The influence of judicial denunciation during sentence summation and how this equates with wider criminal justice attempts to change offending behaviour through re-education and re-moralization app...

Towards an understanding of judicial denunciation: Relating theory to practice by comparing the perceptions of English and Danish lower court judges when sentencing minor theft offenders

In general, researchers hope to answer the same ontological question: “Who are we?” Practitioners address the question in their own unique ways, employing the rhetoric and idioms, and the agenda and metrics, that express their respective domains. Researchers in the various brain sciences work at the frontier of knowledge about our brains, the final material cause of all of our endeavors. They fully share the commitment to this fundamental question. From the perspective of the brain sciences, the answer to this question–though certainly not now and

/pdf/foreward-the-brain-sciences-and-criminal-law-norms-22nity2vfj.pdf

Foreward: The Brain Sciences and Criminal Law Norms

Consider a typical day on the trial bench, which includes—in addition to morning and afternoon sessions of an ongoing jury trial—a batch of sentencing hearings and a probation violation hearing. The first sentencing hearing, based on a guilty plea to misdemeanor shoplifting, involves a woman around thirty years old with a string of drug, petty theft, and prostitution priors, who has agreed to two years bench probation, thirty days in jail, and a collection of evaluation, treatment, and monitoring conditions. The second sentencing hearing involves a “repeat property offender” whose criminal record means his auto theft calls for a presumptive prison sentence instead of the probationary sentence otherwise encouraged by state sentencing guidelines. He agrees to a nineteen-month sentence in return for dismissal of several related charges that could be subject to a mandatory minimum seventy-month prison sentence. The third sentencing hearing involves a defendant with a long drug and property crime record who has been convicted for dealing heroin within 1000 feet of a school. The pre-sentence investigation report, after describing the defendant’s childhood deprivation and juvenile court involvement, mental and physical health, and marital/procreational and vocational history, recommends an upward departure from a presumptive twenty-five months to fifty months imprisonment. The probation hearing addresses whether the probationer, on supervision for a domestic assault, has “forfeited the privilege of probation” by repeatedly failing to report to the probation officer or to complete domestic violence intervention counseling. The probation officer recommends revocation and six months in prison. Each offender has offended before; each is likely to offend again. In these hearings, neither the judge nor anyone else gives any apparent thought to the likely impact of the sentencing decision on the future criminal behavior of the offender. The analytical skills of all are devoted to entirely different subjects. The conscientious judge delivers the sentence along with a lecture which may involve threat, encouragement, or advice, but reflects the judge’s socialization and experience rather than any of the relevant academic disciplines. A foreign observer might reasonably conclude that this society has no literature or discipline

Michael H. Marcus

Papers

Sentencing in the Temple of Denunciation: Criminal Justice's Weakest Link