Search

In 2017, the Sentencing Council introduced a revised guideline for plea-based sentence reductions. The revisions were designed to provide greater certainty and to accelerate the timing of guilty pleas. Late pleas resulting in ‘cracked trials’ have long been a problem in the court system. The guideline was not intended to change the rate of defendants who plead guilty, but rather to increase the percentage of pleas entered early in the criminal process. This brief article reports findings from an analysis of data from the Crown Court before and after the introduction of the revised sentencing guideline. Findings reveal that the overall guilty plea remained stable over the period 2014–2019. The guideline appears to have had no effect on the timing of guilty pleas entered, and in fact the percentage of ‘cracked’ trials rose in the post-guideline period.

It is well established from gas centrifuge (GC) development that isotope separation in a rotating, multispecies gaseous medium increases with axial circulation of the rotating gas in a long separation chamber. This article aims at the development of a commercially viable plasma centrifuge (PC) for specific, nonuranium isotopes. The proposed model PC employs crossed constant radial electric and axial magnetic fields to provide radial separation of a partially ionized gas, combined with a thermal method to establish axial circulation in the rotating medium. The proposed thermal method creates an axial temperature gradient by cooling one end of the separation chamber. By calculation, the inclusion of circulation flow is shown to create axial redistribution of the target component concentration, increasing the longitudinal separation. An analysis of the hydrodynamic and thermal problems is performed for an extended end disk PC in the framework of the boundary layer theory. Radial velocity profiles of the conducting gas in the boundary layer are calculated with respect to the temperature ratio in the external flow ( $T_{1}$ ) and the disk surface ( $T_{0}$ ) for various Prandtl (Pr) numbers. The results demonstrate that for small values of the Pr number, cooling of an end surface within the PC separation chamber results in an intensive inflow of the conducting medium to the solid surface. It is shown that in a PC with crossed fields, cooling one of its ends achieves an effective multiplication of the separation effect along the length of the column.

Introduction Depression is one of the leading causes of disability in the world, and a disease that contributes greatly to the global burden of disease. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has proven to be a well-tolerated, effective treatment for depression. The present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of an rTMS treatment scheme with a fewer number of sessions per week. Methods In total 91 adult university students with major depressive disorder (MDD). This was a double-blind, randomized clinical trial in which 15 sessions of rTMS were given to each one of two treatment groups made up of adults with active MDD. One treatment group received two sessions per week, the other received five. The study protocol included their respective sham rTMS groups. The patients who received active rTMS also participated in a follow-up procedure that consisted of two sessions of active rTMS per month for three more months. Results Measurements by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) showed that the groups which received active rTMS had higher percentages of antidepressant response at 96 and 95.5% for five and two sessions/week, respectively, compared to the sham rTMS groups: 27.3 and 4.5% for five and two sessions/week, respectively. Observations at the end of the 3-month follow-up phase showed that the improvements in HAMD scores were maintained in both groups. Conclusion This study contributes to demonstrating that rTMS with a more practical schedule of two sessions/week is an effective antidepressant treatment that could be considered the first choice for managing symptoms of depression.

To date, the literature on sentencing reform has largely focused on western jurisdictions, particularly the United States and Europe. Developments in other parts of the world, particularly on the African continent, have been overlooked. This article explores sentencing in a lesser-known African jurisdiction: Ethiopia. The focus of the essay is upon the issue of structured sentencing. Sentencing in Ethiopia, like most jurisdictions, has historically been a very discretionary stage of the criminal process. That has now changed with the introduction of a comprehensive guideline scheme. Although sentencing guidelines in the US and England and Wales have been the subject of much critical scrutiny, nonwestern guidelines have attracted very little attention from scholars. Although there are parallels between the structure of the Ethiopian system and guidelines in other countries, there are also important differences. Since they are more developed than guidelines in adjacent countries, the Ethiopian guidelines constitute a model for other regional nations, including those with a post-colonial legacy. After providing an overview of sentencing in Ethiopia, the article describes the origin, nature, and consequences of the Ethiopian guidelines. The guidelines provide sentence ranges for different levels of seriousness for many crimes, and also prescribe a methodology to guide courts sentencing for offences for which no such guidance exists. They also provide some structure for the judicial use of mitigating and aggravating factors at sentencing. We conclude by identifying some deficiencies of the current guidelines and propose some specific remedies.

