The current dissertation had three primary objectives, categorized into two MTurk studies with capital juror-eligible community members: (a) cross-validate the psychometric properties of the JQVV, (b): explore the role of legal attitudes via the JQVV in mock capital sentencing decisions, and (c): examine the JQVV's ability to detect juror social desirability in capital voir dire. Impressively, Study 1 (N = 552) and Study 2 (N = 313) provided strong and consistent evidence for the JQVV's reliability and construct validity. In the mock juror paradigm, punitive legal attitudes on the JQVV (i.e., Crime-Neg, Convict, and Death-Pos), did not directly affect sentencing decisions, however they indirectly influenced the perception of nearly all other legally relevant variables (e.g., evidence type). For example, participants with more punitive criminal justice attitudes evaluated aggravating evidence more favorably which, in turn, increased death sentence verdicts. Study 1 also underscored the concerningly low levels of comprehension jurors have regarding judicial instructions and other relevant legal knowledge (e.g., the definition of aggravating). In Study 2, the support-life and support-death groups evidenced divergent patterns of social desirability, although support-death participants did not dramatically alter their scores between the genuine and social desirability condition. Additionally, the JQVV Pros-Cyn and Justice-Pos scales were moderately effective at identifying social desirability, marking the first ever questionnaire to examine juror response styles. Implications for research, professional practice in capital jury selection, and legal policy are discussed.

中共一貫自詡其法律體系乃屬於「社會主義法制」，就刑法領域而言即具 有獨特之立法體例，如此的刑法規範復加上其特殊刑事司法制度，不難預 見其刑事裁判之「特殊性」。量刑本為刑罰學上之重要課題，向為法治國 家刑事實務工作中一相當重要卻又不易解決的難題。刑罰之裁量雖為刑法 就犯罪行為科處刑罰之相關規定的具體表現，然影響量刑結果之因素尚非 限於刑事法律之規定、審判人員本身等因素，即法院制度、審判人員之產 生管道、審判原則乃至於整個司法體系亦然，特別是就中共而言，實體規 定外之因素似更具意義，往往即係左右量刑結果之癥結所在，應予重視。 於大陸法系國家，法官之量刑雖被視為「自由裁量」之範疇，然實際上卻 非漫無標準，可任法官恣意而為，是以刑法學上乃有「量刑基準」之概念 ，如我國刑法第57，58條即係關於法官量刑基準之規定。中共雖自稱其為 社會主義法制，然究其實則仍屬成文立法，因之探討中共刑事司法上之量 刑活動即具實義。然而，除分析其刑法上有關法定裁量事實之規定（刑法 第57條）外，亦須探討中共審判人員產生之管道，如何任免及其於審判活 動中之角色扮演、地位與權限，以明瞭中共所謂「獨立審判」原則之實質 意涵。此外，由中共人大常委會、最高人民法院、司法部、 公安部等機 關發佈之「通知」、「法定」、「批覆」等所謂規範性文件，通常即具有 特別法之效力，當即影響審判人員之量刑，是其刑事司法上之特點。當然 ，中共刑法第79條關於「類推適用」之規定，亦足以影響定罪量刑之結果 。以上各點，均係探討中共量刑活動時所須注意之要項。

