aggravating factors, and many legislatures have placed a number of such factors on a statutory footing. Yet many questions remain regarding the theory and practice of mitigation and aggravation. Drawing on legal and sociological perspectives and examining mitigation and aggravation in various jurisdictions, the essays provide practical illustrations of specific factors as well as theoretical justifications. After the foreword by Andrew von Hirsch, a number of contributors address broad conceptual issues raised at sentencing. These contributions are followed by several empirical chapters including an exploration of personal mitigation in English courts. The authors are leading scholars from a range of common law jurisdictions including England and Wales, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

This innovative volume explores a fundamental issue in the field of sentencing: the factors which make a sentence more or less severe. All sentencing systems allow courts discretion to consider mitigating and aggravating factors, and many legislatures have placed a number of such factors on a statutory footing. Yet many questions remain regarding the theory and practice of mitigation and aggravation. Drawing on legal and sociological perspectives and examining mitigation and aggravation in various jurisdictions, the essays provide practical illustrations of specific factors as well as theoretical justifications. After the foreword by Andrew von Hirsch, a number of contributors address broad conceptual issues raised at sentencing. These contributions are followed by several empirical chapters including an exploration of personal mitigation in English courts. The authors are leading scholars from a range of common law jurisdictions including England and Wales, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

Although criminal justice systems vary greatly around the world, one theme has emerged in all western jurisdictions in recent years: a rise in both the rhetoric and practice of severe punishment at a time when public opinion has played a pivotal role in sentencing policy and reforms. Despite the differences among jurisdictions, startling commonalities exist among the five countries-the U.K., USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand-surveyed here. Drawing on the results of representative opinion surveys and other research tools the authors map public attitudes towards crime and punishment across countries and explore the congruence between public views and actual policies. Co-authored by four distinguished sentencing policy experts, Penal Populism and Public Opinion is a clarion call for limiting the influence of penal populism and instituting more informed, research-based sentencing policies across the western world.

Should public opinion determine-or even influence-sentencing policy and practice? Should the punishment of criminal offenders reflect what the public regards as appropriate? These deceptively simple questions conceal complex theoretical and methodological challenges to the administration of punishment. In the West, politicians have often answered these questions in the affirmative; penal reforms have been justified with direct reference to the attitudes of the public. This is why the contention that politicians should bridge the gap between the public and criminal justice practice has widespread resonance. Criminal law scholars, for their part, have often been more reluctant to accept public input in penal practice, and some have even held that the idea of consulting public opinion constitutes a populist approach to punishment. The purpose of this book is to examine the moral significance of public opinion for penal theory and practice. For the first time in a single volume the editors, Jesper Ryberg and Julian V. Roberts, have assembled a number of respected criminologists, philosphers, and legal theorists to address the various aspects of why and how public opinion should be reflected in the way the criminal justice system deals with criminals. The chapters address the myriad complexities surrounding this issue by first weighing the justifications for incorporating public views into punishment practices and then considering the various ways this might be achieved through juries, prosecutors, restoratifve justice programs, and other means.

The politics of criminal sentencing has recently crystallised around the issue of whether and how a system of structured sentencing should inform judicial approaches to punishing criminals. Increasingly, structured sentencing guidelines are being introduce to frame judicial discretion. This volume is the first to examine the experience in England and Wales in the light of international developments. This collection of essays begins with a clear and concise history of the guidelines as well as a description of how they function. Topics addressed include the effect of guidelines on judicial practice, the role of public opinion in developing sentencing guidelines, the role of the crime victim in sentencing guidelines, and the use of guidelines by practicing barristers. In addition, the international dimension offers a comparative perspective: the English guidelines are explored by leading academics from the United States and New Zealand. Although there is a vast literature on sentencing guidelines across the United States, the English guidelines have attracted almost no attention from scholars. As other jurisdictions look to introduce more structure to sentencing, the English scheme offers a real alternative to current US schemes. Contributors include practicing lawyers, legal and socio-legal academics, and also scholars from several other countries including New Zealand and the United States, providing a multidisciplinary and cross-jurisdictional approach to sentencing. This book will be of interest to academics from law, sociology and criminology, legal practitioners, and indeed anyone else with an interest in sentencing, around the world.