Changes to the sentencing process in Canada are finally imminent. A number of reports in recent years have called for reforms in the area of sentencing and parole. In 1987, the Canadian Sentencing Commission released its final report Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach. This was followed in 1988 by the report of the Daubney Committee following its investigation into sentencing and parole. In addition to these proposals, the now-defunct Law Reform Commission of Canada, the Department of Justice and the Ministry of the Solicitor General all published reports containing reform proposals. In this article, the authors review recent events in the area of sentencing since the publication of the report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission. After a brief introduction, four principal policy issues are examined: (i) statutory statements of sentencing purpose; (ii) sentencing guidelines; (iii) the future of release on parole; (iv) the creation of a permanent sentencing commission for Canada. For each issue, the article critically examines the position taken by major players in the area of criminal law reform. The article concludes with a brief examination of Bill C-90, which recently received first reading, and which will be the object of further parliamentary scrutiny in the fall of 1992. In a subsequent article, the authors offer their own proposals to reform the sentencing of offenders in Canada., Le processus de la détermination de la peine au Canada est en train de changer. Dans la dernière décennie, le système pénal a vu plusieurs rapports sur le sujet. En 1987, la Commission canadienne sur la détermination de la peine a publié son rapport Réformer la sentence : une approche canadienne. L’année suivante, le Comité permanent de la justice et du solliciteur général (le Comité Daubney) a fait une étude sur la détermination de la peine, la mise en liberté sous condition et d’autres aspects du système correctionnel. En 1990, le gouvernement fédéral a proposé des modifications à la détermination de la peine et aux services correctionnels fédéraux. En 1992, il y avait deux projets de loi, le C-36 et le C-90. Le premier a reçu l’approbation royale en juin, et le deuxième a subi sa première lecture en même temps. Dans cet article, les auteurs résument les événements les plus importants. En particulier, ils examinent quatre sujets critiques : i) la déclaration du but et des principes de la sentence; ii) les lignes directrices en matière de détermination des sentences; iii) la libération conditionnelle; iv) la création d’une commission permanente des sentences au Canada. Les auteurs concluent avec un court aperçu du projet de loi C-90 que le gouvernement fédéral vient de publier. Dans un autre article, ces auteurs proposent leurs propres réformes.

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.

Au Canada, la determination de la peine comporte de nombreux problemes, mais un point faible se demarque : le tres haut taux d'incarceration chez les Autochtones. Cet article documente les tendances actuelles et historiques des taux d'incarcerations des Autochtones aux niveaux provincial/territorial et federal depuis 1978. Nous nous attardons particulierement aux annees qui ont suivies deux jugements importants de la Cour supreme (en 1999 et 2012) qui a ordonne les cours de faire preuve de plus grande retenue quand venait le temps de determiner la peine de detenus autochtones. Les donnees primaires viennent de l'enquete sur les Services correctionnels pour adultes realisee par Statistiques Canada. En 2014, les personnes autochtones formaient un peu plus d'un quart de toutes les incarcerations provinciales et territoriales, une hausse importante depuis le pourcentage note en 1978 (16 %). En fait, au cours des 20 dernieres annees, toutes les juridictions sauf une ont note une augmentation du pourcentage d'incarcerations d'Autochtones dans les etablissements correctionnels provinciaux et territoriaux. Malgre les jugements de la Cour supreme et des cours d'appel provinciales, ainsi que plusieurs autres interventions de reeducation, notamment la creation de tribunaux dits Gladue et une forme alternative de detention passee dans la communaute, le probleme de la surincarceration des Autochtones s'est empire au lieu de s'ameliorer. Abstract: Sentencing in Canada is beset by many problems, yet one weakness stands above the rest: the disproportionately high rates of Aboriginal incarceration. This article documents current and historical trends in levels of Aboriginal incarceration at the provincial/territorial and federal levels since 1978. We pay particular attention to the years following two important Supreme Court judgements (in 1999 and 2012) that directed the courts to use custody with greater restraint when sentencing an Aboriginal offender. The primary data derive from the annual Adult Correctional Services survey conducted by Statistics Canada. In 2014, Aboriginal persons accounted for just over one quarter of all provincial and territorial admissions, significantly higher than the percentage recorded in 1978 (16%). In fact, over the past 20 years, all jurisdictions save one have experienced an increase in the percentage of Aboriginal admissions to provincial and territorial correctional institutions. Despite judgements from the Supreme Court and provincial courts of appeal, as well as several other remedial interventions, such as the creation of so-called Gladue courts and an alternate form of custody that would be served in the community, the problem of Aboriginal over-incarceration has worsened, not improved.

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 examines the question of whether and when prior convictions from many years past should no longer be considered at sentencing. The chapter first surveys the varying “look-back” and crime-free “gap” rules found in American guidelines systems, noting that many jurisdictions have no look-back limits for some or all offenders. This discussion also examines the question of when the look-back “clock” starts to run, in applying each of the existing rules—that date could be as early as the date of the prior sentencing, or as late as discharge from probation or parole. The chapter then considers the ways in which different approaches to look-back relate to the punishment rationales—offender risk and culpability—that are thought to justify criminal history enhancements. It also presents a summary of recent research surveying public opinion about the desirability and formulation of look-back limits. The chapter concludes with proposals to limit look-back.

