O objetivo desta pesquisa é explicar os mecanismos sociais das decisões judiciais. Em particular, a investigação centra-se no processo de tomadas de decisões de operadores do Direito no sistema de justiça juvenil em São Paulo. Busca-se, assim, verificar quais são os fatores determinantes da aplicação da medida socioeducativa de internação para adolescentes acusados de cometimento de ato infracional e o modo pelo qual se dá esse processo decisório. Desde a promulgação do Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente, em 1990, o sistema de justiça juvenil brasileiro passou a operar em um novo registro: as medidas socioeducativas passaram a se restringir a autores de infrações penais; e a medida de internação, em particular, a crimes cometidos com violência e/ou grave ameaça à pessoa. Mas a gravidade do ato infracional é de fato o principal preditor das decisões judiciais na justiça juvenil? Ou haveria outros fatores explicativos, como aqueles relacionados às características sociais dos adolescentes, às relações de poder inscritas nas interações sociais ou mesmo à estrutura organizacional dos tribunais? Na busca pela explicação dos mecanismos sociais dessas decisões judiciais, esta pesquisa propôs um desenho multimetodológico, integrando técnicas quantitativas e qualitativas para investigar os mecanismos das decisões e verificar os determinantes da aplicação da medida socioeducativa de internação em São Paulo. Assim, em um primeiro momento, as hipóteses citadas foram testadas por meio de modelos logísticos binomiais tendo a decisão sobre a internação como variável dependente em um cenário multivariado. Os resultados encontrados indicam um alto grau de proporcionalidade entre crime e pena, tendo os atos infracionais considerados mais graves os mais significativos efeitos sobre a probabilidade de internação; mas indicam, também, a reprodução de relações de poder - adolescentes usuários de drogas e que não trabalham nem estudam, mantidas as outras dimensões constantes, também têm maior chance de receber a medida socioeducativa de internação. Em seguida, a fim de explicar os mecanismos dos efeitos do tratamento estimados anteriormente, foram acompanhadas semanalmente as audiências de apresentação e de continuação e as oitivas informais no Fórum Brás, em São Paulo. Ao mesmo tempo em que se concluiu que as oitivas informais, centrais no processo decisório, ocorrem cerimonialmente e que as decisões são tomadas via documentos, o que explica o mecanismo de proporcionalidade encontrado anteriormente, pôde-se concluir que eventualmente os Promotores de Justiça \"voltam atrás\" de suas decisões quando há um rompimento na definição da situação, o que explica o mecanismo dos efeitos das características individuais dos adolescentes. / This research aims at investigating the social mechanisms of judicial decisions. It particularly focuses on the decision-making process of legal actors in the juvenile justice system in São Paulo. Thus, the research aims at verifying the determinants of the confinement disposition for juveniles who have been accused of a crime and the way which this decision is made by. Since the Child and Adolescent Statute was promulgated in 1990, the Brazilian juvenile justice system started working under new guidelines: dispositions are now restricted to offenders; and the confinement disposition is restricted to offenses committed with violence and/or with a threat to a person. But is the seriousness of the crime indeed the best predictor of judicial decisions? Or are there other explanatory factors, such as the ones related to the individual characteristics of the teenagers, to the power relations within social interactions, or even to the court organizational structure? Aiming at a mechanism-based explanation of these judicial decisions, this research has proposed a mixed-methods research design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative techniques to investigate mechanisms of the decision-making process and to verify the determinants of the confinement disposition in São Paulo. Thus, at first, the aforementioned hypotheses were tested with binary logistic models, presenting the decision concerning the confinement disposition as the dependent variable on a multivariable scenario. Results indicate a high degree of proportionality between crime and punishment, with the seriousness of the offenses having significant effects on the probability of confinement; but the results also indicate some reproduction of power relations - drug user youth and those who neither work nor study increase their odds of being more severely punished. After that, aiming at explaining the mechanisms of the treatment effects estimated beforehand, both judicial and informal hearings (at the State\'s Attorney office) were weekly observed at the juvenile court in São Paulo. While it was possible to conclude that the informal hearings are central to the decision-making process and occur ceremonially, with decisions being made by documents-consulting (which explains the proportionality mechanism), the research also found that the Attorneys often regret their decisions when there is a rupture of the definition of the situation. This explains the mechanism of the individual characteristics effects on juvenile sentencing.