This enquiry makes an analysis of the entitlement to the fundamental right to freedom in the moment of criminal sentencing. Through a concise scrutiny of the practicalities of fundamental rights and their likelihood to be restrained and circumscribed, it is investigated how the proportionality principle, which is considered a limit to limits, should interfere to ensure effective protection of fundamental rights, particularly the fundamental right to freedom. Therefore, the many polemical aspects of proportionality, as well as the other punitive interrelated principles are addressed. It is also endeavored a dissection of the individualized sentencing process and its foremost role in the Democratic State of Law. In order to do so, it is established a set of guidelines on how the judge must proceed, either to evaluate the precise circumstances relevant to the given existent situation or to measure their significance. Thus, some of the interconnected criteria found in doctrine are displayed. As a final point, it is stated that Judges must be led by the proportionality principle when conducting the sentencing process, with the objective of preventing arbitrary and capricious punishment, and consequently, violations to the fundamental right to freedom. / Este trabalho faz uma análise da tutela ao direito fundamental à liberdade quando da fixação da pena. Fazendo um suscinto estudo das funções dos direitos fundamentais e da possibilidade deste ser objeto de limitações e restrições, investiga-se como a proporcionalidade, que é considerada um limite dos limites, deve interferir para que seja assegurada a efetiva proteção dos direitos fundamentais, em específico do direito fundamental à liberdade. Desse modo, abordam-se os diversos aspectos polêmicos da proporcionalidade, bem como os princípios penais influentes em matéria que com ela se relacionam. Realiza-se, também, um estudo do processo de aplicação da pena e da função que esta última desempenha no Estado Democrático de Direito. Para tanto, faz-se uma abordagem de como o magistrado deve proceder, quer quando for avaliar as circunstâncias aplicáveis ao caso concreto, quer quando for mensurá-las. Nesse sentido, apresentam-se alguns critérios propostos pela doutrina. Com isso, demonstra-se que quando da aplicação da pena, o magistrado deverá se pautar pelo princípio da proporcionalidade, evitando-se, com isso, o excesso, cuja consequência é a violação ao direito fundamental à liberdade.

This thesis deals with house arrest punishment as an alternative to classical imprisonment. It starts with analysing various perspectives on the purpose of punishment, penalty function and using human ? law documents defines limits for sentencing in the criminal justice system. Furthermore this work overviews house arrest punishment by historical moments in different legal standards of the Czech Republic since dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to the present. This work describes the current legal system of house arrest punishment, methods of control, tasks of the Probation and Mediation Service in connection with house arrest punishment and compares it with classic imprisonment. At the same time it contains a brief overview into different foreign laws and ethical analysis of some aspects of house arrest punishment. In conclusion, the author assesses if house arrest punishment fulfils the purpose of the punishment in the soft form of personal freedom limitation and looks at this institution from the perspective of legal aspect ?de lege ferenda?.

Investiga se o atual modelo de aplicação da pena privativa de liberdade se mostra adequado aos parâmetros traçados pela constituição de 1988, atendendo ao fundamento da dignidade da pessoa humana e aos objetivos fundamentais de construção de uma sociedade livre, justa e solidária e de promoção do bem de todos. Analisa a dinâmica histórica da aplicação e das teorias das penas privativas de liberdade no Brasil, abordando os principais critérios e atuais orientações da aplicação penal. Sustenta que a dignidade da pessoa humana constitui fundamento do Estado Republicano e Democrático de Direito brasileiro e que, ao lado do princípio da humanidade das penas, seu correspondente penal, fundamenta a necessidade de se evitar ao máximo que os indivíduos sejam afetados pela intervenção do poder punitivo. Conclui, então, pela existência de um autêntico dever jurídico-constitucional da agência judicial no sentido de minimizar a intensidade de afetação do indivíduo sentenciado. Procura erigir novos princípios quanto à aplicação da pena, dotados de força normativa e que atuem de maneira integrada para a tutela dos direitos fundamentais. Defende que a Constituição de 1988 não incorporou o discurso legitimador da pena, limitando-se à tarefa de contenção de danos e de fixação de limites punitivos. Preconiza novos parâmetros para a fixação da pena-base, sustentando a incompatibilidade constitucional das finalidades de reprovação e prevenção do crime. Debate qual deve ser o adequado sentido constitucional das circunstâncias judiciais da pena. Discute as bases da tendência exasperadora da pena, caracterizada pelas agravantes, qualificadoras e causas de aumento, assim como da tendência mitigadora da pena, representada pelas atenuantes, causas de diminuição, participação de agentes, tentativa, concurso de crimes, crime continuado, unificação e limite de penas. Identifica a existência de crise no dogma da pena mínima, propondo, afinal, a construção de um novo modelo interpretativo de aplicação da pena privativa de liberdade. / Investigates if the current criminal sentencing model is appropriate to the parameters set by the 1988 Constitution, in order to respect the human dignity fundament and the essential goals of building a free, fair and solidary society and promoting common welfare. Examines the historical dynamic of criminal sentencing and sanction theories in Brazil, including their main criteria and current guidelines. Points that human dignity is the basis of the Republican and Democratic Brazilian State of Law and, together with the Humanity Principle, represent the need to avoid, as far as possible, the individuals affectation by the punitive powers intervention. Concludes that there is a legal and constitutional duty of judges in order to minimize the severity of penalties and the affectation of sentenced people. Tries to construct new, normatively strong and integrated sentencing principles, aiming the fundamental rights protection. Argues that the 1988 Constitution did not incorporate the legitimizing discourse of punishment, but limited itself to the tasks of damaging contention and sanctioning limitation. Aims to establish new parameters for the base-sanction and alleges the unconstitutionality of the purposes "disapproval and crime prevention". Debates what should be the proper constitutional sense of "judicials circumstances". Discusses the exasperating tendency, characterized by aggravating and qualifying circumstances and increasing causes. Discusses the mitigating tendency as well, represented by attenuating circumstances, decreasing causes, coalition of agents, attempt, accumulation of crimes, continued crime, unification and limits of sanctions. Identifies a crisis in the dogma of the minimum sanction and proposes, after all, the construction of a new interpretive model for prisons application.

