Re-thinking notions of evidence and proof for sentencing: Towards a more communitarian model

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2023-05-07 DOI:10.1177/13657127231172207
R. Henham
{"title":"Re-thinking notions of evidence and proof for sentencing: Towards a more communitarian model","authors":"R. Henham","doi":"10.1177/13657127231172207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Judges and magistrates are often criticised for failing to take sufficient account of social factors such as poverty and social deprivation when sentencing offenders. The implication is that the sentencing practices of the courts lack an important social dimension—that of ‘social justice’—namely, the perception that the punishment of criminalised behaviour by the state is fair and non-discriminatory. This article asserts that the notion of ‘social justice’ sits uneasily with the values that sustain the existing paradigm of adversarial trial. It is argued that shifting the focus of the adversarial trial away from its narrow preoccupation with individual accountability towards a more communitarian model of penal accountability would significantly enhance the moral credibility of sentencing and its social impact. A more flexible approach to the admissibility and evaluation of evidence is advocated, one conceived within a communitarian ideology whose purpose is to promote penal interventions which enhance social justice.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"27 1","pages":"211 - 234"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127231172207","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Judges and magistrates are often criticised for failing to take sufficient account of social factors such as poverty and social deprivation when sentencing offenders. The implication is that the sentencing practices of the courts lack an important social dimension—that of ‘social justice’—namely, the perception that the punishment of criminalised behaviour by the state is fair and non-discriminatory. This article asserts that the notion of ‘social justice’ sits uneasily with the values that sustain the existing paradigm of adversarial trial. It is argued that shifting the focus of the adversarial trial away from its narrow preoccupation with individual accountability towards a more communitarian model of penal accountability would significantly enhance the moral credibility of sentencing and its social impact. A more flexible approach to the admissibility and evaluation of evidence is advocated, one conceived within a communitarian ideology whose purpose is to promote penal interventions which enhance social justice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新思考量刑的证据和证明概念:迈向更社群化的模式
法官和治安法官经常因在宣判罪犯时没有充分考虑贫困和社会剥夺等社会因素而受到批评。这意味着,法院的量刑实践缺乏一个重要的社会层面——“社会正义”,即认为国家对犯罪行为的惩罚是公平和非歧视的。这篇文章断言,“社会正义”的概念与维持现有对抗性审判范式的价值观格格不入。有人认为,将对抗性审判的重点从狭隘的个人问责转移到更具社区主义的刑事问责模式,将大大提高量刑的道德可信度及其社会影响。提倡对证据的可采性和评估采取更灵活的方法,这种方法是在社群主义意识形态中构想的,其目的是促进刑事干预,以增强社会正义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1