L’objectif général de la thèse vise à étudier l’impact des conclusions d’expertises psychologiques et psychiatriques en contexte de détermination d’une peine d’emprisonnement. Plus précisément, il s’agit d’examiner le rôle des finalités pénales (ou motivations à punir) dans la prise en compte d’une information expertale relative à l’altération mentale ou au risque de récidive dans l’attribution d’une peine. L’expertise peut être définie comme « l’ensemble des formes que prend l’introduction d’une rationalité technico-scientifique dans l’institution, le processus et la décision judiciaires » (Dumoulin, 2005, p.202). Les travaux issus de la littérature montrent généralement que l’expertise joue un rôle dans la prise de décision de jurés d’assises. Néanmoins, très peu de travaux (Krauss, Lieberman, & Olson, 2004 ; Krauss, McCabe, & Lieberman, 2012) mettent en évidence les variables interindividuelles pouvant expliquer ce processus décisionnel. Cette thèse propose précisément de s’intéresser aux finalités pénales comme potentielles variables explicatives de l’impact de l’expertise sur la détermination de la peine en France. Le programme de recherche s’articule autour de deux axes. Les deux premières études (axe 1) traitent du rôle des finalités pénales dans la prise en compte d’une information expertale relative à l’altération mentale (étude 1) ou au risque de récidive (étude 2) lors de la détermination de la peine. La troisième étude (axe 2) examine l’impact des antécédents judiciaires et d’une information expertale relative au risque de récidive sur la peine. De manière générale, les résultats de la thèse mettent en évidence la nécessité de prendre en compte la variabilité interindividuelle dans l’étude de l’impact de l’expertise sur les jugements judiciaires. Plus spécifiquement, les résultats suggèrent que l’usage d’une information expertale lors de l’attribution d’une peine à l’auteur d’un crime dépend des finalités que les individus associent à la peine. / The general purpose of the thesis is to study the impact of psychological and psychiatric testimonies in the context of sentencing. More specifically, this consists of examining the role of the motives for punishment in the consideration of expert information relating to altered mental state or the risk of recidivism in the sentencing process. Expertise can be defined as "all the forms that the introduction of a technical-scientific rationality takes in the institution, process and judicial decision" (Dumoulin, 2005, p.202). The literature generally shows that expertise plays a role in the decision-making of jurors. Nevertheless, only few studies (Krauss, Lieberman, & Olson, 2004; Krauss, McCabe, & Lieberman, 2012) highlights the interindividual variables that can explain this decision-making process. This thesis specifically proposes to focus on the motives for punishment as potential explanatory variables for the impact of expertise on sentencing in France. The research programme is divided in two axes. The first two studies (axe 1) deal with the role of the motives for punishment in taking into account expert information relating to altered mental state (study 1) or risk of recidivism (study 2) when sentencing. The third study (axe 2) examines the impact of criminal records and expert information on the risk of recidivism on sentencing. In general, the results of the thesis highlight the need to take into account interindividual variability in the study of the impact of expertise on judicial judgments. More specifically, the results suggest that the use of expert information when assigning a sentence to the perpetrator of a crime depends on the purposes that individuals associate with the sentence.

La Loi sur le système de justice pénale pour les adolescents est récente en matière de justice des mineurs. Sa mise en vigueur en avril 2003 a précisé et changé les critères de la détermination de la peine. Le présent mémoire vise à mieux cerner ce sur quoi les juges se fondent pour prendre leurs décisions. À cette fin, une analyse de la jurisprudence disponible ainsi que des entrevues avec des juges oeuvrant à la chambre de la jeunesse de Montréal ont été effectuées. L’application des dispositions relatives aux objectifs et aux principes propres à la détermination de la peine a suscité des commentaires de la part des juges et des difficultés ont été soulevées. Des balises ont également été établies par les juges dans le cadre de leur pratique. Ils les suivent pour déterminer les peines. Il en ressort que le système de justice pour mineurs se rapproche du système de justice pour adultes, dont les interventions sont davantage centrées sur l’infraction que sur l’infracteur. Les juges semblent néanmoins accorder une attention particulière pour que ces deux systèmes de justice demeurent différents, et ce malgré le rapprochement constaté. De plus, il ressort qu’un équilibre est recherché entre deux principes directeurs : la proportionnalité de la peine à la gravité de l’infraction et au degré de responsabilité de l’adolescent, ainsi que la réadaptation et la réinsertion sociale de ce dernier. / The Youth Criminal Justice Act is recent in the field of youth justice. This law came into effect in April 2003 and changed the criteria in the youth justice system sentencing. This thesis aims at identifying the elements on which judges base their decisions. In order to do so, an analysis of the available case law and interviews with judges sitting in the Montreal Youth Chamber of the Quebec Court have been done The enforcement of dispositions related to sentencing goals and principles generated comments from the judges, who reported some difficulties. Guidelines have been established by the judges in the course of their practice. These are also followed by these same judges. The youth justice system tends to get closer to the adult justice system, which ascribes a greater weight to the offence and lesser one to the offender. Yet, judges try to make those two justice systems different. Judges are also looking for a balance between two major sentencing principles: the sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the youth for that offence, and the sentence must promote the rehabilitation and reintegration of the young offender into society.

