Measuring risk and blameworthiness in the sentencing of criminal defendants : an exploratory study in Western Australia's Higher Courts

The focal concern perspective dominates quantitative explorations of judicial sentencing. A critical argument underlying this perspective is the role of judicial assessments of risk and blameworthiness. Prior research has not generally explored how these two concepts fit together. This study provides an empirical test of the focal concerns perspective by examining the latent structure among the measures traditionally used in sentencing research, and investigates the extent to which focal concerns can be applied in a non-US jurisdiction. Using factor analysis (as suggested by prior research), we find evidence of distinct factors of risk and blameworthiness, with separate and independent effects on sentencing outcomes. We also identify the need for further development of the focal concerns perspective, especially around the role of perceptual shorthand.

Responsabilità da reato degli enti: blameworthiness e colpevolezza di organizzazione nel corporate killing

Studio comparatistico Italia / UK in tema di colpevolezza di impresa. Uno studio della dimensione in action dei profili ascrittivi di responsabilità delle persone giuridiche.

Narratives of mitigation : sentencing Indigenous criminal defendants in South Australia’s Higher Courts

In their statistical analyses of higher court sentencing in South Australia, Jeffries and Bond (2009) found evidence that Indigenous offenders were treated more leniently than non-Indigenous offenders, when they appeared before the court under similar numerical circumstances. Using a sample of narratives for criminal defendants convicted in South Australia’s higher courts, the current article extends Jeffries and Bond’s (2009) prior statistical work by drawing on the ‘focal concerns’ approach to establish whether, and in what ways, Indigeneity comes to exert a mitigating influence over sentencing. Results show that the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders differed in ways that may have reduced assessments of blameworthiness and risk for Indigenous defendants. In addition, judges highlighted a number of Indigenous-specific constraints that potentially could result in imprisonment being construed as an overly harsh and costly sentence for Indigenous offenders.

An examination of the sentencing remarks of Indigenous and non-Indigenous criminal defendants in South Australia’s Higher Courts

Recent Australian research on Indigenous sentencing primarily explores whether disparities in sentencing outcomes exist. Little is known about how judges perceive or refer to Indigenous defendants and their histories, and how they interpret the circumstances of Indigenous defendants in justifying their sentencing decisions. Drawing on the ‘focal concerns’ approach, this study presents a narrative analysis of a sample of judges’ sentencing remarks for Indigenous and non-Indigenous criminal defendants convicted in South Australia’s Higher Courts. The analysis found that the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders differed in ways that possibly reduced assessments of blameworthiness and risk for Indigenous defendants.

Sentencing indigenous and non-indigenous women in Western Australia's higher courts : A summary of the main findings of a narrative study

This paper presents the main findings of a narrative examination of higher court sentencing remarks to explore the relationship between Indigeneity and sentencing for female defendants in Western Australia. Using the theoretical framework of focal concerns, we found that key differences in the construction of blameworthiness and risk between the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous female offenders, through the identification of issues such as mental health, substance abuse, familial trauma and community ties. Further, in the sentencing narratives, Indigenous women were viewed differently in terms of social costs of imprisonment.

Explicating the role of sexual coercion and vulnerability: Alcohol expectancies in rape attributions

Despite evidence suggesting that alcohol expectancies may influence people’s rape perceptions, no study to date has measured context-specific expectancies comprehensively. This study represents an initial investigation of the role of sexual coercion and vulnerability alcohol expectancies in young Australian adults’ rape blame attributions. Using a vignette method, it was hypothesised that participants’ stronger expectancy endorsement would predict lesser perpetrator blame and greater victim blame. Participants (N = 210; 34.9% males; 18-25 years) read a hypothetical rape scenario and rated dimensions of blameworthiness attributed to the intoxicated sexual perpetrator and victim. Participants completed the Sexual Coercion and Sexual Vulnerability sub-scales of the Drinking Expectancy Sexual Vulnerabilities Questionnaire for the targets self, men, and women in addition to measures of traditional gender role attitudes and rape myth acceptance. Hierarchical multiple regressions revealed that, as expected, stronger sexual coercion expectancy predicted lower perpetrator blame and greater victim blame. Self-oriented expectancy predicted evaluations of the perpetrator whereas other-oriented expectancy predicted victim evaluations. These effects were robust after controlling for gender role attitudes and rape myth acceptance. Alcohol expectancies appear to be part of a network of beliefs and attitudes which perpetuate biased rape attributions and may be useful to challenge in altering rape perceptions.

Corporate Responsibility for Crimes - Thinking Outside the Box

Emeseh, Engobo, 'Corporate Responsibility for Crime: Thinking outside the Box' I University of Botswana Law Journal (2005) 28-49 RAE2008

Intention and Causation in Medical Non-Killing: The impact of criminal law concepts on euthanasia and assisted suicide

null RAE2008

"Padre, perdónalos porque no saben lo que hacen": una perspectiva semi-compatibilista

Si se interpreta la primera palabra de Cristo en la cruz, con referencia a los verdugos que causaron su crucifixión, en clave de omnisciencia divina luterana y ausencia de posibilidades alternativas, surgiría una aparente contradicción en cuanto a la responsabilidad moral y el deber de aquellos: ¿Cómo sostener su responsabilidad moral si no contaban con posibilidades alternativas, y si al parecer no sabían lo que hacían, y cómo atribuirles deberes que no podían cumplir? Esto se puede resolver desde de una perspectiva semi-compatibilista, y responder, así, que: 1) la ausencia de posibilidades alternativas y la ignorancia no excluyen el que los verdugos puedan ser considerados moralmente responsables por la crucifixión de Cristo, y 2) la imposibilidad de cumplir con ciertos deberes no excluye el que los verdugos tuviesen dichos deberes y pudieran ser considerados moralmente responsables por su incumplimiento.

Remember Not to Forget Furman: A Response to Professor Smith

Professor Robert J. Smith encourages readers, lawyers, and courts to forget Furman v. Georgia and to focus instead on death penalty challenges grounded in the diminished culpability of nearly all capital defendants. We applaud Professor Smith’s call to focus on the mental and emotional characteristics that reduce the blameworthiness of so many of those charged with capital crimes; recognizing diminished culpability as the rule rather than the exception among capital defendants conveys a reality that rarely finds its way into reported cases. We are troubled, however, by Professor Smith’s call to “forget Furman.” We believe the title and the article’s efforts to undermine Furman-based challenges disserve Professor Smith’s principal goal — addressing the United States’ broken death penalty system.