量刑中的种族和民族差异:我们知道什么,我们应该去哪里?

Q2 Social Sciences Howard Journal of Crime and Justice Pub Date : 2022-11-25 DOI:10.1111/hojo.12496
Ana Veiga, Jose Pina-Sánchez, Sam Lewis
{"title":"量刑中的种族和民族差异:我们知道什么,我们应该去哪里?","authors":"Ana Veiga,&nbsp;Jose Pina-Sánchez,&nbsp;Sam Lewis","doi":"10.1111/hojo.12496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Strong evidence of racial and ethnic disparities has been documented in recent government-led reports, suggesting the presence of discrimination in sentencing, with Black and ethnic minority defendants being systematically sentenced more harshly than their white counterparts. However, we still do not know how these disparities come about as most of the sentencing research has relied on quantitative designs focused on documenting the problem, rather than exploring its causes. In this exploratory study we use qualitative interviews with criminal law barristers to explore the different mechanisms that may give rise to these disparities. From our interviews we identified two predominant causal mechanisms: the differential consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors and indirect discrimination arising from defendants’ socio-economic backgrounds and over-policing. Based on these findings, we suggest effective strategies such as explicitly listing social deprivation as a mitigating factor in the sentencing guidelines and increasing judicial diversity for redressing these disparities.</p>","PeriodicalId":37514,"journal":{"name":"Howard Journal of Crime and Justice","volume":"62 2","pages":"167-182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hojo.12496","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing: What do we know, and where should we go?\",\"authors\":\"Ana Veiga,&nbsp;Jose Pina-Sánchez,&nbsp;Sam Lewis\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hojo.12496\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Strong evidence of racial and ethnic disparities has been documented in recent government-led reports, suggesting the presence of discrimination in sentencing, with Black and ethnic minority defendants being systematically sentenced more harshly than their white counterparts. However, we still do not know how these disparities come about as most of the sentencing research has relied on quantitative designs focused on documenting the problem, rather than exploring its causes. In this exploratory study we use qualitative interviews with criminal law barristers to explore the different mechanisms that may give rise to these disparities. From our interviews we identified two predominant causal mechanisms: the differential consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors and indirect discrimination arising from defendants’ socio-economic backgrounds and over-policing. Based on these findings, we suggest effective strategies such as explicitly listing social deprivation as a mitigating factor in the sentencing guidelines and increasing judicial diversity for redressing these disparities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Howard Journal of Crime and Justice\",\"volume\":\"62 2\",\"pages\":\"167-182\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hojo.12496\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Howard Journal of Crime and Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hojo.12496\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Howard Journal of Crime and Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hojo.12496","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: 2

摘要

在最近由政府主导的报告中,有力地证明了种族和族裔差异,表明在量刑方面存在歧视,黑人和少数族裔被告被系统性地比白人被告受到更严厉的判决。然而,我们仍然不知道这些差异是如何产生的,因为大多数量刑研究都依赖于定量设计,专注于记录问题,而不是探索其原因。在这项探索性研究中,我们使用定性访谈刑法大律师来探索可能导致这些差异的不同机制。从我们的访谈中,我们确定了两个主要的因果机制:对减轻和加重因素的不同考虑,以及由被告的社会经济背景和过度监管引起的间接歧视。基于这些发现,我们提出了有效的策略,如明确将社会剥夺列为量刑指南中的减轻因素,并增加司法多样性,以纠正这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing: What do we know, and where should we go?

Strong evidence of racial and ethnic disparities has been documented in recent government-led reports, suggesting the presence of discrimination in sentencing, with Black and ethnic minority defendants being systematically sentenced more harshly than their white counterparts. However, we still do not know how these disparities come about as most of the sentencing research has relied on quantitative designs focused on documenting the problem, rather than exploring its causes. In this exploratory study we use qualitative interviews with criminal law barristers to explore the different mechanisms that may give rise to these disparities. From our interviews we identified two predominant causal mechanisms: the differential consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors and indirect discrimination arising from defendants’ socio-economic backgrounds and over-policing. Based on these findings, we suggest effective strategies such as explicitly listing social deprivation as a mitigating factor in the sentencing guidelines and increasing judicial diversity for redressing these disparities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice is an international peer-reviewed journal committed to publishing high quality theory, research and debate on all aspects of the relationship between crime and justice across the globe. It is a leading forum for conversation between academic theory and research and the cultures, policies and practices of the range of institutions concerned with harm, security and justice.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Colonialism and its aftermaths in prisons in Guyana: An introduction The Palgrave handbook of global rehabilitation in criminal justice By M. Vanstone, P. Priestley (Ed.), Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 2022. pp. 722. £199.99 (hbk). £199.99 (pbk). ISBN: 9783031143748 Sex as work: Decriminalisation and the management of brothels in New Zealand By C. Weinhold, Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 2022. pp. 275. £99.99 (hbk). £99.99 (pbk). ISBN: 9783031192593 Doing transdisciplinary research in Guyana's prisons
×
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