La thèse délaisse l’étude des biais, des erreurs et des influences externes qui modulent les décisions de justice et formule l’hypothèse que les individus, confrontés à un dilemme normatif (quelle serait la juste peine?), manifestent un souci de justice qu’il est pertinent d’analyser en lui-même. Les résultats de cette thèse indiquent qu’une proportion appréciable des choix et des jugements des citoyens et des acteurs judiciaires interrogés témoignent, en raison de leur cohérence interne et de leur modération, d’un souci manifeste de justice. Les données de la thèse s’appuient sur un sondage sentenciel dans lequel on demandait à des répondants du public (n=297), mais aussi à un échantillon d’acteurs judiciaires (n=235), de prendre des décisions de détermination pénale dans trois histoires de cas bien détaillées. La thèse s’intéresse à la détermination de la juste peine, laquelle incorpore trois prises de décision distinctes. Le premier chapitre de la thèse s’attarde à la qualité des échelles individuelles de sévérité des peines qui peuvent être infligées pour sanctionner un délinquant reconnu coupable d’actes criminels. Les résultats indiquent que les citoyens, tous comme les acteurs judiciaires, n’utilisent pas la même métrique pour statuer sur la sévérité des peines, mais que certains d’entre eux, font usage d’une métrique pénale plus cohérente et plus raisonnable que d’autres. Un test décisif pour jauger de la valeur d’une métrique est son aptitude à établir des équivalences pénales entre les peines de prison, de probation, de travaux communautaires et d’amendes. Le deuxième chapitre s’attarde à la qualité des choix sentenciels des citoyens et des acteurs judiciaires. Deux critères sont utilisés pour distinguer les sentences les plus justes : 1) le critère de proportionnalité ou de cohérence interne (les sentences données sont-elles toujours proportionnelles à la gravité de l’infraction commise ?); 2) le critère de modération ou de cohérence externe (la sentence donnée peut-elle rallier le plus grand nombre de points de vue?). Les deux critères sont importants parce qu’ils contribuent tous deux à réduire la marge d’incertitude du dilemme sentenciel. Le troisième chapitre prend acte que toute sentence fera possiblement l’objet d’un aménagement subséquent. Les formes les plus manifestes d’aménagement pénal sont régies par l’octroi d’une libération conditionnelle qui écourte la durée de peine qui sera purgée en prison. Certains acteurs judiciaires choisiront de tenir compte de cette libération anticipée en gonflant leur sentence, alors que d’autres se refuseront à le faire. Le dernier chapitre s’attarde aux raisons qui motivent leurs choix. / This thesis neglects the analysis of external influences, such as biases and errors, which may interfere in court judgments and propose that when facing a normative dilemma (What is the just decision?), individuals are driven by a concern for justice. This concern has not been properly scrutinized. When studying legal decisions, we note that a large proportion of all judgments and evaluations made by interviewed citizens and judicial actors are coherent and moderated, which demonstrates a concern for justice and equity. The results of the thesis are based on a sentencing survey conducted among citizens (n=297) and criminal justice professionals (n=235) who had to adjudicate upon three detailed case studies and specific sentencing questions. The thesis examines the process of determining the just sanction and is concerned with three types of judgments. The first chapter explores the quality of different penal severity scales that can be used to punish a criminal convicted of a crime. Results indicate that citizens, as well as criminal justice professionals, have different ways of conceptualizing penal severity, and that some of these views are more coherent and more reasonable than others. This chapter shows that one way of assessing penal metrics quality is to look at the exchange rates among qualitatively different sanctions (months of prison, years of probation, hours of community work and dollar amount of fines). The second chapter examines the sentencing choices. Two important judicial criteria are used to distinguish just sentences from unjust ones: 1) proportionality or internal consistency (are sentences always given in accordance to crime seriousness?); and 2) moderation or external consistency (is the sentence able to merge opposite points of views?). Both