Drunk and Doubly Deviant? the Role of Gender and Intoxication in Sentencing Assault Offences

Lightowlers, Carly

doi:10.1093/bjc/azy041

Cited by 13 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This approach is paternalistic, but not lenient. Lightowlers (2018) analysed sentencing data from the Crown Courts in England and Wales and discovered that although women are sentenced more leniently than men, intoxication at the time of their crime increased the harshness of their punishment more than it did for men. Perceived gender inappropriate behaviour-being seen as troublesome rather than troubled-reduced leniency.…”

Section: Intersectionality and Sentencingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policing and the Courts

Seal

2021

Gender, Crime and Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policing and the CourtsThe maintenance of order and the exercise of authority and control are deeply gendered. Order, control and authority are socially and culturally coded as masculine. The social institutions that are responsible for upholding order and keeping control, such as the police and the courts, represent masculine authority and derive their legitimacy from this authority (Heidensohn, 1992). Such institutions uphold different kinds of control depending on the place and time in which they are located. Authoritarian forms of governance rely on 'hard' masculine authority, whereas liberal democratic governance is underpinned by norms of masculine rationality and paternalism-with recent shifts towards women and men working in partnership (Klatzer & Schlager, 2020;Marx Ferree, 2020). The coding of institutions of order, control and authority as masculine does not mean that only men work within them (although historically women were excluded from the police and legal professions). However, it does mean that cis heterosexual white men more closely fit the notion of ideal police officers, lawyers and judges. As gendered institutions, policing and the courts have masculine working cultures that shape how women and LGBTQ people fare within them. The masculinity of policing and the courts also affects how individuals

show abstract

Section: Intersectionality and Sentencingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policing and the Courts

Seal

2021

Gender, Crime and Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, our case vignettes used male offenders onlyprimarily because for most criminal offence types, males account for the majority of transgressions. However, in light of emerging evidence that acute intoxication is more likely to aggravate at sentencing in cases involving female offenders (Lightowlers, 2019), it would be relevant to examine whether similar patterns emerge in the case of female offenders.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addiction is a brain disease, and it doesn’t matter: Prior choice in drug use blocks leniency in criminal punishment.

Sinclair-House¹,

Child²,

Crombag³

2020

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our aim was to explore how (neuro)scientific understanding of addiction as a brain-disease impacts criminal sentencing decisions in courts in England and Wales, where legal rules concerning intoxication, prior-fault and mental disease conflict, and sentencing guidelines lack clarity. We hypothesized that despite significant neuropsychiatric overlap of addiction and other brain-disorders, variables in relation to etiology would moderate magistrates' sentencing decisions in cases involving addicted offenders. Using a questionnaire-based, quantitative design, and combining frequentist and Bayesian analysis approaches, we probed court magistrates' sentencing decisions, and underlying rationale, for defendants presenting with brain damage resulting from a (fictional) disease, addiction to heroin, or more complex, mixed etiologies. When identical neuropsychiatric profiles resulted from disease, but not heroin addiction, prison sentences were significantly reduced. Study 1 (N ϭ 109) found the pivotal factor preventing addiction from mitigating sentences was perceived choice in its acquisition; removing choice from addiction increased the odds of sentence reduction (ϳ20-fold) and attaching choice to disease aggravated or reversed earlier leniency. Study 2 (N ϭ 276) replicated these results and found that when heroin use led to disease or vice versa, magistrates found middle ground. These differences were independent of the age of first drug use. Finally, evidence of addiction was more likely to evoke punishment considerations by magistrates, rather than rehabilitation. Consistent with legal rules relating to intoxication but running counter to norms around mental-illness and choice, our results demonstrate the need for greater clarity in sentencing guidance on addiction specifically, and mental disorders more generally.

show abstract

“…However, until recently, the almost complete absence of empirical assessments of these new guidelines cast doubts over what, if any, changes in sentencing practice had resulted from their introduction (Ashworth, 2013; Ashworth and Roberts, 2013; Padfield, 2013). The release of the Crown Court Sentencing Survey – a government dataset describing cases processed in the Crown Court – has reversed this trend, transforming the landscape from one dominated by theoretical commentaries to one that is more evidence based (see, for example, Belton, 2018; Fleetwood et al, 2015; Irwin-Rogers and Perry, 2015; Lightowlers, 2018; Lightowlers and Pina-Sánchez, 2017; Maslen, 2015; Maslen and Roberts, 2013; Pina-Sánchez, 2015; Pina-Sánchez and Grech, 2018; Pina-Sánchez and Linacre, 2013, 2014; Pina-Sánchez et al, 2016; Roberts, 2013a; Roberts and Bradford, 2015; Roberts and Pina-Sánchez, 2014; Roberts et al, 2018).…”

Section: Consistency Of Approach Through a Sequence Of Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mind the step: A more insightful and robust analysis of the sentencing process in England and Wales under the new sentencing guidelines

Pina-Sánchez

Brunton‐Smith

2018

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ‘England and Wales Sentencing Guidelines’ aim to promote consistency by organizing the sentencing process as a sequence of steps, with initial judicial assessments subsequently adjusted to reflect relevant case characteristics. Yet, existing evaluations of the guidelines have failed to incorporate this structure adequately, instead concentrating solely on sentence outcomes. We use multivariate multilevel models to offer new insights into the decisions made throughout the sentencing process. Focusing on cases of assault sentenced at the Crown Court we show that the level of compliance with the guidelines is high. However, we also show that some case characteristics are being unduly considered at more than one stage of the sentencing process, meaning existing studies may be underestimating their true influence.

show abstract

Drunk and Doubly Deviant? the Role of Gender and Intoxication in Sentencing Assault Offences

Cited by 13 publications

References 37 publications

Policing and the Courts

Policing and the Courts

Addiction is a brain disease, and it doesn’t matter: Prior choice in drug use blocks leniency in criminal punishment.

Mind the step: A more insightful and robust analysis of the sentencing process in England and Wales under the new sentencing guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About