Search

Considerable research examines discretion in judicial sentencing. However, little is known about the role of moral values or ideological beliefs in judicial sentencing decisions. The current study draws on insights from moral psychology to propose a model of judicial decision-making in which moral intuitions may inform sentencing both directly and indirectly via ideological beliefs about punishment (including general punitiveness and concern for offenders). We test this model using a statewide survey of Pennsylvania Common Pleas Criminal Court judges (N = 132), which included hypothetical sentencing vignettes. Results indicate that although moral intuitions were related to punishment ideology, moral intuitions were largely unrelated to judicial sentencing decisions, with a few exceptions. We interpret the results as suggesting that while moral and ideological preferences may be relevant under some circumstances, the role of morality in judicial decision-making may be constrained by legal or organizational factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focal concerns framework is widely used in research on sentencing, although the empirical validity of the framework itself is seldom directly evaluated. To fill this gap, we use survey data from 134 trial court judges to examine two basic questions about the focal concerns framework: (1) How and to what extent do judges consider the original focal concerns of blameworthiness, community protection, and practical constraints in their sentencing decisions? (2) To what extent is perceived rehabilitation potential, or "redeemability," considered by judges and should it become a fourth focal concern? Results based on open-ended survey questions reveal that judges continue to rely on the original focal concerns, but they operationalize these concerns in a variety of ways. Results further show that most judges are concerned about the rehabilitation potential, or "redeemability," of defendants. Based on these results, we conclude that the focal concerns framework continues to be of value but that future research using the framework should consider adding redeemability/rehabilitation potential as a fourth focal concern. We caution, however, that some of the factors judges consider in connection with rehabilitation potential/redeemability could increase sentencing disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]