Search

This article advances a censure-based case against sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Our argument justifies a retributive “second look” assessment of long-term priso...

Most research in sentencing discrimination in the United Kingdom has relied on aggregate analyses comparing disparities by ethnic group. These studies fail to consider differences in the individual characteristics of the cases processed. To circumvent the lack of official data, we scraped sentence records stored in a commercial website, from which a sample of 8,437 offenders sentenced to custody in the Crown Court from 2007 to 2017 was generated. Using the names of the offenders, we have been able to classify 8.6 per cent of our sample as having a traditional Muslim name. We find that Muslim-named offenders received sentences 9.8 per cent longer than the rest of the sample. However, this difference disappeared once we accounted for the type of offence and other key case characteristics.

This report summarizes sentencing outcomes for different ethnic groups in England and Wales. It is based on analyses of court data over the period 2009-2019. All previously published reports present the data on custody rates and on average custodial sentence lengths separately. In this report, we combine these two measures to form a new measure of punitiveness for indictable offences: the ‘Expected Custodial Sentence’. This measure provides a more comprehensive measure of the use of imprisonment. Whilst the Expected Custodial Sentence increased for all ethnic groups throughout the period 2009-2019, the figure for White offenders is consistently lower than for other ethnic groups. In 2019, the Expected Custodial Sentence for an indictable offence ranged between 6.6 months for a White offender and 10.2 months for an Asian offender. However, the overall Expected Custodial Sentence figure masks considerable variation across offence categories, with the greatest divergence evident for violent offences against the person.

Sentencing for multiple offences poses many challenges and becomes even more complex when the crimes resulted in fatalities. This article uses the sentences imposed following convictions in the Essex lorry case to pose some general questions about the sentencing of multiple victim manslaughters. The four principal offenders were convicted of 39 counts of unlawful act manslaughter and conspiracy to facilitate unlawful immigration into the UK. The analysis identifies several ways in which the sentences ultimately imposed failed to adequately distinguish between offenders of very different levels of culpability. First, all four principal offenders were assigned to the same level of culpability in the manslaughter guideline. Second, although the court could have distinguished the offenders to reflect their different culpability levels, the same Starting Point sentence was imposed on all offenders. Third, the sentencing uplifts to reflect the multiple counts were similar across offenders of very different culpabilities. Fourth, the differential additional punishments for the conspiracy conviction – which would have separated the offenders' time in custody further – were washed out by being made concurrent. As a result of these decisions, the final sentences failed to adequately distinguish between offenders of very different culpabilities. The article concludes with some lessons for sentencing in these cases, specifically with respect to the Sentencing Council's guidelines.

How does the passage of time affect sentencing? Increasingly, courts around the world are being required to sentence offenders for crimes committed years or even decades earlier. Prevailing conceptions of harm and culpability change over time. Policy makers concerned with punishment and sentencing should be sensitive to changes in the absolute and relative seriousness of crimes as well as the absolute and relative severity of punishments. Ordinal rankings of offenses have evolved over the past 50 years, as has our understanding of the impact of various sanctions. Issues raised by sentencing for crimes committed much earlier illustrate the need for a time-sensitive approach. Should defendants be sentenced according to standards prevailing at the time of the offense or according to current standards? Courts in different jurisdictions have taken different positions on this question. Applying current standards amounts to retroactively re-calibrating the offender's culpability. This essay argues that offenders should be judged by the standards prevailing when they took the decision to offend. A time-sensitive approach would apply the sentencing standards of the earlier time, yet also consider time-relevant mitigation and aggravation in the period since commission of the offense. The offender's conduct and the victim's suffering during the period are both relevant factors. Although the emphasis in this essay is upon proportional sentencing, on any model the offence and the offender should never be treated as a moment in time, caught like an insect in amber. The passage of time often changes our evaluation of the offense and the offender, and when this occurs the nature of the sentence should change. The analysis also extends to long-serving prisoners, whose sentences should be reviewed after years have passed in case they are no longer deemed proportionate.

The consequences of a person’s prior crimes remain after the debt to society is paid and the sentence is discharged. While the practice of using prior convictions to enhance the severity of sentence imposed is universal, prior record enhancements (PREs) play a particularly important role in US sentencing, and especially in guidelines jurisdictions. In grid-based guidelines, criminal history constitutes one of the two dimensions of the grid. The enhancements are hard to justify. Retributive theories generally reject the use of robust, cumulative record-based enhancements. Research into recidivism suggests that the preventive benefits of PREs have been overstated. The public support the consideration of prior convictions at sentencing, but there is convincing evidence that people are less punitive in their views than are many US guideline schemes. PREs exacerbate racial disparities in prison admissions and populations, result in significant additional prison costs, undermine offense-based proportionality, and disrupt prison resource prioritization.

