Search

The article examines the creation and proliferation of sentencing commissions since the establishment of the first commissions in Minnesota and Pennsylvania in 1978. Topics discussed include nature of sentencing commissions, prevailing models in the U.S., England and other jurisdictions, and policy transfer or diffusion and the various frameworks used to describe and explain the process.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes the latest developments in common law jurisdictions in England and Wales. It states that as a result of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 much has changed such as a new departure test has been created, and the old statutory bodies have been replaced by a single new Council. It also states that the government has proposed to increase the guilty plea discount.

This article examines an under-explored area of sentencing law in England and Wales: sentencing outside the definitive guidelines. The issue has come to the fore as a result of judgments arising from the serious public disorder of last summer. Sentencing outside the definitive sentencing guidelines is of course not restricted to riot-related offending; other circumstances will inevitably arise which impel courts to depart from the guidelines ranges. Accordingly, it is worth exploring the ways in which courts might sentence offenders for criminal acts unforeseen by the guidelines authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1965, it was thought that nothing less than a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment would be an acceptable replacement for the death penalty for murder in England and Wales. It was assumed that anything else would have led to a significant loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system. The authors have recently conducted what is believed to be the first survey in this country that tests this assumption, as well as the extent of public knowledge and belief of the current system for sentencing convicted murderers. The survey casts doubt over the assumption and highlights the misunderstanding and lack of knowledge on which public opinion is based. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article examines amendments to the sentencing guidelines in England and Wales in 2011. Two sets of guidelines will be used by sentencers as a result of the expected delay in the replacement of all guidelines. The three categories of seriousness of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) are discussed. The significance of the new guide lies in the fact that it corrects structural and conceptual weaknesses in its predecessor and it creates a model for future guidance.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the impact of criminal history on sentencing in England and Wales. Changes in the system of sentencing offenders under the Criminal Justice Act of 2003; Imposition of sentences before the proclamation of the Act; Factors to consider in determining the severity of a sentence.