Equality in Multi-door Criminal Justice

IF 0.4 Q2 Social Sciences New Criminal Law Review Pub Date : 2020-01-10 DOI:10.1525/nclr.2020.23.1.60
Richard A. Bierschbach
{"title":"Equality in Multi-door Criminal Justice","authors":"Richard A. Bierschbach","doi":"10.1525/nclr.2020.23.1.60","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As contemporary criminal justice practices have grown more varied, the equality concerns they raise have grown more nuanced and complex. This essay explores the interplay between equality in criminal justice and the mix of punitive and non-punitive mechanisms that have proliferated in parallel in the criminal justice systems of many post-industrial societies in the last thirty years. Multi-door criminal justice does not fare well under the dominant conception of equality in American criminal law, which seeks to stamp out disparities in punishment and ensure roughly equal outcomes for roughly similar offenders. But we need not view that as fatal to multi-door criminal justice. Tension between a multi-door system and our reigning approach to equality might suggest reasons to question the latter more than it does the former. Alternative, more flexible, more process-oriented conceptions of equality might exist that could better accommodate a multi-door world while still protecting and advancing egalitarian norms and ideals. At the same time, shifting our perspective on equality will not eliminate all equality concerns that flow from multi-door criminal justice, and it likely will reveal new ones. The question then becomes not whether multi-door criminal justice is unequal in some absolute sense. The question is whether it is less unequal—or unequal in more palatable ways—than what we have now.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2020.23.1.60","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As contemporary criminal justice practices have grown more varied, the equality concerns they raise have grown more nuanced and complex. This essay explores the interplay between equality in criminal justice and the mix of punitive and non-punitive mechanisms that have proliferated in parallel in the criminal justice systems of many post-industrial societies in the last thirty years. Multi-door criminal justice does not fare well under the dominant conception of equality in American criminal law, which seeks to stamp out disparities in punishment and ensure roughly equal outcomes for roughly similar offenders. But we need not view that as fatal to multi-door criminal justice. Tension between a multi-door system and our reigning approach to equality might suggest reasons to question the latter more than it does the former. Alternative, more flexible, more process-oriented conceptions of equality might exist that could better accommodate a multi-door world while still protecting and advancing egalitarian norms and ideals. At the same time, shifting our perspective on equality will not eliminate all equality concerns that flow from multi-door criminal justice, and it likely will reveal new ones. The question then becomes not whether multi-door criminal justice is unequal in some absolute sense. The question is whether it is less unequal—or unequal in more palatable ways—than what we have now.
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
多门刑事司法中的平等
随着当代刑事司法实践变得更加多样化,它们所引起的平等问题也变得更加微妙和复杂。本文探讨了在过去三十年中,在许多后工业社会的刑事司法系统中并行扩散的刑事司法平等与惩罚性和非惩罚性机制之间的相互作用。在美国刑法中占主导地位的平等观念下,多门刑事司法并不顺利,这种观念旨在消除惩罚的差异,并确保对大致相似的罪犯产生大致相同的结果。但我们不必认为这对多门刑事司法是致命的。多门制度与我们追求平等的主流方式之间的紧张关系,可能会让我们更有理由质疑后者,而不是前者。可能存在另一种更灵活、更以过程为导向的平等概念,可以更好地适应一个多门世界,同时仍然保护和推进平等主义的规范和理想。与此同时,改变我们对平等的看法并不会消除多门刑事司法中产生的所有平等问题,而且可能会揭示新的问题。那么问题就不是多门刑事司法在某种绝对意义上是否不平等了。问题是,它是否比我们现在的不平等程度更低,或者以更令人满意的方式不平等。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Focused on examinations of crime and punishment in domestic, transnational, and international contexts, New Criminal Law Review provides timely, innovative commentary and in-depth scholarly analyses on a wide range of criminal law topics. The journal encourages a variety of methodological and theoretical approaches and is a crucial resource for criminal law professionals in both academia and the criminal justice system. The journal publishes thematic forum sections and special issues, full-length peer-reviewed articles, book reviews, and occasional correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Algorithmic Decision-Making When Humans Disagree on Ends Editor’s Introduction The Limits of Retributivism Bringing People Down The Conventional Problem with Corporate Sentencing (and One Unconventional Solution)
×
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