criteria are important in reducing a portion of uncertainty that is intrinsic to the sentencing dilemma. Indeed the search for the just punishment and strategies for uncertainty reduction are intimately connected. The third chapter takes into account the fact that sentences are not fully determined at the judicial level. This is especially the case for prison sentences since conditional release mechanisms drastically shorten the time actually spent behind bars. We attempt to understand the differential propensity among judges, crown and defense attorneys and probation officers to anticipate the likely impact of conditional release in determining the presumptive duration of the court sentence. Some court players will incorporate parole outcomes in determining their prison sentence while others refuse to do so. The chapter examines the reasons why they do so and also identifies under what conditions anticipation of parole outcomes are more likely

Dans ce mémoire, nous examinons le fichage de la délinquance sexuelle dont les divers régimes juridiques reposent sur l’idée que ces contrevenants présentent un risque réel de récidive criminelle. Les données scientifiques sur la délinquance sexuelle relativisent ce risque et attestent qu’il est quasi absent dans un très grand nombre de cas. Il existe donc une dichotomie entre les prémisses du droit et les connaissances issues des sciences sociales et humaines sur cette question. Le fichage de cette délinquance au Canada donne lieu à des mécanismes administratifs provinciaux en plus d’un régime fédéral contenu au Code criminel. Nous émettons l’hypothèse que le fichage provincial emporte de véritables conséquences pénales sur les délinquants sexuels, affectent leurs droits en vertu de l’article 7 de la Charte et contrecarre des principes de justice fondamentale. Ensuite, nous examinons le régime fédéral intégré au Code criminel et nous argumentons que ce mécanisme juridique crée une mesure punitive de la nature d’une peine. Par conséquent, le fichage fédéral devrait être aménagé de façon à satisfaire aux garanties constitutionnelles propres à la peine et aux principes généraux de la détermination de la peine en vertu de la Partie XXIII du Code criminel. Nous concluons que les législateurs successifs ont créé des régimes juridiques régissant le fichage de la délinquance sexuelle en écartant les principes fondamentaux administratifs, criminels et constitutionnels qui devraient présider à l’élaboration des règles concernant ce stigmate de la criminalité. Les tribunaux, par leur interprétation, ont également déqualifié cette stigmatisation de la criminalité sexuelle à titre de peine. Le droit relatif au fichage de la délinquance sexuelle donne donc lieu à une érosion des principes fondamentaux de la justice criminelle et punitive. / In this thesis, we examine tracking mechanisms for sex offenders that are based on the idea that the offenders present a real risk of criminal recidivism. Scientific data on sexual delinquency minimises this risk and shows on the contrary that most sex offenders do not reoffend. There is therefore a discrepancy between the premises of the law and the social and human sciences’ findings on the issue. In Canada, there are provincial administrative tracking schemes as well as a federal mechanism integrated in the Criminal Code. We submit that provincial tracking systems bring true penal consequences on sexual offenders, infringe on their constitutional rights protected by s. 7 of the Charter and violate the principles of fundamental justice. We then examine the federal provisions integrated in the Criminal Code and we argue that this mechanism creates a punitive measure amounting to a punishment and a sentence. Consequently, the federal provisions should be developed in order to satisfy constitutional guarantees relating to a punishment, and should satisfy the general principles of sentencing under Part XXIII of the Criminal Code. We conclude that by creating legal sex offenders tracking mechanisms, legislators have removed the most fundamental principles of administrative, criminal and constitutional law. These principles should guide rule makers with regards to this stigma of criminality. Courts have also disqualified this stigma of criminality from being a punishment. The law relating to the tracking of sex offenders gives rise therefore to an erosion of the principles of fundamental justice in regards to criminal and sentencing law.

