Sentencing Information System Research Articles

성공적인 양형개혁을 위한 양형위원회의 상시 임무

Fifteen years after the sentencing guidelines system was first introduced in Korea, sentencing guidelines have been set for most major crimes and the compliance rate has proven to be high. The Korean Sentencing Commission adopted the gradual approach in designing the guidelines and has worked to enhance the objectivity of the sentencing guidelines by way of quality evaluation of the sentencing factors. It appears that at present the sentencing guidelines system has been firmly implemented into the justice system.
 However, for sentencing reform to be successful, the Sentencing Commission must be faithful to meet its perennial responsibilities. These responsibilities include but are not limited to consistently designing and revising the guidelines, more evidence-based monitoring of compliance to and the effects of the guidelines, making public and educating others about the sentencing guidelines, providing access to the disclosure of sentencing information, and establishing sound sentencing policies with an emphasis on very important issues such as pertaining to corrections.
 To that end, the Commission should operate an empirical data based sentencing guidelines system by way of collection and analysis of high quality sentencing data. Abundant and sound data will provide for a better sentencing data base and a sentencing information system which will in turn be pivotal in achieving a higher level of research and education. These tasks will perforce require cooperation between various criminal justice organizations. Unfortunately, the Korean Sentencing Commission’s on-going operations have not reached an optimal level in collecting qualified sentencing data to ensure the implementation and adherence to the guidelines nor effectively researching sentencing policies.
 Contrary to the original intent of the establishment legislation, the Sentencing Commission has operated as a mere branch under the jurisdiction of the Korean Supreme Court and has focused most of its attention to the promulgation of various individual guidelines. The Sentencing Commission must be treated as an independent and specialized entity to ensure successful implementation of its continual responsibilities. The goal of sentencing reform can only be attained by the ongoing efforts of the Commission and its willingness to work towards this common end.

Sentencing: A social process re‐thinking research and policyC.TataCham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 2020. 177pp. €58.84 (hbk); €46.00 (ebk) IBSN: 978‐3‐030‐01059‐1; 978‐3‐030‐01060‐7

Sentencing: A social process re‐thinking research and policyC.TataCham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 2020. 177pp. €58.84 (hbk); €46.00 (ebk) IBSN: 978‐3‐030‐01059‐1; 978‐3‐030‐01060‐7

A Comparative Study on the Sentencing Information System : Towards a Sound Sentencing Data Collection, Analysis and Disclosure Policy

A Comparative Study on the Sentencing Information System : Towards a Sound Sentencing Data Collection, Analysis and Disclosure Policy

From intuition to database: Translating justice

The article tells the story of the development of a Sentencing Information System for the High Court in Scotland from its genesis as an exploratory research project to its final implementation in the court. The article uses Actor Network Theory to understand how the database was assembled through the social practices of academic researchers, government officials, judges and court officers. It offers a corrective to theories which exaggerate the de-humanizing effect of information technology and argues that an Actor Network Theory approach is not incompatible with an understanding of how institutionally located power operates through social practices.

The Promise of Trailing-Edge Guidelines to Resolve the Conflict between Uniformity and Judicial Discretion

Until the mid-1980’s, federal judges had broad discretion in sentencing defendants. However, this created disparities in sentencing from one judge to another, and this created a desire for much greater uniformity. This drive for uniformity resulted in a number of strict legislative measures, including mandatory minimum sentences and mandatory sentencing guidelines. Over time, the judiciary branch grabbed back some discretion (largely through the Supreme Court’s Booker decision in 2005, which made the sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory), but this has resulting in a return to disparities. The underlying problem is a view of sentencing that sees a zero-sum equation between judicial discretion and uniformity - that is, the belief that uniformity must be established by curtailing judicial discretion. This article argues for a different model: Sentencing guidelines that use peer effects and modern technology to directly use judicial discretion to create uniformity. Instead of mandated, arbitrary guidelines, a computer-based sentencing information system would require a sentencing judge to review and consider all the other sentences chosen by judges in similar situations, and this body of experience would functionally become the guidelines. A judge who strays too far from the norm would have to justify that choice based on unusual and compelling circumstances. Such a system would harness discretion as the engine towards uniformity, and discard the false dichotomy between the two that has created so much discord.

The Desocialization of the Courts, Sentencing Decision Support and Plea Bargaining

This article details the authors' attempts to construct a sentencing information system for use in the County Court in the Australian state of Victoria. Particular attention is given to the idea of desocialization of the courts and methods of constructing sentencing information systems. The authors envisage a system that can assist legal aid lawyers to better advise their clients about possible sentencing outcomes as a result of either plea bargain or trial. Advisory systems in this area need to reflect the actual sentencing practice and decision making processes that judges use in reaching their sentences.

Intelligent Computer Evaluation of Offender’s Previous Record

This paper considers the problem of how to evaluate an offender's criminal record. This evaluation is part of the sentencing process carried out by a judge, and may be complicated in the case of offenders with a heavy record. We give a comprehensive overview of the approach to an offender's past record in various (Western) countries, considering the two major approaches: desert-based and utilitarian. The paper describes the determination of the parameters involved in the evaluation, and the construction of a decision support system to be used by a judge about to pass sentence in a criminal case. The system may be used as a stand-alone system, but can also be integrated as a component of a general sentencing support system, e.g. a statistical sentencing information system. The system is a knowledge-based system. The knowledge base (in rule-form) was created primarily by eliciting knowledge from experts (judges, lawyers, academics and probation officers), but also by applying statutory law, case law and legal authoritative texts. It is flexible in the sense, that a user can introduce his1 own preferences (expressed as numerical coefficients) and thereby apply different sentencing principles. The prototype is at present undergoing testing by some of the participating judges.

