明尼苏达州、英格兰和威尔士量刑指南的演变

IF 3.6 2区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Crime and Justice-A Review of Research Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1086/701797
Julian V. Roberts
{"title":"明尼苏达州、英格兰和威尔士量刑指南的演变","authors":"Julian V. Roberts","doi":"10.1086/701797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sentencing guidelines were an exclusively American enterprise until recently. Since 2004, however, other countries have joined in. Contrasting approaches are exemplified by systems developed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the Sentencing Council of England and Wales. Minnesota’s guidelines are set out in grids that categorize cases by offense and criminal history. Each cell sets out ranges of sentences that are presumed to be appropriate. The English guidelines are step-by-step decision trees, one for each principal offense category. Each jurisdiction created an approach that fits its sentencing environment. The Minnesota grids are more restrictive and generate high levels of judicial conformity and consistency. The English guidelines allow greater discretion, possibly at the cost of consistency. However, the English approach provides ampler guidance on use of different dispositions, sentencing of multiple crimes, appropriate reductions to reflect guilty pleas, and other subjects. Neither the Minnesota Commission nor the English Council has been particularly self-critical. Minnesota’s main grid has changed little since 1980. England’s guidelines have evolved considerably, but the council has ignored calls to play a more active role in controlling the use of custody and hence the size of the prison population.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"48 1","pages":"187 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/701797","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Evolution of Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales\",\"authors\":\"Julian V. Roberts\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/701797\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sentencing guidelines were an exclusively American enterprise until recently. Since 2004, however, other countries have joined in. Contrasting approaches are exemplified by systems developed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the Sentencing Council of England and Wales. Minnesota’s guidelines are set out in grids that categorize cases by offense and criminal history. Each cell sets out ranges of sentences that are presumed to be appropriate. The English guidelines are step-by-step decision trees, one for each principal offense category. Each jurisdiction created an approach that fits its sentencing environment. The Minnesota grids are more restrictive and generate high levels of judicial conformity and consistency. The English guidelines allow greater discretion, possibly at the cost of consistency. However, the English approach provides ampler guidance on use of different dispositions, sentencing of multiple crimes, appropriate reductions to reflect guilty pleas, and other subjects. Neither the Minnesota Commission nor the English Council has been particularly self-critical. Minnesota’s main grid has changed little since 1980. England’s guidelines have evolved considerably, but the council has ignored calls to play a more active role in controlling the use of custody and hence the size of the prison population.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51456,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"187 - 253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/701797\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/701797\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/701797","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

直到最近,量刑指南一直是美国独有的事业。然而,自2004年以来,其他国家也加入了进来。明尼苏达州量刑指南委员会和英格兰和威尔士量刑委员会开发的系统就是对比方法的例证。明尼苏达州的指导方针是按照犯罪和犯罪史对案件进行分类的网格。每个单元格都列出了被认为合适的句子范围。英语的指导方针是循序渐进的决策树,每个主犯类别都有一个。每个司法管辖区都制定了适合其量刑环境的方法。明尼苏达州的网格限制性更强,产生了高度的司法一致性和一致性。英国的指导方针允许更大的自由裁量权,可能会以一致性为代价。然而,英国的方法在不同处置方式的使用、多项罪行的量刑、反映认罪的适当减刑以及其他主题方面提供了更为典型的指导。明尼苏达委员会和英国议会都没有特别自我批评。明尼苏达州的主电网自1980年以来几乎没有变化。英格兰的指导方针已经发生了很大的变化,但该委员会忽视了在控制羁押使用以及监狱人口规模方面发挥更积极作用的呼吁。
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
The Evolution of Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales
Sentencing guidelines were an exclusively American enterprise until recently. Since 2004, however, other countries have joined in. Contrasting approaches are exemplified by systems developed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the Sentencing Council of England and Wales. Minnesota’s guidelines are set out in grids that categorize cases by offense and criminal history. Each cell sets out ranges of sentences that are presumed to be appropriate. The English guidelines are step-by-step decision trees, one for each principal offense category. Each jurisdiction created an approach that fits its sentencing environment. The Minnesota grids are more restrictive and generate high levels of judicial conformity and consistency. The English guidelines allow greater discretion, possibly at the cost of consistency. However, the English approach provides ampler guidance on use of different dispositions, sentencing of multiple crimes, appropriate reductions to reflect guilty pleas, and other subjects. Neither the Minnesota Commission nor the English Council has been particularly self-critical. Minnesota’s main grid has changed little since 1980. England’s guidelines have evolved considerably, but the council has ignored calls to play a more active role in controlling the use of custody and hence the size of the prison population.
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
Crime and Justice-A Review of Research
Crime and Justice-A Review of Research CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Crime and Justice: A Review of Research is a refereed series of volumes of commissioned essays on crime-related research subjects published by the University of Chicago Press. Since 1979 the Crime and Justice series has presented a review of the latest international research, providing expertise to enhance the work of sociologists, psychologists, criminal lawyers, justice scholars, and political scientists. The series explores a full range of issues concerning crime, its causes, and its cure.
期刊最新文献
The Criminalization of Dissent and Protest Why Americans Are a People of Exceptional Violence Victimization and Its Consequences over the Life Course (Re)Considering Personality in Criminological Research Against All Odds: The Unexplained Sexual Recidivism Drop in the United States and Canada
×
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