Modern juristic persons often are powerful entities and they play an influential role in society. Their activities are often accompanied by serious transgressions that have a severely detrimental impact on human beings and their environment. The effective prosecution of juristic persons is therefore necessary. The juridical foundations of the liability of juristic persons are, however, one of the most controversial issues in criminal law theory. Individualistic theories postulate that juristic persons are merely collections of individuals. The conduct and fault of individuals constituting a juristic person must therefore form the basis of the criminal liability of the juristic person. In the United States, for instance, the foundation for the criminal liability of corporations on federal level is vicarious liability. Another individualistic model (mostly associated with English common law jurisdictions) is the so–called doctrine of identification. Only the conduct of individuals who are regarded as the 'directing minds' of the organisation may be attributed to the organisation. These approaches deny the complex structures and decision making processes that exist especially in big corporate entities. According to realistic theories juristic persons are entities which are not dependant on their composite members. Each juristic person has its own unique personality. The culture and ethos of a juristic person influence the conduct of individuals attached to it as well as the degree in which the juristic person abides by the law. The identity of a corporation can be established by investigating the internal structure thereof. The existence of monitoring mechanisms and educational programmes within the organization, as well as the degree to which the organisation condones or disapproves of unlawful conduct, are some of the factors which may be indicative of the corporate culture. This approach is a development of the late twentieth century and has recently been adopted in the legislation of some foreign legal systems, most notably Australia. Section 332(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides the basis for the criminal liability of juristic persons in South Africa. In essence the conduct and fault of functionaries (and sometimes even outsiders) are attributed to the juristic person. In terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act juristic persons may only be fined upon conviction. This approach reflects the individualistic view of corporate criminal liability. In this study recommendations are made for the purpose of improving the South African law in this regard so as to reflect a more realistic approach. The recommendations are based on an examination of realistic models proposed by legal and social theorists and legislation adopted by foreign countries which are based on these theories. It is also recommended that more sentencing options must be made available to bring about the restructuring of corporations which have committed crimes. / Thesis (LL.D.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2010.

Modern juristic persons often are powerful entities and they play an influential role in society. Their activities are often accompanied by serious transgressions that have a severely detrimental impact on human beings and their environment. The effective prosecution of juristic persons is therefore necessary. The juridical foundations of the liability of juristic persons are, however, one of the most controversial issues in criminal law theory. Individualistic theories postulate that juristic persons are merely collections of individuals. The conduct and fault of individuals constituting a juristic person must therefore form the basis of the criminal liability of the juristic person. In the United States, for instance, the foundation for the criminal liability of corporations on federal level is vicarious liability. Another individualistic model (mostly associated with English common law jurisdictions) is the so–called doctrine of identification. Only the conduct of individuals who are regarded as the 'directing minds' of the organisation may be attributed to the organisation. These approaches deny the complex structures and decision making processes that exist especially in big corporate entities. According to realistic theories juristic persons are entities which are not dependant on their composite members. Each juristic person has its own unique personality. The culture and ethos of a juristic person influence the conduct of individuals attached to it as well as the degree in which the juristic person abides by the law. The identity of a corporation can be established by investigating the internal structure thereof. The existence of monitoring mechanisms and educational programmes within the organization, as well as the degree to which the organisation condones or disapproves of unlawful conduct, are some of the factors which may be indicative of the corporate culture. This approach is a development of the late twentieth century and has recently been adopted in the legislation of some foreign legal systems, most notably Australia. Section 332(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides the basis for the criminal liability of juristic persons in South Africa. In essence the conduct and fault of functionaries (and sometimes even outsiders) are attributed to the juristic person. In terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act juristic persons may only be fined upon conviction. This approach reflects the individualistic view of corporate criminal liability. In this study recommendations are made for the purpose of improving the South African law in this regard so as to reflect a more realistic approach. The recommendations are based on an examination of realistic models proposed by legal and social theorists and legislation adopted by foreign countries which are based on these theories. It is also recommended that more sentencing options must be made available to bring about the restructuring of corporations which have committed crimes. / Thesis (LL.D.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2010.