Sentencing guidelines first emerged in the United States in the late 1970s. Sentencing commissions now exist in many states and at the federal level. Other common law jurisdictions have been much slower introducing greater structure for courts at sentencing. In recent years, however, a number of countries have now created definitive sentencing guidelines. This chapter explores the structure and impact of sentencing guidelines in the jurisdiction outside the US that has the most developed guidelines. Sentencing guidelines were first introduced in England and Wales in 1998 with the creation of the Sentencing Advisory Panel. Statutorily binding guidelines now exist for most common offenses in this jurisdiction. The grid-based approach exemplified by the Minnesota guidelines has been rejected in all other countries. In light of this, the English guidelines, which take a quite different approach to guiding sentencers, are the only developed alternative. Indeed, the English guidelines have been adapted and implemented in a number of other jurisdictions including South Korea, Scotland, Macedonia, and several gulf states. This chapter compares the English guidelines to the US grid-based systems, and summarizes the latest research exploring the impact of the guidelines on sentencing practices and other key indicators including public confidence.

In recent years, a range of western jurisdictions has introduced reforms designed to restrict and guide judicial discretion at sentencing. The reforms enacted include mandatory sentencing laws and guiding statutes prescribing sentencing purposes and principles as well as important aggravating and mitigating factors. However, formal guidelines are the most promising and well-studied innovation. We may now add China to the growing list of countries that have recognized the utility of guidelines. Over the past decade, China has slowly developed sentencing guidelines for its courts. The new guidelines contain both general directions with respect to the determination of sentence as well as specific numerical guidelines for common offences. The guidelines do not follow the approach taken by the US schemes, many of which employ a two-dimensional sentencing grid. Instead, China has adopted a strategy consisting of “Starting Point” sentences which are then adjusted by the court to reflect relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. This approach is much closer to the guidelines developed in England and Wales and those proposed but not yet implemented in New Zealand and Israel. In this article, we explore the new Chinese guidelines and provide a limited comparative analysis with guidelines in other jurisdictions. England and Wales is selected as the principal comparator since it has developed and implemented a comprehensive system consisting of both offence-specified guidelines as well as generic guidelines.

Although most jurisdictions award sentence discounts to defendants who plead guilty, the exact magnitude of reductions awarded, and the factors determining the levels of reduction, remain underresearched. In addition, the limited research conducted to date in England and Wales has drawn on data sources that prevent the researcher from excluding the effect of factors correlated with the plea. This article reports original findings from a new sentencing database that draws its data directly from the sentencing judge. This jurisdiction is interesting also because courts must follow a sentencing guideline that contains specific recommendations regarding the appropriate discount. Analyses reveal that the plea-based discounts are more modest than reported by previous researchers. In addition, the data reveal a significant degree of judicial compliance with the guideline, although some departures from the guideline are identified and discussed.

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.

In 2012 the Knesset approved a new sentencing law. Israel thus became the latest jurisdiction to introduce statutory directions for courts to follow in sentencing. The approach of the United States to structuring judicial discretion often entails the use of a sentencing grid with presumptive sentencing ranges. In contrast, the Sentencing Act of Israel reflects a less prescriptive method: it provides guidance by words rather than numbers. Retributivism is clearly identified as the penal philosophy underpinning the new law, which takes a novel approach to promoting more proportionate sentencing. Courts are directed to construct an individualised proportionate sentencing range appropriate to the case in hand. Once this is established, the court then follows additional directions regarding factors and principles related to sentencing. Although other jurisdictions have placed the purposes and principles of sentencing on a statutory footing, this is the first such legislative declaration in Israel. The statute also contains a methodology to implement a proportional approach to sentencing as well as detailed guidance on sentencing factors. This article describes and explores the new Sentencing Act, making limited comparisons to sentencing reforms in other jurisdictions – principally England and Wales, New Zealand and the United States. In concluding, we speculate on the likely consequences of the law: will it achieve the goals of promoting more consistent and principled sentencing?

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.

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.

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.

Crime victims and victims' advocates have for many years called for greater input into the criminal process, and in particular at the stage of sentencing. Today, victims in almost all common law countries have the opportunity to participate in the sentencing process, usually by providing information about the impact of the crime. This impact evidence is placed before a sentencing court in the form of a victim impact statement (VIS) or victim personal statement (VPS) as it is known in England and Wales. This article reviews findings from the last few years of data from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey (WAVES) which was conducted by the Ministry of Justice. We review findings from the last administrations of the survey. In the most recent administration of the survey (2009-2010), less than half (43%) of victims recalled being offered a statement. Over the most recent three-year period (2007-2010), a comparable percentage (42%) of the victims recalled being offered the opportunity to make a VPS; almost half (45%) explicitly responded that they had not been given an opportunity to make a VPS. In addition, significant variation emerged across local justice areas. The percentage of victims reporting having been offered a VPS varied from a low of 29 per cent in London to a high of 63 per cent in Northumbria - a range of 34 per cent. These and other findings suggest that the VPS scheme is being inconsistently implemented across the country. © The Author(s) 2012.

