Search

This article examines public attitudes to the sentencing offences associated with the rioting which took place in England in August 2011. Findings are based on a nationally representative survey of adults. The study uses a randomized split-sample experimental design to compare sentencing preferences for actual offences committed during the riots with preferences for similar offences committed under normal circumstances. The riot sub-sample generally ‘sentenced’ more severely than the non-riot sub-sample, but much less severely than the courts. The majority also thought that a non-custodial sentence with a reparative element was an acceptable alternative to custody. These trends suggest an unusual divergence of perspectives between the community and the courts: although the public are generally critical of the courts for leniency, with respect to non-violent offending during the riots, the latter appear more punitive.

Public opinion surveys have long documented public criticism of ‘lenient’ sentencers. There are two principal perceptions contributing to negative attitudes: a lack of community input and the view that sentencers determine sentence according to their own views. This study embeds an experimental design within a representative survey of respondents in England and Wales (n = 1,004), supplemented by laboratory-based work (n = 230) and focus groups. Results demonstrated that the public is ill-informed about both the magistracy and the sentencing guidelines. In addition, providing information about sentencing changed public attitudes to sentencing and reduced public punitiveness. Respondents were less critical of disposals and less punitive in their own sentence recommendations when they had been given context about the structure of sentencing.

Sentencing guideline schemes require courts to sentence within the guidelines - or give reasons why a different sentence is appropriate. Most US schemes require courts to find 'substantial and compelling' grounds for departing from the guidelines. The duty of a court with respect to sentencing guidelines in England and Wales changed significantly in 2010 as a result of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This article explores the evolution of the duty of courts to comply with the English sentencing guidelines. As will be seen, the language of the duty of a court provision has become more robust: henceforth, courts 'must follow' definitive guidelines rather than merely 'have regard to' them. At the same time, the government significantly increased the range of sentence within which courts must sentence. The essay provides some international context, drawing upon experiences in the jurisdiction in which guidelines have been longest in existence, and explores the limited compliance statistics collected in England and Wales to date. The consequences of the latest changes for sentencing in England and Wales are discussed. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

A number of jurisdictions, including England and Wales, have recently experienced rising prison populations and this has renewed the search for fresh alternatives to incarceration. Following the recommendations of the Home Office Sentencing Review of 2001, the Criminal Justice Bill 2002 contains a suspended term of imprisonment, which is a form of conditional sentence for England and Wales. Although conditional sentences of various kinds exist in many Western nations, the Canadian experience carries the most lessons for other jurisdictions. A conditional sentence of imprisonment designed to replace actual terms of custody was introduced in 1996. The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, but discharges the sentence while living in the community, under supervision. As long as they comply with a number of conditions, offenders serving conditional sentences will not actually spend any time in a correctional institution. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of this sanction to date. Results indicate that the conditional sentence has occasioned a significant drop in the number of admissions to custody, and with only a minor degree of net widening. The paper concludes by drawing some general conclusions from the Canadian experience with this alternative to imprisonment.

In 1965, it was thought that nothing less than a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment would be an acceptable replacement for the death penalty for murder in England and Wales. It was assumed that anything else would have led to a significant loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system. The authors have recently conducted what is believed to be the first survey in this country that tests this assumption, as well as the extent of public knowledge and belief of the current system for sentencing convicted murderers. The survey casts doubt over the assumption and highlights the misunderstanding and lack of knowledge on which public opinion is based. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved.