Democracy and Decriminalization

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Texas Law Review Pub Date : 2006-09-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.932667
Darryl K. Brown
{"title":"Democracy and Decriminalization","authors":"Darryl K. Brown","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.932667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The dominant story of American political process and criminal law is one of democratic dysfunction. Criminal law is a distinctive issue for legislatures and democratic politics generally. Legislators respond to strong majoritarian preferences that make votes against crime creation — or votes to repeal antiquated crimes — politically implausible. Thus criminal law is \"one-way ratchet\": it expands but does not contract. On this account, America's excessive criminal codes are products of structural failures in political process and democratic institutions. The overlooked story in American criminal law, however, is long and continuing history of legislative decriminalization. State legislatures have long records of repealing or narrowing criminal statutes. Even as criminal law has expanded greatly in some directions, it has contracted — dramatically so — in other spheres of activity. And democratic processes, especially legislatures, have been responsible for much of that contraction. Moreover, evidence of state legislative records suggests that contemporary legislatures decline to enact most bills proposing new or expanded criminal laws, including many that seem, on standard accounts, politically irresistible. The ratchet of crime legislation turns both ways. More than ninety percent of criminal law enforcement is state rather than federal, and state criminal justice systems on the whole more democratically responsive than the federal system. Many state legislatures recently have proven better at devising procedural frameworks to harness expertise in the reform of criminal law and punishment policy and to moderate risks of dysfunctional policymaking. Coupled with restraints from other branches, substantive overcriminalization, judged against a baseline of democratic preferences, is a negligible problem in the states. And data on charging, conviction and sentencing practices suggest that what overcriminalization exists has little effect on criminal justice's well recognized problems of excessive plea bargaining, racial disparities, and high incarceration rates.","PeriodicalId":47670,"journal":{"name":"Texas Law Review","volume":"86 1","pages":"223"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2006-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.932667","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.932667","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

The dominant story of American political process and criminal law is one of democratic dysfunction. Criminal law is a distinctive issue for legislatures and democratic politics generally. Legislators respond to strong majoritarian preferences that make votes against crime creation — or votes to repeal antiquated crimes — politically implausible. Thus criminal law is "one-way ratchet": it expands but does not contract. On this account, America's excessive criminal codes are products of structural failures in political process and democratic institutions. The overlooked story in American criminal law, however, is long and continuing history of legislative decriminalization. State legislatures have long records of repealing or narrowing criminal statutes. Even as criminal law has expanded greatly in some directions, it has contracted — dramatically so — in other spheres of activity. And democratic processes, especially legislatures, have been responsible for much of that contraction. Moreover, evidence of state legislative records suggests that contemporary legislatures decline to enact most bills proposing new or expanded criminal laws, including many that seem, on standard accounts, politically irresistible. The ratchet of crime legislation turns both ways. More than ninety percent of criminal law enforcement is state rather than federal, and state criminal justice systems on the whole more democratically responsive than the federal system. Many state legislatures recently have proven better at devising procedural frameworks to harness expertise in the reform of criminal law and punishment policy and to moderate risks of dysfunctional policymaking. Coupled with restraints from other branches, substantive overcriminalization, judged against a baseline of democratic preferences, is a negligible problem in the states. And data on charging, conviction and sentencing practices suggest that what overcriminalization exists has little effect on criminal justice's well recognized problems of excessive plea bargaining, racial disparities, and high incarceration rates.
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
民主和除罪化
美国政治进程和刑法的主导故事是民主功能失调的故事。刑法对立法机关和民主政治来说是一个独特的问题。立法者对强烈的多数主义倾向做出回应,这种倾向使得反对制造犯罪的投票——或废除过时犯罪的投票——在政治上难以置信。因此,刑法是“单向棘轮”:它扩张但不收缩。因此,美国过多的刑法是政治进程和民主制度结构性失败的产物。然而,美国刑法中一个被忽视的故事,是漫长而持续的立法非犯罪化历史。州立法机构在废除或缩小刑事法规方面有着悠久的历史。尽管刑法在某些方面得到了极大的扩展,但它在其他活动领域却急剧收缩。而民主进程,尤其是立法机构,在很大程度上要为这种收缩负责。此外,州立法记录的证据表明,当代立法机构拒绝颁布大多数提出新的或扩大刑法的法案,包括许多从标准角度来看在政治上不可抗拒的法案。犯罪立法的棘轮是双向的。超过90%的刑事执法是由州而不是联邦执行的,州刑事司法系统总体上比联邦系统更民主。事实证明,许多州的立法机构最近在设计程序框架方面做得更好,以便利用刑法和惩罚政策改革方面的专门知识,并缓和政策制定不正常的风险。再加上其他部门的限制,从民主偏好的基线来判断,实质性的过度定罪在各州是一个可以忽略不计的问题。有关指控、定罪和量刑实践的数据表明,过度定罪对刑事司法中众所周知的过度辩诉交易、种族差异和高监禁率等问题几乎没有影响。
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
1.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Texas Law Review is a national and international leader in legal scholarship. Texas Law Review is an independent journal, edited and published entirely by students at the University of Texas School of Law. Our seven issues per year contain articles by professors, judges, and practitioners; reviews of important recent books from recognized experts, essays, commentaries; and student written notes. Texas Law Review is currently the ninth most cited legal periodical in federal and state cases in the United States and the thirteenth most cited by legal journals.
期刊最新文献
Guarantor of Last Resort Demystifying Nationwide Injunctions Feminism and the Tournament Tracing Equity: Realizing and Allocating Value in Chapter 11 State Public-Law Litigation in an Age of Polarization
×
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