The fallacy of punishing offenders for the deeds of others: an argument for abolishing offence prevalence as a sentencing aggravating consideration

Sentencing outcomes are often marked by a considerable degree ofunpredictability. A key reason for this is the large number of aggravating andmitigating considerations, some of which have unstable questionablefoundation. This article argues that one well-established aggravating factor —offence prevalence — should be abolished. Pragmatically, the courts have notestablished workable criteria or a process for establishing whether an offence isprevalent. From a normative perspective, increasing the penalty for prevalentoffences is unsound because defendants should be punished for their acts, notthose of other offenders. Further, on close analysis, all of the rationales (in theform of general deterrence, denunciation and specific deterrence) invoked tojustify offence prevalence do not do so. Abolishing one sentencing variable willnot make sentencing a significantly more coherent or predictable discipline, butthe methodology applied in this article can be used to assess the viability ofother sentencing considerations.

The irrelevance to sentencing of (most) incidental hardships suffered by offenders

Criminal offenders often experience hardships beyond the imposition of a court-imposed sanction. These hardships typically take a variety of forms, but can be grouped into a number of relatively well-established categories, including loss of employment, public opprobrium and injuries sustained during or around the time of the commission of the crime. Other examples are deportation from Australia and the imposition of traditional forms of punishment.1 Collectively, these harms are termed incidental hardships or extra-curial punishment.2 Formally, extra-curial punishment is defined as a ‘loss or detriment imposed on an offender by persons other than the sentencing court, for the purpose of punishing the offender for his [or her] offence or at least by reason of the offender having committed the offence’.

Sober assessment of the link between substance abuse and crime-eliminating drug and alcohol use from the sentencing calculus

The relevance of drug and alcohol involvement to sentencing law and practice is one of the most perplexing and unsettled areas of sentencing law and practice.1 It is also one of the most important issues in the criminal justice system. Most crimes are committed by offenders who are substance involved, and nearly half of all crimes that are committed are done so by offenders who are intoxicated at the time of the offense. Substance involved individuals are grossly over-represented in the criminal courts. Addiction and intoxication impair sound judgment, and hence, it intuitively appears that intoxicated offenders are less culpable for their crimes. Moreover, there is often a sense that addiction and intoxication causes aberrant behavior and that curing the substance involvement will lead to more prudent (law-abiding) conduct.

Saving the United States from lurching to another sentencing crisis: taking proportionality seriously and implementing fair fixed penalties

We make recommendations regarding how the United States cansignificantly lower its incarceration rate, while at the same time ensuring that community safety is not diminished. Moreover, we identify and recommend a consolidation and extension of the positive aspects of the current sentencing regime.

Sentencing Guidelines, Judicial Discretion, And Social Values

This paper studies the institutional structure of criminal sentencing, focusing on the interaction between legislatures, which set sentencing ranges ex ante, and judges, who choose actual sentences from within those ranges ex post. The key question concerns the optimal degree of judicial discretion, given the sequential nature of the process and the possibly divergent interests of legislatures and judges regarding the social function of criminal punishment. The enactment of sentencing reform in the 1970s and 80s provides both a context for the model and an opportunity to evaluate its conclusions.

Crack and powder cocaine federal legislation: A sentencing disparity and potential for policy improvement

Since its introduction into the United States in the 1980s, crack cocaine has been a harsh epidemic that has taken its toll on a countless number of people. This highly addictive, cheap and readily available drug of abuse has permeated many demographic sectors, mostly in low income, lesser educated, and urban communities. This epidemic of crack cocaine use in inner city areas across the Unites States has been described as an expression of economic marginality and “social suffering” coupled with the local and international forces of drug market economies (Agar 2003). As crack cocaine is a derivative of cocaine, it utilizes the psychoactive component of the drug, but delivers it in a much stronger, quicker, and more addictive fashion. This, coupled with its ready availability and cheap price has allowed for users to not only become very addicted very quickly, but to be subject to the stringent and sometimes unequal or inconsistent punishments for possession and distribution of crack-cocaine. ^ There are many public health and social ramifications from the abuse of crack-cocaine, and these epidemics appear to target low income and minority groups. Public health issues relating to the physical, mental, and economic strain will be addressed, as well as the direct and indirect effects of the punishments that come as a result of the disparity in penalties for cocaine and crack-cocaine possession and distribution. ^ Three new policies have recently been introduced into the United Stated Congress that actively address the disparity in sentencing for drug and criminal activities. They are, (1) Powder-Crack Cocaine Penalty Equalization Act of 2009, (HR 18, 111th Cong. 2009), (2) The Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2009, (HR 265, 111th Cong. 2009) and (3) The Justice Integrity Act of 2009, (111th Cong. 2009). ^ Although they have only been initiated, if passed, they have potential to not only eliminate the crack-cocaine disparity, but to enact laws that help those affected by this epidemic. The final and overarching goal of this paper is to analyze and ultimately choose the ideal policy that would not only eliminate the cocaine and crack disparity regardless of current or future state statutes, but will provide the best method of rehabilitation, prevention, and justice. ^

Traffic offenders and community service sentencing: an overview. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Sentencing and dispositions of youth DUI and other alcohol offenses: a guide for judges and prosecutors.

Mode of access: Internet.

Traffic offense sentencing processes and highway safety. Volume I. Summary. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Traffic offense sentencing processes and highway safety. Volume II - technical report. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Traffic offense sentencing processes and highway safety. Volume III - appendices. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.