Sentencing the multiple offender : judicial practice and legal principle
This study examines the approach of Victorian judges to the determination of sentence for an offender convicted of multiple offences. Given that a substantial percentage of criminal cases involve a multiple offender and that the majority of offences are committed by repeat offenders, the sentencing of such offenders is a matter of significant public policy interest. The study is based on qualitative interviews with a group of Victorian County Court judges, an analysis of sentencing data on rape, armed robbery and burglary from Victorian County Court records, and a legal review of High Court decisions and Victorian Court of Appeal decisions. The study examines the way judges apply the totality principle in sentencing multiple offenders; whether sentences imposed these cases conform to the principle of proportionality; and whether proportionality, in respect to the multiple offender, can be expressed as a detailed policy, with associated guidelines. The empirical work undertaken in this study indicates that there is a need to develop a more detailed and comprehensive set of sentencing principles and an associated numerical framework for guidance.
The Process of Sentencing Adult Felons
If there is one conclusion about the United States criminal justice system with which most knowledgeable observers of the system would agree, it is that the sentencing of convicted felons is blatantly unfair. Not only does the average length of prison sentences given to offenders convicted of virtually identical crimes vary from one locale to another (see, e.g., Bottomley, 1973; Green, 1961; Hogarth, 1971; O’Donnell, Churgin, & Curtis, 1977), but different judges seem to give completely different sentences to the same offender. For example, in one instance (reported in O’Donnell et al., 1977), after reading the same file describing characteristics of an offender and the nature of his criminal activity (transporting stolen securities across state lines), one federal judge imposed a three-year prison term while another released the offender with only one year of probation.
Individual differences in the sentencing tendencies of judges
This study was originally undertaken as a project having a much broader scope than that presented in this article. The authors had hoped to carry through an investigation which they had tentatively entitled, "A Study of Some Factors Other Than Guilt and Nature of Offense Which Determine the Length of a Prisoner's Sentence." It was their expectation to gather evidence which would show whether or not the severity of a prisoner's sentence was influenced by such factors as: his marital condition, his color, his race, his political affiliations, the judge who sentenced him, the imminence of a re-election or a reappointment of a judge, the age of the prisoner, his religion, general business conditions, etc. Because the authors were unable to secure enough money to carry on such a study it was necessary to stop after data embodying some seven thousand cases had been gathered. It is their hope to be able to continue this project when conditions shall have become more favorable. This article is the first