Although women represent a small minority of the prison population in all nations, it has long been a concern that custody is overused with respect to female offenders. Reducing the number of women in prison has therefore emerged as a policy priority in many western nations, including the United Kingdom. This article evaluates a range of sentencing strategies to reduce the number of women in prison, on the grounds that their experience of the sanction is disproportionately severe. The challenge is to achieve a reduction in women’s imprisonment without compromising the fundamental sentencing principles of equity and proportionality. Although no jurisdiction has launched a sentencing initiative with this specific aim, the international sentencing literature offers insight into the most effective methods by which reductions may be achieved. Informed by the principle of equal impact, which underpins gender-specific sentencing, we explore policy options in two principal domains: (1) statutory provisions to eliminate or restrict judicial discretion to imprison female offenders; and (2) sentencing guidelines to structure judicial discretion in gender-sensitive ways. We conclude by considering the likelihood of implementing the options.

This chapter shows how powerful criminal history enhancements undermine important goals of guidelines reforms. First, these enhancements undermine the goal of making punishment severity proportional to the seriousness of the offense for which the offender is being sentenced; if prior record receives more weight in sentencing, conviction offense seriousness receives less weight. Second, these enhancements counteract the goal of reserving expensive prison beds for offenders convicted of violent crimes—powerful criminal history enhancements shift the balance of prison admissions and inmate stocks toward property, drug, and other nonviolent offenders. Third, prior record enhancements change the composition of prison populations by risk level—older offenders often have more prior convictions but declining recidivism risks, so criminal history enhancements increase the number of aging, low-risk prison inmates. The formulaic nature of such enhancements also over-predicts the risk level of some younger offenders. The chapter concludes with proposals for limiting these adverse effects.

This chapter shows how sentencing data can be used to quantify the substantial fiscal impacts of high-magnitude criminal history enhancements, overall and with respect to the problematic aspects of those enhancements identified and discussed in previous chapters. It uses data from Minnesota and several other states as examples because of the excellent sentencing data available for those states. The chapter first examines the total fiscal impact (added bed needs and costs) that results from the sentence-enhancing effects of criminal history on prison commitment and prison duration decisions. It then quantifies the fiscal impacts of the identified problematic aspects of prior record enhancements: disproportionately severe prison durations imposed on high history offenders, imprisonment of nonviolent offenders recommended for prison solely because of their elevated criminal history scores, imprisonment of aging offenders who are recommended for prison due to their high history scores, and racially disparate sentences that result from criminal history enhancements.

The focus of this chapter is on five components of criminal history scores that lack strong justification from the perspective of recidivism risk, retribution, or both rationales. These components are: juvenile court adjudications, misdemeanor convictions, the offender’s “custody status” when committing the offense being sentenced (whether he was incarcerated or on some form of criminal justice release), weighting prior felony convictions according to their severity ranking or other seriousness indicator, and the policy in some jurisdictions of according extra weight to prior offenses that were similar to the offense being sentenced (“patterning” premiums). The chapter then presents data from Minnesota, showing how the inclusion of the first four of these score components greatly increases the frequency and duration of recommended and imposed prison terms. The chapter concludes that criminal history scores should not routinely include any of these five problematic components, although judges might consider them as potential aggravating factors.

Sentencing guidelines were an exclusively American enterprise until recently. Since 2004, however, other countries have joined in. Contrasting approaches are exemplified by systems developed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the Sentencing Council of England and Wales. Minnesota’s guidelines are set out in grids that categorize cases by offense and criminal history. Each cell sets out ranges of sentences that are presumed to be appropriate. The English guidelines are step-by-step decision trees, one for each principal offense category. Each jurisdiction created an approach that fits its sentencing environment. The Minnesota grids are more restrictive and generate high levels of judicial conformity and consistency. The English guidelines allow greater discretion, possibly at the cost of consistency. However, the English approach provides ampler guidance on use of different dispositions, sentencing of multiple crimes, appropriate reductions to reflect guilty pleas, and other subjects. Neither the Minnesota Commission nor the English Council has been particularly self-critical. Minnesota’s main grid has changed little since 1980. England’s guidelines have evolved considerably, but the council has ignored calls to play a more active role in controlling the use of custody and hence the size of the prison population.