Despite positive steps toward the suppression of racial discrimination in the United States capital punishment process, the enduring effects of a cultural legacy of Black oppression (e.g., slavery; segregation; lynching) and historic and systemic racial discrimination in the criminal justice system have persisted to the present day. The purpose of the current study is to explore whether this enduring cultural legacy still exists by examining whether juries in rape-involved capital murder trials in North Carolina are more likely to recommend a sentence of death when the defendant is a Black male and the victim is a White female (compared to White male victims and White female victims). Within an analytic induction framework, the current study utilizes qualitative hypothesis testing to critically test each of the rape-involved homicide cases in an effort to elucidate the legal (e.g., circumstances of the case) and extra-legal (e.g., race of the defendant and victim, respectively; multiple dimensions of the ECL) factors that influence death sentence recommendations in North Carolina during this time period. The qualitative analysis involves the comprehensive reading and documentation of case narratives and newspaper articles in which I re-sort (i.e., reclassify) the hypothesis-supporting, hypothesis-non-supporting, and hypothesis-rejecting cases while considering the salient circumstances of the trial (e.g., aggravating circumstances; perceived brutality of the crimes committed) and the influence of multiple dimensions of the ECL (e.g., the liberation hypothesis; credibility of the White female victim). Findings from the qualitative analysis failed to show support for the ECL hypothesis (24.1% of trials showed support for the hypothesis, 19% of trials rejected the hypothesis, 57% of trials did not show support for or reject the hypothesis). While the findings did not show support for the ECL hypothesis in any context, the rich information uncovered in the extensive review of LexisNexis case narratives and newspaper articles that had a direct bearing on the qualitative findings and interpretations that could not be identified in a quantitative approach to the data (e.g., a juror’s expression of racial attitudes that was the single greatest piece of evidence showing support for the ECL; detailed descriptions of especially brutal trial circumstances that may have influenced jury sentencing decisions; the perceived credibility or chastity of the victim; the inclusion of relevant trials and exclusion of trials not appropriate for analysis) demonstrates the value of a qualitative approach to the study of racial discrimination in jury sentencing decisions.

No description available.

No description available.

