The thesis examines court sentencing decisions in theft cases within the context of a proportionality-based sentencing framework. Whilst relatively little is known of the magistrates’ court and Crown Court interpretations of proportionality, such as the impact that various aggravating and mitigating factors may have on the sentencing decision, the thesis examines those factors (relating to both the offence and the offender) that appear to have the greatest impact on the sentencing decision. Additionally, it was accepted here that the courts may rely (to some extent) on a number of other sentencing justifications, particularly crime prevention through rehabilitation, deterrence and incapacitation. The thesis finds that only a small number of factors individually appear to affect the sentencing decision. In other cases, a number of factors work together to increase the seriousness of the offence and consequently inform the sentencing decision. The thesis also finds that whilst proportionality considerations may dominate the sentencing decisions in some cases, in others the courts appear to have high regard to the need to prevent crime, particularly where an offender has a demonstrated pattern of offending due to a drug addiction. Whilst in some cases these crime reduction aims may be used within the confines of proportionality, the courts’ desire to prevent crime may eclipse proportionality constraints, ultimately leading to an apparently disproportionate sentence.

No description available.

No description available.

The use of extra-legal factors in determining criminal sentences has long been a topic of interest to criminologists. Research on sentencing guidelines has consistently found unwarranted disparities related to defendants' ethnoracial identity, but there is limited research on the effects of defendants' citizenship status. Roughly 40 percent of defendants convicted in federal courts are non-U.S. citizens, thus by shear size, citizenship status has become a major issue within federal courts. Using U.S. Sentencing Commission data between Fiscal Years 2000 to 2003, this dissertation examines the impact of defendants’ ethnoracial identity and citizenship status on sentencing outcomes in federal criminal court. Building on intersectional theory, particular attention is given to the interaction between defendants’ ethnoracial identity and citizenship status. Decomposition of hetroskedastic tobit regressions are used to model unwarranted disparities for both the probability and length of incarceration. Results indicate that relative to White U.S. citizens, Asian and Pacific Islander U.S. citizens have lower probability of incarceration and shorter sentences. Black and Hispanic defendants, both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens tend to have harsher sentences relative to their White counterparts. Overall, non-U.S. citizens whom are Black and Hispanic experience a multiplicative disadvantage in sentencing outcomes relative to Whites and Asian or Pacific Islanders. Additionally, results from this study indicate that defendants whom are not U.S. citizens and from Africa, Asia and the Pacific Islanders, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Mexico, and the Middle-East all serve harsher sentences relative to White U.S. citizens. / text

Research suggests there are neurological predictors of violence, such as brain function abnormalities most frequently displayed by violent offenders who may suffer from a psychological phenomenon termed “psychopathy.” Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can detect signs of some of these brain abnormalities. Neurological markers of violence, evident in a convicted individual’s fMRI results, could speak to that offender’s tendency to act violently in the future. Can fMRI play a meaningful role in estimating recidivism rates and in sentencing? Even if fMRI evidence meets legal thresholds for use in sentencing, should it be employed in light of many concerns, such as reliability, as the implications of predicting an individual’s dangerousness based on fMRI evidence are substantial, especially in the context of defendant rights. Moreover, neurological indicators of violence may undermine a holistic approach to sentencing that considers the convicted individual’s particular story.

Research suggests there are neurological predictors of violence, such as brain function abnormalities most frequently displayed by violent offenders who may suffer from a psychological phenomenon termed “psychopathy.” Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can detect signs of some of these brain abnormalities. Neurological markers of violence, evident in a convicted individual’s fMRI results, could speak to that offender’s tendency to act violently in the future. Can fMRI play a meaningful role in estimating recidivism rates and in sentencing? Even if fMRI evidence meets legal thresholds for use in sentencing, should it be employed in light of many concerns, such as reliability, as the implications of predicting an individual’s dangerousness based on fMRI evidence are substantial, especially in the context of defendant rights. Moreover, neurological indicators of violence may undermine a holistic approach to sentencing that considers the convicted individual’s particular story.

No description available.

Includes bibliographical references / This thesis investigates measures to ensure that sentencers introduce proportionality to sentencing and refrain from imposing penalties that infringe constitutional rights. The investigation involves two stages of analysis. First, the thesis examines the socio-historical context in which the practice of punishment evolved in England, South Africa and Nigeria in order to unveil how evolving concepts about punishment regulate or fail to regulate penal severity. Secondly, the thesis examined the normative basis of sentencing in South Africa and Nigeria, both of which are constitutional democracies and former English colonies. The analysis leads to two critical findings. First, Nigeria lacks the rich tapestry of constitutional jurisprudence that South African Courts have developed around punishment. Secondly, neither South Africa nor Nigeria has a structured system for rationalising sentencing discretion, with the result that sentencing can lead to widely disparate and disproportionate outcomes in both countries. The thesis thus proposes that Nigeria adopts constitutional provisions that restrain penal severity, and that it harmonise its pluralistic penal system, scrutinise statutory penalties in the light of constitutional norms, and, drawing on practices in England, develop guidelines that enhance proportionality and parsimony in sentencing.

No description available.

No description available.