The last twenty five years have seen dramatic rises in the prison populations of most industrialised nations. Unable to keep up with increased numbers of convicted offenders, governments and criminal justice systems have been seeking new ways to control and punish offenders. One sanction adopted in Canada and some parts of Europe and the US is community custody which attempts to recreate the punitive nature of prison but without incarceration. This book analyzes the effectiveness of this approach and explores its implications for offenders and society as a whole. It demonstrates that if properly conceived and administered, community custody can reduce the number of prison admissions and at the same time promote multiple goals of sentencing. So that offenders given community custody orders are punished yet also given the opportunity to change their lives in ways that would be impossible if they were in prison. Julian V. Roberts has been working in the area of sentencing and public opinion for over twenty years. He is Editor of The Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice and has written and co-edited ten books.

Most people assume that criminal offenders have only been convicted of a single crime. However, in reality almost half of offenders stand to be sentenced for more than one crime.The high proportion of multiple crime offenders poses a number of practical and theoretical challenges for the criminal justice system. For instance, how should courts punish multiple offenders relative to individuals who have been sentenced for a single crime? How should they be punished relative to each other? Sentencing for Multiple Crimes discusses these questions from the perspective of several legal theories. This volume considers questions such as the proportionality of the crimes committed, the temporal span between the crimes, and the relationship between theories about the punitive treatment of recidivists and multiple offenders. Contributors from around the world and in the fields of legal theory, philosophy, and psychology offer their perspectives to the volume. A comprehensive examination of the dynamics involved with sentencing multiple offenders has the potential to be a powerful tool for legal scholars and professionals, particularly given the practical importance of the topic and the relative dearth of research about punishment of multiple offense cases.

This report presents the findings from the first national, representative survey of public attitudes to youth crime and youth justice in England and Wales. Significantly, it highlights that most people are demonstrably ill-informed about youth crime and youth justice issues. It also carries clear policy implications in relation to both public education and reform of the youth justice system. Youth crime and youth justice is essential reading for academics, researchers, policy makers and practitioners in the fields of criminal justice, criminology, social policy, social work and probation. Researching Criminal Justice series Crime and justice are issues of central political and public concern in contemporary Britain. This exciting new series presents top quality research findings in the field. It will contribute significantly to policy and practice debates and aims to improve the knowledge base considerably. The series will be essential reading for politicians and policy makers, academics, researchers and practitioners. For other titles in this series, please follow the series link from the main catalogue page.

All modern sentencing systems, in the US and beyond, consider the offender's prior record to be an important determinant of the form and severity of punishment for subsequent offences. Repeat offenders receive harsher punishments than first offenders, and offenders with longer criminal records are punished more severely than those with shorter records. Yet the vast literature on sentencing policy, law, and practice has generally overlooked the issue of prior convictions, even though this is the most important sentencing factor after the seriousness of the crime. In Paying for the Past, Richard S. Frase and Julian V. Roberts provide a critical and systematic examination of current prior record enhancements under sentencing guidelines across the US. Drawing on empirical data and analyses of guidelines from a number of jurisdictions, they illustrate different approaches to prior record enhancements and the differing outcomes of those approaches. Roberts and Frase demonstrate that most prior record enhancements generate a range of adverse outcomes at sentencing. Further, the pervasive justifications for prior record enhancement, such as the repeat offender's assumed higher risk of reoffending or greater culpability, are uncertain and have rarely been subjected to critical appraisal. The punitive sentencing premiums for repeat offenders prescribed by US guidelines cannot be justified on grounds of prevention or retribution. Shining a light on a neglected but critically important topic, Paying for the Past examines the costs of prior record enhancements for repeat offenders and offers model guidelines to help reduce racial disparities and reallocate criminal justice resources for jurisdictions who use sentence enhancements.