Skärpta straff är ett återkommande ämne inom svensk media och bland allmänheten. Syftet med det aktuella arbetet är att kvalitativt undersöka hur aktörer inom rättsväsendet upplever effekter och konsekvenser av straffskärpningar samt hur straffskärpningar riktade mot organiserad brottslighet kan tänkas påverka deras arbete. Genom semistrukturerade intervjuer intervjuades nio representanter från fyra myndigheter inom rättsväsendet och analyserades därefter genom en tematisk analys. De fyra myndigheterna bestod av Polismyndigheten, Kriminalvården, Åklagarmyndigheten samt Sveriges domstolar. Resultatet påvisar att intervjupersonerna resonerade kring både potentiella för- och nackdelar med straffskärpningar. Med återkommande referering till det aktuella läget för aktörerna och deras redan höga arbetsbelastning, konstaterades ett återkommande tema. Nämligen att skärpta straff möjligen kan resultera i en liten vinst för det brottsförebyggande arbetet och arbetet mot organiserad brottslighet i form av att eliminera kriminellas möjligheter att begå brott i det öppna samhället, genom inkapacitering. Dock poängterade intervjupersonerna att myndigheternas arbetsbelastning troligen skulle komma att öka drastiskt som en direkt konsekvens. Med tanke på det aktuella samhällsklimatet och det politiska drivet att skärpa straff, är det av stor vikt att de påverkade myndigheter som får i uppdrag att efterleva policyer och anpassa arbetet utifrån dessa, beaktas. Det är viktigt att Sveriges brottsförebyggande åtgärder anammar ett långsiktigt perspektiv, vilket är eftersträvansvärt. För att uppnå detta mål krävs det dock att relevanta myndigheter inkluderas i diskussionen och de policyskapande processerna som styr Sveriges brottsförebyggande arbete. Framtida forskning bör sträva efter en fördjupad förståelse av kunskapen och erfarenheten som aktörer inom rättsväsendet besitter, samt hur denna kompetens kan nyttjas vid framtagandet av brottsförebyggande åtgärder och strategier. / Harsher sentencing is a common topic of discussion in Swedish media and repeatedly permeates the zeitgeist of the populus. The aim of the present study is to qualitatively investigate how judiciary agencies perceive effects and consequences of harsher sentencing, and furthermore how harsher sentencing regarding organized crime could impact their work. Through semi-structured interviews nine representatives from four different judiciary agencies were interviewed and analyzed through thematic analysis. These judiciary agencies being the police, the correctional services, the public prosecutor’s office and the courts of Sweden. The results indicate that representatives from the judiciary agencies could see both advantages and disadvantages regarding harsher sentencing. However given the current state of Swedish judiciary agencies and the already high workload that these agencies operate under, a recurring theme was that harsher sentencing would result in a possible minimal gain in regards to preventing crime and organized crime through the means of incapacitating the offender and hindering possibilities of further criminality. However the workload would likely dramatically increase as a result of increased incapacitation. Given the current political drive to commit to harsher sentencing, it would be beneficial to start listening to the affected agencies who are charged with enacting said policies and working through their consequences. It is important that Sweden's crime preventative measures start embracing long-term thinking, which is a worthwhile goal. However a prerequisite for this goal is to include relevant agencies in the discussion and policymaking that guides Swedish crime preventive measures. Implications for further research is to strive towards gaining a deeper understanding of the knowledge and experiences that are found within judiciary agencies and how these insights should be considered for future crime preventative measures.

This study analyses judicial approaches to sentencing offenders under the age of 18 convicted of serious crimes and their adult counterparts. It traces sentencing patterns, trends and shifts from 1950 to 2009 with reference to key moments. The study seeks to identify factors that determine the choice of sentence. Indeed, competing penal theories appear to be behind judicial decisions. In this regard it is claimed that although it is difficult to identify the extent of factors considered in sentencing decisions, seriousness of crime seems to carry more weight than the prior record and age factor in the selection of a sentence. The study applied both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, using primary or historical and secondary sources of data collection. This involved studying real court cases, the observation of trials and interviews with Wynberg regional court magistrates, Mitchells Plain regional court magistrates and Cape High Court Judges as part of primary-historical data collected. Penal statistics and data gathered included law reports, penological literature was analysed and computerised, and philosophical interpretation of findings was used. The study concludes that sentencing approaches are still marked by inconsistency and vagueness, which require to be improved by ongoing assessment within the courts in pursuit of balanced sentencing that meets various goals. It is pointed out that there are variations between the courts, and among different regional magistrates and judges, which require to be justified in the light of the divergences in crime seriousness and offenders alike. The study claims that sentencing is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, involving history, law and sociology. It further recommends that persons under the age of 18 convicted of serious crime should be accorded less culpability compared to adults with regard to sentence severity. / Criminology / D. Litt. et Phil. (Penology)