The New International Network for the Study of Sentencing & Society (INSSS)

Cyrus.Tata@strath.ac.uk n.hutton@strath.ac.uk In June 1999 over 120 delegates from 22 different countries ? academics, senior judges, prosecutors, pol icy officials, prison governors, directors of social and welfare services, and a range of others serious about sentencing ?converged at Strathclyde University in Glasgow, Scotland. The International Conference on Sentencing & Society marked the inauguration of the new Centre for Sentencing Research at Strathclyde. Although launched by the International Confer ence, the new Strathclyde Centre builds on a track record of research into sentencing dating back to the early 1990s. Among the Centre's previous and on-going empirical research projects have been a study of the sentencing patterns of individual sentencers in three different courts; a research and development project to build a Sentencing Information System, now being used by Scotland's High Court and Appeal Court judici ary; and a cross-jurisdictional study of sentencing in Europe. The Centre is also currently working on other projects, including the production of sentencing infor mation for public use, and an ethnographic study of presentence report-writing by probation officers. During the International Conference a group of scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers met to dis cuss how sentencing & society research can be pro moted across national boundaries. As a result, the Centre has initiated The International Network for the Study of Sentencing and Society (insss). With the aim of promoting sentencing & society research, of dissemi nating knowledge and exchanging practical experience, the insss is open to scholars and researchers, judges and other practitioners, policy-makers, officials and oth ers who take sentencing seriously. As a first step, the insss is running a Website to disseminate current research, communicate news and events, and facilitate contact and exchange across the globe. Of course the fledgling insss cannot develop with out resourcing. Currently, the Centre for Sentencing Research is investing in the start-up costs but it hopes to secure sponsorship. For the time being membership is free. If you would like to join, simply visit the website or contact us. However, resourcing is not simply about financial support. We want the insss to be a place of active discussion and support. Already publishing papers from the International Conference, the insss invites you to submit research papers on which you are working. While an International Advisory Team will ensure a basic level of academic quality control, the insss allows those concerned with sentencing to pub lish works-in-progress. Authors, who retain copyright, can enjoy the benefit of comments from interested readers at an early stage. In addition, we welcome short pieces for the 'Sentencing News' section on the state of sentencing reform in your jurisdiction. Finally, insss will provide a guide of the latest events, such as confer ences and seminars, that are being planned worldwide.

'Neutrality', 'choice', and 'ownership' in the construction, use, and adaptation of judicial decision support systems

This article examines the character and future of Judicial Decision Support Systems (JDSS's) in relation to the activity of judicial sentencing. There are many varieties of JDSS which could be applied to sentencing. However, in terms of attracting judicial and political commitment 'Sentencing Information Systems' seem to be emerging as the predominant JDSS model. This model stresses values of data neutrality; judicial choice; and, judicial ownership of sentencing practice and sentencing reform. The article proceeds to examine the 'flip side' of each of these values. It discusses the reasons for the apparent neutrality of SIS data arguing that this 'neutrality' is necessarily a construction based in sentencing research. Examining the value of judicial choice in whether or not the system should be consulted, the article presents results of evaluation of the extent and nature of use of the Scottish Sentencing Information System currently being operated by High Court judges. There is some reason to believe that previous Canadian experience may not necessarily be replicated elsewhere, although it is still early in the history of the Scottish project. Finally, the article considers the ability to retain judicial ownership of the system and public access arguing

Informing the discretion: the sentencing information system of the judicial commission of New South Wales

The unfettered sentencing discretion of a judge is a cornerstone of criminal justice in common law jurisdictions. However, with the growing complexity of laws and, in some cases, an increase in the amount of criminal matters, some jurisdictions have restricted the discretion by imposing guidelines on sentencing. The New South Wales approach has been different. It has established a sentencing information system to provide judges with legal, factual and statistical data. The purpose of the system is not to curtail discretion, but to better inform it, and so achieve consistency of approach throughout the jurisdiction. This article traces the development of the New South Wales system, analyses the technology used and the types of data assembled, and provides a hypothetical case study to provide readers with an insight into how it works.

A sentencing information system named 'NOSTRA'

A sentencing information system named 'NOSTRA'

Sentencing and Information Technology: Incidental Reform?

Sentencing and Information Technology: Incidental Reform? NEIL HUTTON, NEIL HUTTON Lecturer at the Center for Law *Computers and Technology, Law School, University of StrathclydeGlasgow, Scotland, G4 ORQ. Telephone: 0141 552 4400. Fax: 0141 553 1546. E-Mail:neil@law.strath.ac.uk Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar CYRUS TATA, CYRUS TATA Research Officer at the Center for Law †Computers and Technolgy, Law School University of StracthclydeGlasgow, Scotland, G4 ORQ. Telephone: 0141 552 4400. Fax: 0141 553 1546. E-Mail: cyrus@law.stratg.ac.uk Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar JOHN N. WILSON JOHN N. WILSON Lecturer at the Department of Computer Science †Computers and Technolgy, Law School University of StracthclydeGlasgow, Scotland, G4 ORQ. Telephone: 0141 552 4400. Fax: 0141 553 1546. E-Mail: cyrus@law.stratg.ac.uk Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Volume 2, Issue 3, AUTUMN 1994, Pages 255–286, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/2.3.255 Published: 01 October 1994