Sentencing guidelines have been slowly evolving in England and Wales since 1998. Definitive guidelines now exist for all common offences. This jurisdiction is the only one outside the United States to develop formal, numerical guidelines which are presumptively binding on courts. Despite their unique status - as the only alternative to the grid-based schemes found in many US states - the English guidelines have attracted almost no attention from sentencing scholars. This article describes the latest developments in England and Wales. As a result of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 much has changed: a new departure test has been created, and the old statutory bodies have been replaced by a single new Council which has issued a new format of guideline which will become the model to replace the old format. These important changes are discussed and some lessons drawn for other jurisdictions seeking to structure sentencing without resort to the two dimensional sentencing grids found across the United States. © The Author(s) 2012.

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 considerable body of scholarship has explored the jury as a legal institution but community reaction to the institution and function of the jury has not, to date, been the subject of a review. The present article fills this void by addressing a number of important questions about public attitudes to the jury. The focus is upon public attitudes to the criminal jury in England and Wales, although limited comparisons are made with public opinion in other jurisdictions. The results demonstrate widespread support for, and confidence in, the criminal jury, both in this country and in other common law jurisdictions. The research record also demonstrates strong public opposition to proposals to restrict the right to trial by jury. There is some evidence, however, that support for the right to trial by jury may decline in the context of offenders charged with terrorism‐related offences.

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.

Public confidence in criminal justice has emerged as an important issue in most western nations. Several jurisdictions have made promoting public confidence a policy priority, and governments in many countries have recently conducted public opinion surveys to gauge levels of confidence in criminal justice. However, little is known about levels of public confidence in criminal justice in Canada. This article reviews the empirical research on this issue and attempts to explain current trends. Although a significant plurality of the public expresses little confidence in the justice system, more people are positive than are negative. In comparison to other countries, confidence levels in criminal justice are generally higher in Canada. This said, the public has less confidence in the justice system than in other public institutions such as the health care system. Consistent with findings elsewhere, the police attract most, and the prison system the least amount of public confidence. The article places these findings in context, and discusses their implications for research and policy. Dans la plupart des pays occidentaux, le niveau de confiance que le grand public manifeste envers le regime de justice penale est devenu une question importante. Ainsi, en etablissant leurs orientations politiques, plusieurs instances ont privilegie la promotion de cette confiance, et au cours des dernieres annees les gouvernements de maints pays ont mene des enquetes d'opinion publique destinees a jauger le niveau de confiance du grand public envers la justice penale. Cependant, nos connaissances concernant les taux de confiance envers la justice penale au Canada sont limitees. Dans le present article, l'auteur passe en revue les recherches empiriques en la matiere et presente une explication des tendances actuelles. Ainsi, alors qu'un nombre significatif de Canadiens expriment peu de confiance envers le systeme de justice penale, l'opinion de la plupart des repondants est plutot favorable. En general, les niveaux de confiance envers le systeme de justice penale sont plus eleves au Canada qu'ailleurs. Ceci dit, le grand public manifeste moins de confiance envers le systeme de justice qu'envers d'autres composantes du secteur public telles que le systeme des soins de sante. Ce sont les services policiers qui jouissent du plus haut niveau de confiance, alors que le systeme carceral obtient la cote la plus faible. Enfin, l'auteur contextualise ces constats et discute de leurs impacts eventuels sur les recherches ulterieures et les politiques gouvernementales.

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).

Much of the scholarship on legitimacy and criminal justice has focused on the ways that perceptions of legitimacy are shaped by contact with criminal justice professionals, notably the police. This chapter explores the relationship between the nature of the sentencing regime and public perceptions of penal legitimacy, or what we refer to as “empirical legitimacy ” (see Hinsch, Political legitimation without morality, (pp. 39–52). London: Springer, 2008). Part I explores public attitudes to sentencing and the reasons why the public in many countries may perceive their sentencing system to lack legitimacy. Part II explores ways of enhancing public perceptions of sentencing legitimacy. This includes the outline of what a “high legitimacy” sentencing regime would look like. In order to be perceived as legitimate, a sentencing regime needs to contain certain essential features. It must be (and must be perceived to be): (a) clear and transparent; (b) consistent in application and therefore predictable; (c) sensitive to the input of all relevant parties; (d) grounded in sound principles. Finally, we argue that the sentencing system must be communicated to the public in an understandable fashion in order to avoid erroneous expectations. The mere existence of sound sentencing principles is insufficient to ensure a high degree of empirical legitimacy.

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.