The English summer riots of 2011 resulted in the criminal justice system having to process an unprecedented number of offenders in a short timeframe. This study explores sentencing practice in the wake of the riots using the 2011 Crown Court Sentencing Survey. A multilevel model was implemented to specify the probability of receiving a custodial sentence for offences of commercial burglary. This model allows exploring differences in sentencing before and after the riots. An increased probability of receiving a custodial sentence in the post-riot period was identified. An increase in variability was also detected, changing from a state of almost perfect consistency to one in which substantial variation was observed between courts. Custodial rates for burglary increased to a level associated with more serious offences, thereby undermining the principle of proportionality. This, as well as the increased dispersion between courts, challenges other principles such as legal certainty and transparency.

The authors take a closer look at the current sentencing laws for murder and argue the need to change them. Expanding on the proposals described in the recently published book, Exploring the Mandatory Life Sentence for Murder, the authors provide a more detailed explanation for the new framework. The proposals suggest a new method of sentencing, and discuss how primary and secondary mitigating and aggravating favors can play a role in forming the suggested scheme. This article suggests that this method would constitute a more principled approach compared to mandatory life sentencing, by achieving higher levels of proportionality, greater consistency and restraint in the use of custody. While these proposals focus on the sentencing regime in England and Wales, the authors argue their relevance for other countries that also impose a mandatory life sentence framework. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

La Loi sur le systeme de justice penale pour les adolescents (2003) a ete promulguee dans le but de diminuer le recours aux tribunaux et a la detention pour les jeunes contrevenants, et a ameliorer l’efficacite des mesures prises dans les cas de violence criminelle grave commise par des jeunes. Dans l’article, on evalue l’impact qu’a eu la Loi au cours des cinq annees suivant son adoption. On y passe en revue les principales dispositions de la Loi touchant la determination de la peine et les mesures extrajudiciaires. On y parle aussi de la jurisprudence de la Cour supreme du Canada quant a l’interpretation de la Loi et on presente des donnees statistiques sur l’impact qu’a eu la Loi sur les mesures extrajudiciaires et la determination de la peine chez les adolescents, ainsi que sur le nombre de cas juges devant les tribunaux et en detention. La Cour supreme a interprete de maniere restrictive les dispositions de la Loi permettant de recourir a la detention, ce qui a contribue a faire diminuer le taux de detention. La Cour a aussi insiste sur le fait qu’il faut traiter les jeunes differemment des adultes. De plus, elle a juge inconstitutionnelles les dispositions de la Loi creant une presomption de peine applicable aux adultes pour les jeunes contrevenants les plus violents, limitant ainsi les effets de certains articles de la Loi visant les crimes graves avec violence. Grâce a la Loi, le taux de recours aux tribunaux et a la detention ont considerablement diminue, sans que la criminalite enregistree chez les jeunes augmente pour autant. Il existe encore des variations importantes d’une region a l’autre du recours aux tribunaux de la jeunesse et de detention chez les jeunes. Meme s’il y a moins de differences regionales liees au recours aux tribunaux depuis l’adoption de la Loi, il n’y a pas vraiment eu de changement quant a la detention apres son entree en vigueur. La criminalite chez les jeunes demeure un sujet de preoccupation politique litigieux au Canada. Abstract: The Youth Criminal Justice Act (2003) was enacted with the intent of decreasing the use of courts and restricting the use of custody for adolescent offenders, while improving the effectiveness of the responses to serious violent youth offenders. This paper assesses the impact of the act in its first five years. It reviews salient provisions of the act dealing with sentencing and diversion, discusses Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence interpreting the act, and presents statistical data on the impact of the YCJA on diversion and sentencing of youth and on youth court and custodial caseloads. The Supreme Court has narrowly interpreted the provisions of the YCJA that allow for the use of custody, contributing to a reduction in use of custody. The Court has also emphasized that youth are to be treated differently from adults and ruled unconstitutional provisions of the YCJA that created a presumption of adult sentencing for the most serious offences by young offenders, limiting the effect of provisions of the act directed at serious violent offenders. The YCJA has succeeded in significantly reducing the rates of use of court and custody, without increasing recorded youth crime. There continue to be significant regional variations in rates of use of youth courts and custody. Although regional differences in the use of court have declined under the YCJA, variation in the use of custody has not been significantly affected by the new act. Youth crime remains a contentious political concern in Canada.

