Explaining Sentence Disparity

Pałys, Tomasz; Divorski, Stan

doi:10.3138/cjcrim.28.4.347

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Empirical research has already demonstrated that the purpose sentencing is supposed to serve is an important determinant of sentence length (see Palys & Divorski, 1984, 1986). Case law in this country (see Nadin-Davis, 1982; Ruby, 1980) documents the factors that courts have considered in mitigation (or aggravation of sentence, but there is no similar source for public attitudes.…”

Section: Sentencing Purpose and Relevant Mitigating/aggravating Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public views of sentencing: The role of offender characteristics.

Gebotys

Roberts²

1987

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The equitable allocation of punishment is a major purpose of any judicial system. Perceptions of equity depend in large degree on the correspondence between judicial practice and the attitudes of the community. Specifically, if sentencing judges employ mitigating factors that the public do not support, sentences will be perceived to be inequitable. For example, if judges assign more lenient sentences to employed compared to unemployed offenders, this will disturb members of the public unless they also believe that employment status should be a factor to be considered in sentencing. Two experiments were conducted which manipulated the type of crime, criminal record of the offender, and three offender characteristics (age, employment status, marital status) and observed the effect of each upon sentences recommended by subjects. In the second experiment subjects were also explicitly asked whether these factors should be considered when sentencing offenders. None of the manipulated offender characteristics affected subjects' "sentences." The relevance of these findings for surveys which show negative community reaction to sentencing is clear: the public appears to favour a sentencing model which excludes offender characteristics, even though Canadian case law (see Nadin-Davis, 1982) has upheld their influence over the sentencing process.

show abstract

Section: Sentencing Purpose and Relevant Mitigating/aggravating Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public views of sentencing: The role of offender characteristics.

Gebotys

Roberts²

1987

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have approached the issue of sentencing disparity from a number of methodological perspectives. There have been experiments (e.g., Palys & Divorski, 1986); in-depth phenomenological studies of actual sentencing (e.g., Hogarth, 1971); cross-jurisdictional comparisons (e.g., Hann et al, 1983); analyses of sentences imposed upon co-accuseds and studies of sentencing disparity as a function of extra-legal offender characteristics such as race (e.g., Hagan, 1977). A fair degree of consensus emerges across the methodologies: variation is the rule not the exception.…”

Section: Unwarranted Sentencing Disparitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover many of the studies looking at the problem have found substantial variation that is hard to explain away by reference to legally relevant factors. Thus Palys and Divorski's (1986) experimental study found that for certain cases, dispositions imposed in the same case ranged from a suspended sentence to 13 years in prison. This cannot be explained by the legally relevant factors argument since the only factor varied was the judge (see also Austin & Williams, 1977).…”

Section: Unwarranted Sentencing Disparitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Psychologists have been active contributors to knowledge in the area of sentencing for some time. Areas of research activity have included: evaluations of rehabilitative programs (Gendreau & Ross, 1980; 1987); the effects of long-term imprisonment (Zamble & Porporino, 1988); capital punishment (McFarland, 1983) and deterrence (Carroll, 1978); sentencing purpose (McFatter, 1986); predictions of dangerousness (Webster, Dickens, & Addario, 1985); sentencing disparity (Konecni & Ebbesen, 1982; Palys & Divorski, 1986; Saks & Hastie, 1978) and judicial decision-making (Andrews, Robblee, & Saunders, 1984; Andrews et al, 1987); public attitudes to sentencing and punishment (Roberts & Doob, 1989; Ryckman, Burns, & Robbins, 1986; Samuel & Moulds, 1986) sentencing alternatives (Pease, 1985); sentencing information systems (Doob & Park, 1987) and victims' attitudes towards sentencing (Bonta, Boyle, Motiuk, & Sonnichsen, 1983). In the domain of empirical research then, no other social science has contributed as much to this component of the criminal justice system.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sentencing reform: The lessons of psychology.

Roberts¹

1991

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the relationship between psychology and criminal law reform in the area of sentencing. Sentencing reform is more likely at the present than ever before. In 1987 the report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission (CSC) was released. In 1988, a Parliamentary Committee launched a review of both sentencing and parole. The Canadian Psychological Association submitted a brief to the Committee. This article discusses the briefs position in two critical areas: The purpose(s) of sentencing and the existence of unwarranted sentencing disparity. An alternative position is proposed, but one which is also consistent with the field of psychology. This alternative stresses the inevitability of disparity in the current sentencing system, and the need for some form of sentencing guidelines that would not impair a judge's ability to impose an individualized sanction.Psychologists have been active contributors to knowledge in the area of sentencing for some time. Areas of research activity have included: evaluations of rehabilitative programs (Gendreau

show abstract

“…Davies 1974) and other common law countries (cf. Hagan 1977; J. V. Roberts and Doob 1997;Palys and Divorski 1986;Chappell 1983). In recent decades research has also been conducted in civil law countries, especially in Western Europe, mostly in Germany (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex, Age, Education, Marital Status, Number of Children, and Employment – the Impact of Extralegal Factors on Sentencing Disparities

Mamak

Dudek²,

Koniewski

et al. 2022

Eur.J. Crime Crim. Law Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Countries that have judicial discretion in their legal system usually struggle with sentencing disparities. This is no different in Poland. The current study examined whether extralegal factors such as age, sex, education, marital status, number of children, and having a job impact sentencing disparities. We examined court files from 13 district courts in Poland for two offenses: drug possession and drunk driving. Our findings show that sex, age, and number of children have no or little effect on outcomes, whilst marital status and employment status have small to medium effects on sentencing. The clearest result pattern to emerge from our analyses is that defendants with tertiary education are treated more leniently than those with primary or lower secondary education.

show abstract

Explaining Sentence Disparity

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Public views of sentencing: The role of offender characteristics.

Public views of sentencing: The role of offender characteristics.

Sentencing reform: The lessons of psychology.

Sex, Age, Education, Marital Status, Number of Children, and Employment – the Impact of Extralegal Factors on Sentencing Disparities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About