Celebrating the scholarship of Andrew Ashworth, Vinerian Professor of English Law at the University of Oxford, this collection brings together leading international scholars to explore questions of principle and value in criminal law and criminal justice. Internationally renowned for elaborating a body of principles and values that should underpin criminalization, the criminal process, and sentencing, Ashworth's contribution to the field over forty years of scholarship has been immense. Advancing his project of exploring normative issues at the heart of criminal law and criminal justice, the contributors examine the important and fascinating debates in which Ashworth's influence has been greatest. The essays fall into three distinct but related areas, reflecting Ashworth's primary spheres of influence. Those in Part 1 address the import and role of principles in the development of a just criminal law, with contributions focusing upon core tenets such as the presumption of innocence, fairness, accountability, the principles of criminal liability, and the grounds for defences. Part 2 addresses questions of human rights and due process protections in both domestic and international law. In Part 3 the essays are addressed to core issues in sentencing and punishment: they explore questions of equality, proportionality, adherence to the rule of law, the totality principle (in respect of multiple offences), wrongful acquittals, and unduly lenient sentences. Together they demonstrate how important Ashworth's work has been in shaping how we think about criminal law and criminal justice, and make their own invaluable contribution to contemporary discussions of criminalization and punishment.

The criminal justice system is wide ranging; from the crimes themselves and policing to the sentencing of offenders and prisons. In this Very Short Introduction Julian V. Roberts draws upon the latest research and current practices from a number of different countries around the world. Focusing on the adversarial model of justice found in common law countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, he discusses topics such as the uses of imprisonment, the effects of capital punishment, and the purposes of sentencing. Considering the role of the victim throughout the criminal justice system, as well as public knowledge and attitudes towards criminal justice, Roberts critically assesses the way in which the system functions and its importance around the world. ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.

Despite very diverse approaches towards punishing crime, all Western jurisdictions punish repeat offenders more harshly (a practice known as the recidivist sentencing premium) . For many repeat offenders, their previous convictions have more impact on the penalty they receive than the seriousness of their current crime. Why do we punish recidivists more harshly? Some sentencing theorists argue that offenders should be punished only for the crimes they commit - not for the crimes committed and paid for in the past. From this perspective, punishing repeat offenders more severely amounts to double punishment. Having been punished once for an offence, the recidivist will pay for the crime again every time he re-offends. Is this fair?
This volume explores the nature and consequences of the recidivist sentencing premium on both the theoretical and empirical levels. It begins by exploring the justifications for treating repeat offenders more harshly, and then provides examples of the practice from a number of jurisdictions including England and Wales, Canada, and the United States. Particular attention is paid to the views of two important groups: convicted offenders and the general public. If offenders believe that the recidivist sentencing premium is unjustified, they are less likely to accept the legitimacy of the justice system. As for members of the public, it is important to know whether this key element of the sentencing process is consistent with community views.

This latest volume in the "Penal Theory and Penal Ethics" series addresses one of the oldest and most contested questions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender's previous convictions affect the sentence? This question provokes a series of others: Is it possible to justify a discount for first offenders within a retributive sentencing framework? How should previous convictions enter into the sentencing equation? At what point should prior misconduct cease to count for the purposes of fresh sentencing? Should similar previous convictions count more than convictions unrelated to the current offence? Statutory sentencing regimes around the world incorporate provisions which mandate harsher treatment of repeat offenders. Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here, as befits a volume in the series, is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists. The practice of sentencing repeat offenders in two jurisdictions (England and Wales, and Sweden) is also examined in detail.

This new, third edition of Principled Sentencing provides students of law, legal philosophy, criminology, and criminal justice with a comprehensive selection of the leading scholarship on contemporary sentencing. The volume offers a wide range of critical readings relating to the key moral, philosophical, and policy issues in sentencing today. The structure of the book remains the same as the previous editions, although the new volume contains many new readings on subjects that have recently emerged and which have consequences for sentencing in many jurisdictions. These additional chapters reflect the significant evolution of the field since the previous edition was published in 1998. As before, each chapter begins with an introduction by one of the editors and concludes with a bibliography of further readings. All the chapters have been substantially revised, as have the editorial introductions.

Predictive Sentencing addresses the role of risk assessment in contemporary sentencing practices. Predictive sentencing has become so deeply ingrained in Western criminal justice decision-making that despite early ethical discussions about selective incapacitation, it currently attracts little critique. Nor has it been subjected to a thorough normative and empirical scrutiny. This is problematic since much current policy and practice concerning risk predictions is inconsistent with mainstream theories of punishment. Moreover, predictive sentencing exacerbates discrimination and disparity in sentencing. Although structured risk assessments may have replaced 'gut feelings', and have now been systematically implemented in Western justice systems, the fundamental issues and questions that surround the use of risk assessment instruments at sentencing remain unresolved. This volume critically evaluates these issues and will be of great interest to scholars of criminal justice and criminology.

This latest volume in the Penal Theory and Penal Ethics series addresses one of the oldestquestions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender's previous convictions affect the sentence? Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists.

Restorative Justice has emerged around the world as a potent challenge to traditional models of criminal justice, and restorative programmes, policies and legislative reforms are being implemented in many western nations. However, the underlying aims, values and limits of this new paradigm remain somewhat uncertain and those advocating Restorative Justice have rarely engaged in systematic debate with those defending more traditional conceptions of criminal justice. This volume, containing contributions from scholars of international renown, provides an analytic exploration of Restorative Justice and its potential advantages and disadvantages. Chapters of the book examine the aims and limiting principles that should govern Restorative Justice, its appropriate scope of application, its social and legal contexts, its practice and impact in a number of jurisdictions and its relation to more traditional criminal-justice conceptions. These questions are addressed by twenty distinguished criminologists and legal scholars in papers which make up this volume. These contributions will help clarify the aims that Restorative Justice might reasonably hope to achieve, the limits that should apply in pursuing these aims, and how restorative strategies might comport with, or replace, other penal strategies. Contributors: Andrew Ashworth, Anthony E Bottoms, John Braithwaite, Kathleen Daly, James Dignan, R A Duff, Carolyn Hoyle, Barbara Hudson, Leena Kurki, Allison Morris, Kent Roach, Julian V Roberts, Paul Roberts, Mara Schiff, Joanna Shapland, Clifford Shearing, Daniel van Ness, Andrew von Hirsch, Lode Walgrave, Richard Young. 'Discussions of restorative justice as a complement to or alternate to criminal or retributive justice remain in their infancy, yet this collection assures that this critically important discussion moves forward. These thought-provoking essays on a timely topic need to be read by people in the punishment business. Summing up: Highly recommended.' MA Foley, Marywood University, December 2003. 'This book is essential reading for anybody interested in the development of restorative justice and the future of criminal justice. Each contribution is significant and well written.' Gerry Johnstone, in the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, February 2004 'One of the strengths of this collection is the way it places restorative justice developments in context. In this publication, and the earlier 'Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles', Hart Publishing establishes a reputation for publishing some of the best, and most thoughtful, material on restorative justice.' Declan Roche, in the British Journal of Sociology, January 2004

Murder is often regarded as both the 'ultimate' and a unique crime, and whereas courts are normally given discretion in sentencing offenders, for murder the sentence is mandatory - indeterminate imprisonment. Since the crime and the punishment come as a 'package deal' this book looks at both the legal nature of the offence and at the current operation of the mandatory life sentence. Not only does the book adopt a critical approach, by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the status quo, it also draws upon comparative material from both common and civil law jurisdictions in an attempt to provide a comprehensive exploration of these issues. The need for public confidence in the criminal justice system is particularly acute in the way it deals with the most serious homicides. In this book the authors report findings from the first systematic exploration of public attitudes to sentencing murder in this or any other common law jurisdiction. The picture of public opinion emerging from this recent large-scale nationwide qualitative and quantitative survey, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, is likely to surprise many, and will be of interest to all jurisdictions where the mandatory life sentence for murder has been questioned.