Crime victims play an increasingly important role in the criminal process. One manifestation of this is the proliferation in the use of victim impact statements at sentencing and parole hearings. Across the common-law world victims are allowed to submit an impact statement to a sentencing court or parole board. Many U.S. states go further and encourage (or allow) victims to recommend a specific sentence to the court or to express their views on the release of the offender on parole. Research into the use of impact evidence at sentencing suggests that victims can benefit from the experience, and most who submit impact statements affirm that they would do so again. However, few victims participate in impact statement regimes, which tend to be poorly administered. There is no systematic evidence that impact statements make sentencing harsher, and research suggests that victim impact evidence is perceived by judges to be beneficial to the sentencing process. There is less justification for allowing victim input at parole, as victims seldom possess information relevant to the parole decision. Victim input at corrections is an example of what has been termed "punitive victim rights" and is inconsistent with sound correctional principles or principles of fundamental justice. © 2009 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code--colloquially known as the "faint hope" clause--permits most offenders sentenced to life imprisonment for murder or high treason, and who have to serve at least 15 years prior to becoming parole eligible, to have a jury review their parole eligibility dates. This includes all offenders convicted of first-degree murder and a small number of second-degree murder convictions (those with parole ineligibility periods in excess of 15 years). The "faint hope" clause is unique in the common law world; in other jurisdictions, parole eligibility is stipulated in statute, with the discretion to release prisoners vested in parole authorities. This provision is one of two ways in which community opinion may influence the sentencing of offenders convicted of murder in this country. (1) Juries have the power to make the applicant eligible for parole but the decision to grant or deny parole remains at the discretion of the National Parole Board. Section 745.6 has attracted controversy ever since the first application was heard in 1987. Calls for repeal or amendment grew more strident and more frequent following the unsuccessful application by Clifford Olson, and amendments to the provision were passed in 1997. Whatever their effect on the number and outcomes of applications under this provision, the amendments have failed to placate critics of judicial review. Whenever a high-profile individual (like Colin Thatcher) or any egregiously shocking case results in an application, headlines follow, and calls for repeal are renewed. In response, the federal government has recently introduced Bill C-36, which would repeal the provision with respect to offenders convicted of a murder committed on or after the day that the proposed legislation comes into force. (Bill C-36 received second reading on 18 June 2009.) For prisoners convicted of murder before this date, elements of the provision will be amended to make a successful outcome less likely. Other government proposals in the field of criminal justice will affect larger numbers of offenders and victims, but there are two reasons for examining C-36 in detail. First, it deals with one of the most publicly discussed provisions in the Criminal Code, and second, if passed without amendment, it may represent the first step towards more repressive amendments to the murder sentencing provisions. Some amendments to section 745.6 may be desirable. For example, there is no denying the trauma that 745.6 hearings cause crime victims, and one may question the wisdom of allowing applicants who have failed to secure any reduction in their parole ineligibility periods to make subsequent applications quite so expeditiously after the first application fails. If an application has failed to convince a jury on the basis of the prisoner's conduct after 15 years in prison, his case is unlikely to be much more convincing two years later. (2) Similarly, does it really make sense to allow a hearing in the case of a prisoner who has served 23 years of his 25 year sentence? One purpose of this brief article is to call for a thorough, comprehensive analysis of the way that provision has functioned over the past 20 years, (3) although the chances of an informed debate founded on an evidence-based review do not seem tbright. For example, when Daniel Petit moved that Bill C-36 be read the second time and referred to committee, he was asked how many people make an application and how many people actually succeed in an application, he was stumped for an answer, simply responding "No matter how many people are affected ... regardless of the number of people, it is a question of justice for the victims" (House of Commons Debates 12 June 2009 at 4565). The debate over this provision has become simplistic in tone--pitting prisoners' rights against victims' interests. It is yet another example of the false "zero-sum game" in which every proposal that appears to benefit offenders, must also, by definition, disadvantage victims (see Tonry forthcoming). …

Sentencing in England and Wales has evolved in a direction apart from other common law countries. Although sentencing problems found in many Western nations are present, legislative and judicial responses have been very different. The use of custody rose steeply in the 1990s and has remained stable around that level in recent years. Crimes of violence and sexual aggression have, however, attracted increasingly longer sentences. The other principal changes are a steep increase in indeterminate sentence offenders, now accounting for some 19 percent of the prison population, and a striking rise in the volume of suspended sentences that has reduced the use of community sentences rather than terms of imprisonment. Net widening has therefore occurred. The principal distinction between England and most other jurisdictions is that statutorily binding guidelines now exist for both magistrates’ and higher courts. Unlike most US guidelines that assign offenses to levels of seriousness within a single sentencing grid, the English guidelines are offense specific. The Sentencing Council has also issued “generic” guidelines applying to all categories of offending. The guidelines have been evolving for over a decade now and cover most common offenses. Growing, but still limited, research suggests modest positive effects on consistency and proportionality in sentencing.

This issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice contains a number of contributions to mark the scholarship of Professor Jean-Paul Brodeur, of the Ecole de criminologie at the Universite de Montreal, Canada, and the Western world of academic criminology, lost one of its brightest stars when Jean-Paul passed away in 2010. Jean-Paul was also Associate Editor of the Canadian Journal of Criminology for many years. In this brief introduction, we provide some information on Jean-Paul, his career in criminology, and the contributions which follow.

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.

This article present statistics on remand in custody in England and Wales. Currently, these statistics are spread across a wide range of government statistical publications, making it challenging to determine trends. We demonstrate that decisions to remand in custody are not a major contribution to prison overcrowding. However, it is important from perspectives both of human rights and economy to keep trends under close review, and to search for better ways of reducing the remand population in prisons. At the end of the article we review a number of strategies designed to reduce the remand population in this jurisdiction.

This article reports findings from two representative public-opinion surveys that explored Canadians' attitudes toward three important sentencing issues: the severity of sentencing; the purposes of sentencing; and mandatory sentences of imprisonment. As has been found by polls over the past 30 years, most Canadians believe that sentencing practices are too lenient. The same result emerged from a poll conducted in 2005: 74% of respondents held the view that sentencing is too lenient - a finding consistent with polls conducted throughout the 1980s. With respect to the purposes of sentencing, strongest public support emerged for the restorative sentencing objectives of promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender and securing reparation for the crime victim. There was less support for the more traditional purposes of deterrence and incapacitation. This finding represents a marked contrast to findings from the last survey that evaluated public reaction to sentencing purposes (in 1985). Slightly more than half the sample in 2005 expressed support for mandatory sentencing - a result consistent with opinion surveys from the United States and Australia. However, there was strong public support for mandatory sentencing legislation that also permits a limited degree of judicial discretion. The public appear aware of the dangers of an absolute mandatory sentence of imprisonment and support mandatory sentences in which courts may impose a lesser sentence where exceptional circumstances exist. The implications of these findings for sentencing policy in Canada are discussed. © 2007 CJCCJ/RCCJP.

Nigel Walker described prior convictions as ‘the most obvious example of aggravation’ (1985, p. 44), and there certainly is great intuitive appeal to taking previous convictions into account. Most members of the public believe that offenders with previous convictions should be punished more severely, particularly if the priors are the same as the current conviction. (For findings and discussion, see Roberts and Hough, 2011; Roberts, 2008, chapter 8.) Thus, when asked to sentence offenders with different numbers of prior convictions, the public respond more puni-tively to recidivists compared to first offenders.

The literature on sentencing for murder falls into four categories. First, ‘black letter’ law sets out how the courts should punish convicted murderers and what should happen to them after conviction. Second, empirical research sheds light on the way that the sentencing provisions for murder determine the number of years served in custody prior to release on life licence. Third, a number of studies have documented what the public know or believe about sentencing for murder as well as how the public think murder ought to be punished (e.g., Mitchell and Roberts, 2012). Public opinion research is relevant to the sentencing for murder since public views are often employed to justify retention of a mandatory sentence (see Mitchell and Roberts, 2012). Fourth, there is a wealth of academic commentary advocating sentencing reform (e.g., House of Lords Select Committee, 1989; Committee on the Penalty for Homicide, 1993; Morris and Blom-Cooper, 2011; Mitchell and Roberts, 2013).

What do we know about the practice of sentencing in England and Wales? The answer, until relatively recently, was not very much. The explanation for this lack of knowledge lies primarily in the limited statistics and sporadic research record. Although empirical studies have been conducted for many decades now (e.g., Hood, 1962; 1972; 1992), over the decade between 1995 and 2005, only a handful of major empirical studies of sentencing were conducted (e.g., Tarling, 2006; Mason et al., 2007; Flood-Page and Mackie, 1998; Hough et al., 2003; for discussion and reviews of earlier empirical research in sentencing, see Ashworth, 2003; Roberts, 1988; Blumstein et al, 1983).

This chapter explores trends from the Ministry of Justice sentencing statistics (available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly). Understanding sentencing patterns is complicated by the fact that offenders often appear for sentencing having been convicted of several offences. Sometimes the offender has been charged with multiple crimes arising from the same incident; sometimes the offender will be charged with a single offence but will ask the court to take a number of others into consideration. Offenders may ask a court to impose punishment for crimes for which they have not been charged in order to clear their account as it were, perhaps because they are aware that at some point charges will be laid. The other reason for asking for other offences to be taken into account is that although additional punishment will be imposed, the offender is likely to benefit from some reduction for having freely conceded the crimes.

This essay explores and critiques a theory of criminal justice which privileges the role of public intuitions about punishment over more traditional influences on sentencing principles and practice. This movement may be termed ‘Democratising Punishment’ and it has important consequences for sentencing in all jurisdictions. Several recent books advocate reforms such as deriving sentencing principles from public opinion research or sentencing by juries rather than legal professionals. In the essay we critique this perspective and note the threats to principled sentencing arising from greater public involvement in the sentencing of offenders.

This article presents findings from a survey that systematically explores public opinion, youth crime and justice in England and Wales. Particular emphasis was placed upon public reaction to restorative sentencing. The survey uncovered a number of misperceptions about youth crime. Few respondents rated youth courts as doing a good job, and most thought that sentences imposed on young offenders are too lenient. A considerable gap existed between the sentences that respondents wanted to see imposed on young offenders and the sentences that they assumed would be imposed. Generally speaking, expected sentences were less harsh than favoured punishments. When respondents were asked to impose sentence in case scenarios, there was significantly less support for custody as a sanction when the young offender had made some restorative steps such as writing a letter of apology and promising to make compensation to the victim. When asked about alternatives to imprisonment, significant proportions of respondents found alternatives to be satisfactory substitutes for imprisonment, a result consistent with research in other jurisdictions.

This article reviews public opinion research relating to imprisonment. Thefocus is upon British attitudes, but wherever possible we place findings from this countryin an international context. Most members of the public report little familiarity with theprison system – few people report having had any direct contact with a penal institution.A common finding around the world is that most people believe that prison conditions arequite easy; this belief helps to explain low public levels of confidence in the prison system.Despite these trends, the public does not wish to make prison life harsher merely for thepurpose of punishment. People want and expect prisoners to improve their lives whileinside, although there is widespread scepticism that rehabilitation is possible in today’sprisons. Although the traffic of people in and out of the prison gates today is large,nevertheless the prison is a silent world still shrouded in mystery. (Blom-Cooper1976, p.72) Despite the efforts of legislators to counter the problem, prison popula-tions are stable or rising in most western jurisdictions (see below). Oneexplanation for this state of affairs is the apparently strong public supportfor imprisonment as a sanction. Judges and magistrates feel underpressure to respond to public pressure on this issue (see Hough, Jacobsonand Millie 2003). However, relatively little is known about public viewsregarding imprisonment, as the emphasis in the public opinion literaturehas been upon sentencing rather than the nature of custody per se.Weknow that when asked to sentence offenders convicted of serious crimes ofviolence, most people support the imposition of a term of custody. It isequally clear from several reviews that the public believes the sentencingprocess is too lenient (for example, Cullen, Fisher and Applegate 2000;Roberts and Stalans 1997; Roberts 1992) and also that people in differentcountries underestimate the severity of current court practices (forexample, Roberts and Hough 2005; Roberts 1998; Mattinson and

Within the past decade, restorative justice has emerged as a truly global phenomenon. Although retributive justice has dominated the penal landscape, more recently, restorative principles at sentencing have attracted increased attention. Restorative sentencing emphasizes the importance of compensation and reconciliation between victims and offenders and pays less attention to establishing proportionality between the seriousness of the offense and the severity of the sentence imposed. Although voluminous (and proliferating), the scholarly literature on restorative justice has to date neglected one critical issue: public opinion with respect to this justice paradigm. Public opinion researchers too, have generally overlooked this topic. The goal of this paper is to determine which elements of the new paradigm generate public approval, and which features are likely to encounter or provoke public opposition, drawing upon related international research published in English over the past 20 years (1982–2002). The review reveals widespread support for “restorative” sentencing options, such as community service, compensation, and restitution, particularly when applied to young offenders. However, it also seems clear that public support for these alternatives to punitive sentencing options declines as the seriousness of the offence increases, suggesting strong public adherence to the retributive principle of proportionality in sentencing.

Editor's introduction This forum aims to promote one of our journal's primary functions: to bring together scholars and practitioners working in the criminal justice system. It addresses one of the most vexing issues in criminal justice: the role of the victim. The movement promoting victims' rights has gained considerable ground in recent decades--in Canada as well as in other common law jurisdictions (see Roach 1999; Sebba 1996). Victims now have considerably more input into the criminal process than they had 20 years ago. In the area of sentencing, since 1988 crime victims in Canada have had the right to submit a victim impact statement at sentencing; more recent amendments to the Criminal Code have expanded still further the rights of the victim in this regard. The contributors to this forum address the role of the victim in plea negotiations, a much misunderstood element of the criminal justice system. Victim advocates have long argued that crime victims should have some input into these discussions. Simon Verdun-Jones and Adamira Tijerino, academics from the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University, review the experience with respect to victim input, both here and in the United States. They examine a number of different models to provide victims with more "voice" in these discussions. Their article is followed by commentaries contributed by three experienced and distinguished criminal justice practitioners: Judge Donna Hackett of the Ontario Court of Justice; Nevina Crisante, Counsel for the Ontario Victim Services Secretariat; and Allen Edgar, Director of the Centre for Judicial Research and Education in Toronto. The journal is grateful to these individuals for taking the time from their busy schedules to read and respond to the Verdun-Jones and Tijerino article. Julian V. Roberts Editor, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice References Roach, Kent 1999 Due Process and Victims' Rights: The New Law and Politics of Criminal Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Sebba, Leslie 1996 "Third Parties": Victims and the Criminal Justice System. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Rubrique speciale sur le role de la victime dans les negociations de plaidoyer Introduction du redacteur en chef Ce forum s'est donne pour objectif de faire la promotion de l'une des fonctions principales de la Revue : rassembler les chercheurs et les praticiens oauvrant au sein du systeme de justice penale. C'est ainsi que, sous cette rubrique speciale, nous voulons approfondir l'une des questions des plus delicates dans le domaine de la justice penale, soit le role de la victime. …

This brief article reviews the principal sentencing provisions of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, and explores their relationship to sentencing at the adult court level. As well, a number of normative issues raised by the YCJA are addressed. It is clear that a central goal of the act is to harmonize sentencing at the adult and youth court levels. However, several important differences remain, including the following: (1) the statement of purpose of sentencing in youth justice courts lays more emphasis on rehabilitation; (2) although the utilitarian sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, and incapacitation are relevant to the sentencing of adults, they are not stated objectives for sentencing juveniles; (3) while important, proportionality plays a lesser role in the sentencing of juvenile offenders, although the influence of the principle will increase with the age of the young person; (4) courts should resort to the incarceration of the offender less often when sentencing juvenile offenders; (5) when considering the principle of parity in sentencing, the frame of reference for youth courts should be the region in which the individual is being sentenced; there is no such statutory direction at the adult level.

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.

Surveys conducted over the past twenty years in several English-speaking countries reveal that most members of the public subscribe to a number of misperceptions about juvenile crime and justice. Regardless of actual trends, significant majorities believe youth crime to be increasing, and most people have quite negative views of youth courts. The public display considerable ambivalence with respect to juvenile justice. While strong majorities favor punishing violent juveniles with the same severity as adults, there has always been considerable support for rehabilitation. There is a clear consensus among scholars that public concern about youth crime, particularly violent crime, has been a driving force behind reforms that facilitated the transfer of accused juveniles to adult criminal court and made penalties harsher for offenders sentenced in youth court.

Sweeping changes have recently been made to punishment practices in many western nations. A number of these have reflected punitive, penal populism. The purpose of this essay is to examine recent reforms in New Zealand which reflect a philosophy of “bifurcation” with respect to the punishment of offenders. Harsher treatment is introduced with respect to the more serious forms of offending, while at the same time other elements of the Sentencing Act represent a more rational and moderate approach to sentencing reform. The Sentencing Act 2002 introduces a number of changes to the sentencing process in New Zealand. This article reviews some of the more important elements of the Act, beginning with the legislated statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing. The statutory purposes include the goals of rehabilitation, deterrence and incapacitation that have been cited in similar statements in other jurisdictions. The author explores the significance of various components of the Sentencing Act in light of experience in other jurisdictions such as Canada and England and Wales. In a number of areas the New Zealand statute offers a superior alternative to statutory language adopted in other countries.

Statutory reforms of the juvenile justice system came to Canada in 2003 when the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) became law. This article reviews the principal sentencing provisions and, in particular, the purposes and principles that are now codified as a result of the new legislation. The legislation attempts to reduce the number of young offenders sent to prison while facilitating the imposition of harsher sentences on a small number of juveniles convicted of the most serious offenses. The YCJA moves youth court sentencing closer to sentencing as it is conducted in adult court but also maintains some important differences between the two levels. These reforms are likely to reduce the number of young persons sent to prison in Canada and change the composition of the juvenile prison population by reducing the number of young offenders incarcerated for minor crimes or property crimes.

This article explores three sanctions contained in the 2002 Criminal Justice Bill which follows upon the 2002 white paper Justice for All. The Bill creates a Sentencing Guidelines Council to develop sentencing guidelines, and defines three dispositions applicable to sentences of imprisonment under twelve months: ‘Custody Plus’, the suspended sentence of imprisonment, and the intermittent sentence of imprisonment. These reforms constitute a significant step for the sentencing process in England and Wales, and are in part a response to the 2001 Halliday Report. The changes (among others) may well have an important impact on the prison population in England and Wales, which in October 2002 reached a record level. Since the suspended sentence of imprisonment bears close resemblance to the conditional sentence of imprisonment introduced in Canada in 1996, the article makes comparisons between the two sanctions.

The high rates of Aboriginal admissions to custody have been noted by Commissions of Inquiry, all levels of government, and Corrections texts in Canada for some time. In the most recent year for which data are available (2000–2001), Aboriginal offenders accounted for 19% of provincial admissions and 17% of federal admissions to custody. This article examines provincial custodial sentenced admissions for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders since 1978, when national statistics including the ethnicity of the offender were first published. Particular emphasis is paid in this analysis to recent trends during a period in which Parliament and the Supreme Court have tried to address the problem, the former by statutory recognition of the unique nature of Aboriginal offenders, the latter by judgments interpreting Criminal Code sentencing provisions introduced in 1996. The findings suggest that little progress has been made in reducing the number of Aboriginal sentenced admissions over the past few decades. Although the volume of Aboriginal admissions to custody has declined since 1993–1994, non-Aboriginal admissions have declined at an even faster rate, suggesting that specific policy changes are not responsible for the Aboriginal decline.

The juvenile justice systems of most Western nations have been under considerable pressure to impose harsher penalties on juvenile offenders. Much of this pressure has come from politicians who argue that the public and juvenile courts are out of step, with the latter being more lenient than the public desire. This article reports findings from a representative national survey of the public, which permitted comparisons between the sentencing preferences of the public and the actual practice of youth courts. Respondents were asked to sentence offenders described in vignettes. The sentencing component employed a 2 × 2 × 2 design. The variables manipulated were age of offender (juvenile or adult), criminal history (first offender or recidivist), and nature of offence (burglary or assault). Results indicated concordance between the incarceration rates favored by members of the public and the practice of the courts. In addition, respondents were also asked questions about criminal victimization within the previous 12 months. Consistent with the findings of previous research, crime victims were no more punitive than respondents who did not report having been victimized.

Contributors Introduction: Exploring the Normative Significance of Public Opinion for State Punishment, Jesper Ryberg and Julian V. Roberts Chapter 1: Penal Theory, Moral Intuitions, and Public Opinion, Jesper Ryberg Chapter 2: Proportionality Theory and Popular Opinion, Matt Matravers Chapter 3: The Proper Role of Community in Determining Criminal Liability and Punishment, Paul H. Robinson Chapter 4: Proportionality in Sentencing: The Need to Factor in Community Experience, Not Public Opinion, Mirko Bagaric Chapter 5: Penal Theory and Popular Opinion: The Deficiencies of Direct Engagement, Jan W. de Keijser Chapter 6: Why Should We Care What the Public Thinks? A Critical Assessment of the Claims of Popular Punishment, Frej K. Thomsen Chapter 7: Public Opinion and Democratic Control of Sentencing Policy, Christopher Bennett Chapter 8: Criminal Prosecutors: Experts or Elected Officials?, Richard L. Lippke Chapter 9: Stakeholder Sentencing, Thom Brooks Chapter 10: Repellent Institutions and the Absentee Public: Grounding Opinion in Responsibility for Punishment, Albert W. Dzur Chapter 11: Clarifying the Significance of Public Opinion for Sentencing Policy and Practice, Julian V. Roberts Notes Bibliography Index

This article analyses Roger Hood’s 1992 study of race and sentencing, which found evidence of possible racial discrimination in certain Crown Courts. Examining recent criticisms of the validity of these findings, it is suggested that an adequate threshold of significance was used in the study; that the exclusion of certain status variables did not invalidate the study’s findings; and that the choice of which sentencing variables to control for is ultimately a normative matter. Next, the article considers what steps – other than alleviating discrimination – would be needed to reduce racial imbalance in the prisons. It is argued that little is likely to be gained by seeking to make ‘social adversity’ a basis for sentencing mitigation; and that policies before the sentencing stage would need to be altered instead – for example, those relating to drug-law enforcement.

The relationship between crime and race or ethnicity has important implications for Canada. The constitution affirms the country's multicultural heritage. As in other Western nations, certain minorities are overrepresented in the prison population. Aboriginal and black offenders account for a disproportionate number of admissions. There has not been much research on why such disproportions exist, except concerning Aboriginal Canadians. Canada is not immune to problems of discrimination. Compared with whites, black accuseds are significantly more likely to be denied pretrial release on bail and, for certain offenses, to be incarcerated.