No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Natal, Durban,1987.

Thesis (M.A. in sociology)--Washington State University, December 2008. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on Apr. 10, 2009). "Department of Sociology." Includes bibliographical references (p. 90-101).

Thesis (M.J.S.)--University of Nevada, Reno, 2008. / "May, 2008." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 38-41). Library also has microfilm. Ann Arbor, Mich. : ProQuest Information and Learning Company, [2009]. 1 microfilm reel ; 35 mm. Online version available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Nevada, Reno, 2008. / "May, 2008." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 181-186). Online version available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Faculty of Life and Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, 2009. / Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Professional Doctorate of Psychology (Counselling), [Faculty of Life and Social Sciences], Swinburne University of Technology - 2009. Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (p. 258-283).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Florida State University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 163-176). Also available online.

M.A. (Philosophy) / Usually when we think of law, we think of rationality and outcomes that are not swayed by emotion. Modern Western society tends to think of emotion and rationality as incompatible. It is a widely-held belief that it is more morally desirable for people to make ‘rational’ decisions rather than ‘emotional’ decisions in life in general. Perhaps in no other area is this distinction between the two more pronounced as in criminal law, where judges who society considers to be making ‘rational’ judicial decisions are revered, and those who society at large considers to be making ‘emotional’ judicial decisions are distrusted. As Terry Maroney (2006: 120) says, “[a] core presumption underlying modern legality is that reason and emotion are different beasts entirely…the sphere of law admits only of reason; and vigilant policing is required to keep emotion from creeping in where it does not belong”. In this dissertation, I propose to look at the virtue of mercy, where mercy is understood to have a significant emotional component, and to answer the question: Should a judge in a criminal trial employ mercy? If so, under what conditions? The importance of the question of whether a judge should employ mercy in a criminal case is that it addresses one part of the larger enquiry into how the state should respond to offenders. As moral beings, our emotional responses to criminals and their crimes are varied. Sometimes we feel anger, at other times disgust, and at other times mercy, grief and sadness.

This thesis examines in detail the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which allow for the incapacitation of the 'dangerous' offender. Incapacitation has been used as an example of a growing trend in criminal justice towards viewing crime in terms of risk. This risk discourse points to the use of actuarial practices and insurance techniques in this field, with a resultant 'abstraction' of the traditional view of crime as a moral wrong. The technologies of risk assessment are central to the very power of the discourse, it has been argued that these techniques further increase the effectiveness of control and that they are a response to a growing preoccupation in society with security. It is argued that risk is, in a sense, pre-political in that as risk takes hold, overtly political responses to crime become more difficult. Given that incapacitation has been used as an example of crime as risk, this thesis takes the form of a micro-study of the above incapacitatory legislation. It assesses the degree to which this legislation can be seen to be a part of the risk discourse. It is argued that on a general level the legislation does fit within the risk model, seeking to incapacitate 'bad risks'. However, it is argued that as the legislation has been conceived, formulated and employed, it does not make use of the actuarial techniques of risk assessment - seen as so central to 'internal dynamic' of the risk discourse - to a significant extent. Rather, it is argued that the legislation embodies a politically motivated appeal to the idea of risk rather than to risk assessment itself. It is concluded that this use of risk - once shed of its attendant technologies - far from making political responses more difficult, sits well with punitive responses demanded by a government of the right. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

In this study I tackle the problem of justifying criminal punishment. Although I take heed of a traditional line of theorizing which says that punishment is an expressive and communicative endeavour, my theory breaks away from traditional approaches. This break is motivated by a recognition that theorists working in the traditional framework have failed to resolve the tension between retributivist and consequentialist reasons for punishment. I argue that punishment is justified as a type of communication from those affected by the crime to distinct and varied audiences. My naturalistic theory is structured around two fundamental themes, naturalism and pluralism about aims. The naturalism consists in the fact that the theory takes an empirically informed descriptive approach to the problem of justifying punishment. This foundation provides the resources for developing a balanced view of the moral agent which takes into account not only cognitive but also emotional capacities. This broader, deeper view of agency permits, indeed calls for, an analysis of the moral psychologies of those involved in the social practice. That analysis leads to the explanation that punishment is a type of communication of, among other things, strong but justified moral sentiments. Further development of this view suggests that punishment's various messages are intended for a variety of audiences - not just the wrongdoer but also the victim and community. That explication supports my other fundamental theme, pluralism about aims. The social institution of punishment is a complex one involving stakeholders who have differing motives and needs. Consequently, we should reject strategies which claim that punishment's justification can be reduced to one reason such as, for example, that the criminal deserves it. I argue that punishment's justification is multifaceted and complex. The arguments I put forward to justify punishment also bring to light aspects of the existing social institution that need reform. In general, they point to the need to design penal measures that promote communication among wrongdoer, victim and community. But I also call for a specific reform. I argue that the victim, whose concerns have traditionally been disregarded, should also be given a voice within the social institution. / Arts, Faculty of / Philosophy, Department of / Graduate

The process of judicial decision-making is not well understood. This paper has tried to shed some light on that process by examining the impact of presentence report recommendations upon the sentences handed down by the judges of a circuit court. Very little empirical work has been done on this problem, even though the presentence report recommendation is generally regarded by those in the judicial system as extremely important to the sentencing process.