Improving the administration of justice by authorizing the Judicial Conference of the United States to establish institutes and joint councils on sentencing, to provide additional methods of sentencing ... : report [to accompany H.J. Res. 424]

Submitted by Mr. Willis, and ordered to be printed, June 23, 1958.

A guide to sentencing DUI offenders.

Mode of access: Internet.

The individual and the state : the problem as presented by the sentencing of Roger N. Baldwin.

Cover title.

Annual report - Criminal Sentencing Commission.

Report year ends Feb. 28.

Impact analysis : proposed "Truth-in-sentencing" legislation.

"June 1994."

Indeterminate and determinate sentencing : criminal justice issues before the first Special Session, October 24, 1977 : House Republican Committee Staff report /

Issued September, 1977.

Inmate attitudes about determinate sentencing /

Popular title: Inmate survey.

Won't pay or can't pay? Exploring the use of fines as a sentencing alternative for public nuisance type offences in Queensland

The complex relationship between marginalized people, 'public nuisance type offences' and fines law is explored. Court observation research conducted in Brisbane is reported which suggests that indigent people are more likely than others to appear before the court on charges related to public space offences, and that they are just as likely as others to receive a fine in response to their offending behaviour despite the legislative provisions aimed at avoiding this

Society of Legal Scholars Criminal Justice Section Response to Sexual Offences Guideline Consultation (Sentencing Council Consultation 2012-2013)

Consultation Report

Sentencing review 2014-2015

Addressing the curious black spot that is the separation between the principle of legality and sentencing

The principle of legality has evolved into a clear and entrenchedjurisprudential mechanism for protecting common law rights and freedoms. It operates as a shield to preserve the scope of application of fundamental rights and fre edoms. In recent years it has been increasingly applied by the courts to limit the scope of legislative provisions which potentially impinge on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Yet there is one domain where the principle of legality is conspicuously absent: sentencing. Ostensibly, this is paradoxical. Sentencing is the realm where the legalsystem operates in its most coercive manner against individuals. In thisarticle, we argue that logically the principle of legality has an importantrole in the sentencing system given the incursions by criminal sanctionsinto a number of basic rights, including the right to liberty, the freedom ofassociation and the deprivation of property. By way of illustration, we setout how the principle of legality should apply to the interpretation of keystatutory provisions. To this end, we argue that the objectives of generaldeterrence and specifi c deterrence should have less impact in sentencing. It is also suggested that judges should be more reluctant to send offenders with dependants to terms of imprisonment. Injecting the principle of legality into sentencing law and practice would result in the reduction in severity of a large number of sanctions, thereby reducing the frequency and extent to which the fundamental rights of offenders are violated. The methodology set out in this article can be applied to alter the operation of a number of legislative sentencing objectives and rules.

The implementation of feminist law reforms: the case of post-provocation sentencing

In 2005 the Australian State of Victoria abolished the controversial partial defence of provocation. Part of the impetus for the reforms was to challenge provocation’s victim-blaming narratives and the defence’s tendency to excuse men’s violence against intimate partners. However, concerns were also expressed that these narratives and excuses would simply reappear at the sentencing stage when men who had killed intimate partners were convicted of murder or manslaughter. This paper analyses post-provocation sentencing judgments, reviewing cases over the 10 year period since the reforms in order to determine whether these concerns have been borne out. The analysis suggests that at the level of sentencing outcomes they have not, although at the level of discourse the picture is more mixed. While sentencing narratives continue to reproduce the language of provocation, at the same time, post-provocation sentencing appears to provide opportunities for feminist judging – picking up on the spirit of the reforms – which have been taken up by some judges more than others.