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 and Security Science / D. Litt. et Phil. (Penology)

A busca por alternativas à prisão é antiga, e a vigilância eletrônica surgiu como uma solução tecnológica. O contexto cultural dos Estados Unidos no fim do século XX propiciou o surgimento do monitoramento eletrônico, influenciado também pelo utilitarismo e pela cultura do controle do delito. O monitoramento deve respeitar os princípios do Estado Democrático de Direito (dignidade humana) e estar vinculado aos fins preventivos da pena (prevenção especial positiva). Por si só não reduz a população carcerária e não diminui a reincidência, mas as vantagens econômicas e os bons resultados obtidos por outros países não podem ser desprezados. Assim, a experiência estrangeira revela bons resultados no uso da vigilância junto a programas de acompanhamento social. No Brasil, o monitoramento eletrônico foi introduzido por lei na execução penal e como medida cautelar. Interessante seria que fosse estabelecido como modo de execução da prisão (alternativa aos estabelecimentos penitenciários). Poderia ser previsto ainda para a execução das penas restritivas de direitos que demandam fiscalização, consolidando um sistema alternativo de penas capaz de promover a prevenção e substituir o cárcere para delitos menores. O monitoramento eletrônico restringe direitos fundamentais e, assim, deve ser previsto em lei, limitado à restrição imposta, aplicado se necessário e com a menor visibilidade possível. / The search for alternatives to prison is old, and electronic surveillance has emerged as a technological solution. The cultural context of the United States at the end of the twentieth century has propitiated the emergence of electronic monitoring, also influenced by utilitarism and by the culture of offense control. Monitoring should respect the principles of Democratic Rule of Law (human dignity) and to be linked to the preventive purposes of sentence (positive special prevention). By itself it does not decrease the prison population and it does not reduce recidivism, but the economic gains and the good results obtained by other countries can not be ignored. Thus, foreign experience shows good results in the use of surveillance along with programs of social support. In Brazil, the electronic monitoring was introduced by law in criminal enforcement and as a precautionary measure. It would be interesting if it could be established as a way of prison enforcement (alternative to prisons). It could be also expected to enforce restrictive penalties of rights that require monitoring, consolidating an alternative system of penalties that can promote prevention and replace the prison for minor offenses. The electronic monitoring restricts fundamental rights and thus it should be provided by law, limited to the restriction, applied when it is necessary with the least visibility.

Cette recherche s’inscrit dans le domaine du sentencing. Sa question de départ porte sur la persistance, dans les jugements correctionnels, du modèle rétributif et des peines privatives de liberté, sur le manque d’essor des peines alternatives à l’emprisonnement et sur l’allongement des peines. <p>La littérature portant sur le sentencing souligne l’importance, dans la décision de la peine, du pouvoir discrétionnaire du juge, qui fait partie intégrante du processus d’interprétation de la loi pénale. La décision est un processus humain (Hogarth), une pratique sociale complexe dans un environnement structuré et structurant (Beyens), le produit de collaborations et de contraintes institutionnelles (Gibson).<p>Adoptant la perspective de la construction de la peine comme processus humain et interactionnel en contexte, la question empirique est :« Comment le juge pénal décide-t-il de la peine dans son contexte d’action ?».<p>Son cadre conceptuel est l’ethnométhodologie. Dans ce courant, la sociologie cognitive examine la chaîne processuelle du traitement de l’information, c’est-à-dire comment les membres d’un groupe social donnent une signification à une situation en sélectionnant et interprétant les informations, puis la catégorisent et décident, par induction, de la norme à appliquer et de la conduite à tenir. <p>Pour répondre à la question empirique, le dispositif méthodologique comprend des observations durant huit mois en tant que stagiaire dans deux tribunaux ;des échanges informels avec les différents acteurs judiciaires et para-judiciaires ;et des entretiens formalisés avec les juges.<p>Quatre procédures principales se dégagent du matériau empirique :évaluer le dossier répressif ;évaluer la personne du prévenu ;évaluer la réprobation adéquate ;évaluer une peine acceptable. Ces procédures permettent de mettre en lumière les savoirs, raisons, motivations, valeurs et mécanismes qui entrent dans le processus décisionnel de la peine. <p>Cette analyse permet de construire progressivement un modèle de la prise de décision en contexte et, partant, de répondre aux questionnements de départ.<p><p><p> / Doctorat en criminologie / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished