Sentencing Of Defendants Research Articles

Legal Reconstruction of Corruption Crime As A Result of the Abuse of Authority Based on the Pancasila Justice Value

The aim of the research is to examine and analyze the weaknesses of regulations regarding corruption crime as a result of the abuse of authority, and how to reconstruct the regulations based on justice value. This research was conducted using socio-juridical research which is a legal research method that functions to see the law in its real sense and examines how the law works in a society that is analytically descriptive using primary and secondary data and using the theory of pancasila justice as a grand theory. The research result shows that the Weakness is in the issue of light sentences for defendants in corruption cases has more or less had an effect on efforts to reduce corruption rates. It is impossible for the government and law enforcement officials to try to reduce the number of corruption cases if, on the other hand, these efforts are countered by light sentences from the Corruption Court and then There is a disparity in decisions in cases of corruption in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the PTPK Law not to mention the Corruption in Indonesia is very widespread and has penetrated all levels of society, a crime that has been deeply-rooted and systemic in the life of the nation and has a very detrimental impact on all aspects of life and Its development continues to increase from time to time. Therefore, a legal Reconstruction is needed in Article 3 of the Corruption Crime Law, by adding a minimum prison sentence of 5 years so that it reads to: "sentenced to life imprisonment or imprisonment for a minimum of 5 (five) years and a maximum of 20 twenty years". and added the revocation of political rights for 5 years against corruptors as an action that should be supported in order to provide a deterrent effect in eradicating corruption amid the low verdict on corruption cases.

Immaterial Compensation Not Criminal Losing Lives as an Implementation of Victim Protection

Immaterial compensation is compensation that cannot be calculated with money, such as pain, loss, and psychic, but the compensation can be replaced with some money. The existence of immaterial compensation aims to protect victims of loss of life from other people such as children and wives, families, and parents. Based on the Criminal Code, hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code, the regulation of the crime of taking life is regulated in Articles 338 to 340. The most severe threat of punishment is contained in Article 340 of the Criminal Code, namely the death penalty, or can be said to be life imprisonment, or for a while. certain period, with a maximum period of 20 (twenty) years. Therefore, the existence of liability for compensation from the defendant to the victim can reduce the defendant's sentence or can replace the main sentence of the defendant.T he research method uses a type of qualitative research sourced from the various scientific literature.

Race, Crime, and the Public’s Sentencing Preferences

Abstract We report findings from a conjoint experiment where respondents indicated what they viewed as an appropriate sentence for a series of hypothetical individuals convicted of federal crimes. The experiment signaled the race of the defendant by using distinctively “Black” and “white” names, allowing us to assess whether Americans are more punitive toward purportedly Black defendants. We also consider whether signals of the defendant’s race condition the effects of the crime and various defendant characteristics. Surprisingly, the direct effect of our signal of defendants’ purported race is null. We present evidence that this null finding is a product of offsetting tendencies: respondents who view persistent racial inequalities as the product of both past and ongoing institutional factors prescribed lengthier sentences for white defendants; those who discount these explanations prescribed lengthier sentences for Black defendants.1 We find only scattered evidence that the signal of defendants’ race moderates the effects of other characteristics of the crime and defendant. Our approach and findings not only offer insights into how racial attitudes shape perceptions regarding what constitutes just punishment for crimes in the contemporary United States, but also demonstrate a novel approach to studying this domain and point to an array of promising avenues for future research.

Effective connectivity and criminal sentencing decisions: dynamic causal models in laypersons and legal experts.

This magnetic resonance imaging study is designed to obtain relevant implications for criminal justice and explores the effective connectivity underlying expertise. Laypersons and experts considered sentences for remorseful and remorseless defendants, respectively, with and without mitigation, in hypothetical murder cases. Two groups revealed no differential activation. However, dynamic causal modeling analysis found distinct patterns of connectivity associated with subjects’ expertise and mitigating factors. In sentencing for remorseful defendants, laypersons showed increased strength in all bidirectional connections among activated regions of Brodmann area (BA) 32, BA23, the right posterior insula, and the precuneus. In contrast, legal experts sentenced based on mitigation reasoning, showed increased strength only in the bidirectional connection between the insula and the precuneus. When sentencing for remorseless ones without mitigation, both laypersons and experts increased the connection strength, but with reverse directionality, between regions; legal experts strengthened connectivity from BA10 to other regions, that is, the right anterior insula and BA23, but the directionality was reversed in laypersons. In addition, the strength of connection to BA32 and BA10 was correlated with changes in punishments by mitigating factors. This is a crucial result that establishes the validity of the connectivity estimates, which were uninformed by the independent (behavioral) differences in the severity of punishment.

Sex Disparities in Sentencing and Judges’ Beliefs: A Vignette Approach

ABSTRACT The predominant theories on courtroom decision-making explain extralegal disparities with the courtroom actors’ use of stereotypes. We conducted a vignette study on a sample of judges at the Chinese National Judges College, manipulated the sex of the defendant in each vignette, then asked the subjects for the recommended sentence. The survey also contained a series of questions on the beliefs about the causes of crime, the patterns of criminal behaviors, and the effectiveness of punishment. We found that the judges recommended significantly less harsh sentences for the female homicide defendant, but recommended significantly harsher sentences for both female defrauding and drug trafficking defendants. We also found little evidence that the perception and belief variables were confounders behind the observed sex disparities.

Accentism on Trial: Categorization/Stereotyping and Implicit Biases Predict Harsher Sentences for Foreign-Accented Defendants

In this study, participants were presented with two tasks: the Implicit Association Test (IAT), and a mock trial task. In both tasks, the auditory stimuli were produced by native or foreign-accented speakers, and presented either free of noise or mixed with background white noise, to estimate the role of processing fluency on jurors’ appraisals. In the IAT, participants showed positive implicit biases toward native speech, and negative implicit biases toward foreign-accented speech. In the mock trial task, participants gave much harsher sentences to the foreign-accented than native defendant, but only when defendants’ statements were free of noise. Moreover, we found that participants’ implicit biases were a relevant predictor of the sentences they gave to the defendants. Our results suggest that categorization/stereotyping is the main mechanism responsible for the effect of defendants’ accents on jurors’ appraisals, and that members of an estimated group who violate social norms are punished more severely.

Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences

In our lab, 299 real judges from seven major jurisdictions (Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, USA) spend up to 55 minutes to judge an international criminal appeals case and determine the appropriate prison sentence. The lab computer (1) logs their use of the documents (briefs, statement of facts, trial judgment, statute, precedent), and (2) randomly assigns each judge (i) a horizontal precedent disfavoring, favoring, or strongly favoring defendant, (ii) a sympathetic or an unsympathetic defendant, and (iii) a short, medium, or long sentence anchor. Document use and written reasons differ between countries but not between common and civil law. Precedent effect is barely detectable and estimated to be less, and bounded to be not much greater, than that of legally irrelevant defendant attributes and sentence anchors.

Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Anak yang Menjadi Korban Tindak Pidana Persetubuhan di Bawah Umur

Legal protection is a legal effort that must be provided by law enforcement officials to provide a sense of security to the community both body and soul from interference and threats from any party. The protection of children who are victims of moral crimes is regulated in Law Number 23 of 2002 jo and Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning Child Protection. This research was conducted with the aim of describing the legal protection of a child who is the victim of criminal acts of sexual intercourse and the criminal sanctions against the perpetrators of the sexual intercourse crime on a child. This research was conducted using the normative legal research method. Based on the results of the research and discussion, the legal protection for children who are victims of criminal acts of intercourse is regulated in Law No. 35/2014. Children who are victims are given protection in the form of medical assistance, psycho-rehabilitation, the right to restitution, the right to compensation. Criminal sanctions against the perpetrator of the criminal act of child sexual intercourse in decision number 58 / Pid.Sus / 2015 / PN.Tab, the perpetrator was sentenced to 7 (seven) years in prison and a fine of 150,000,000.00. Seeing the perpetrator's actions were very cruel, robbing other people's honor, namely his own daughter, the punishment that should be given to the perpetrator is the maximum punishment. If the fine cannot be paid, the defendant's sentence will be increased to 6 (six) months.

Indigenous Australians, Specialist Courts, and The Intergenerational Impacts of Child Removal in The Criminal Justice System

Murri Courts are a specialist criminal law practice that includes Elders and respected persons of the local Community Justice Group in the sentencing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants. Drawing on an ethnographic study of two southeast Queensland Murri Courts, this article explores the impact of State ordered out-of-home care on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants and their children. We show how Community Justice Groups and specialist courts help to address the intergenerational impacts of child protection interventions. The rights of Australian Indigenous peoples to enjoy, maintain, control, protect and develop their kinship ties is recognised under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and international human rights treaties. We suggest that policymakers and legislators should better recognise and support Community Justice Groups and specialist courts as they provide an important avenue for implementing the rights of Australian Indigenous peoples to recover and maintain their kinship ties.

(How Much) Do Mandatory Minimums Matter?

For decades, advocates, lawmakers, and scholars have lambasted mandatory minimum sentencing laws, especially in the context of federal drug prosecutions. Low-level drug defendants receiving severe mandatory sentences, including life imprisonment, make national news. In 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to rectify this problem by enacting a sweeping change to mandatory minimum drug charging policy. The policy instructed all federal prosecutors to stop charging mandatory minimums in drug trafficking cases involving low-level, nonviolent defendants. This paper shows that the charging policy did not work as intended. Although prosecutors meaningfully complied with the Memo’s charging instruction, the policy change only modestly reduced sentences for eligible defendants, and it did not reduce racial disparities in sentencing. Why didn’t the policy change work as intended? The paper examines three possible explanations for the findings. First, it argues that the Holder Memo exemplifies a problem I call redundant leniency: rather than focusing on those who could benefit the most from charging leniency, it targeted a portion of defendants who already had and used opportunities to avoid mandatory minimum sentences. Second, it argues that Holder’s reform failed to account for the many ways in which mandatory minimums are reinforced by other aspects of federal criminal law, policy, and practice, a phenomenon I call mandatory minimum entrenchment. Third, I investigate but ultimately reject the hypothesis that spillover effects on ineligible defendants might mask benefits for eligible defendants. I find suggestive evidence of spillovers among a small portion of ineligible defendants—ineligible defendants with at least one eligible co-defendant experienced sentencing reductions in the post-Memo period, while other ineligible defendants do not. The paper concludes by arguing that those hoping to address mass and racially disparate incarceration must implement more systemic reforms.

Algorithmic Risk Assessment in the Hands of Humans

We evaluate the impacts of adopting algorithmic predictions of future offending (risk assessments) as an aid to judicial discretion in felony sentencing. We find that judges' decisions are influenced by the risk score, leading to longer sentences for defendants with higher scores and shorter sentences for those with lower scores. However, we find no robust evidence that this reshuffling led to a decline in recidivism, and, over time, judges appeared to use the risk scores less. Risk assessment's failure to reduce recidivism is at least partially explained by judicial discretion in its use. Judges systematically grant leniency to young defendants, despite their high risk of reoffending. This is in line with a long standing practice of treating youth as a mitigator in sentencing, due to lower perceived culpability. Such a conflict in goals may have led prior studies to overestimate the extent to which judges make prediction errors. Since one of the most important inputs to the risk score is effectively off-limits, risk assessment's expected benefits are curtailed. We find no evidence that risk assessment affected racial disparities statewide, although there was a relative increase in sentences for black defendants in courts that appeared to use risk assessment most. We conduct simulations to evaluate how race and age disparities would have changed if judges had fully complied with the sentencing recommendations associated with the algorithm. Racial disparities might have increased slightly, but the largest change would have been higher relative incarceration rates for defendants under the age of 23. In the context of contentious public discussions about algorithms, our results highlight the importance of thinking about how man and machine interact.

Algorithmic Risk Assessment in the Hands of Humans

We evaluate the impacts of adopting algorithmic predictions of future offending (risk assessments) as an aid to judicial discretion in felony sentencing. We find that judges' decisions are influenced by the risk score, leading to longer sentences for defendants with higher scores and shorter sentences for those with lower scores. However, we find no robust evidence that this reshuffling led to a decline in recidivism, and, over time, judges appeared to use the risk scores less. Risk assessment's failure to reduce recidivism is at least partially explained by judicial discretion in its use. Judges systematically grant leniency to young defendants, despite their high risk of reoffending.This is in line with a long standing practice of treating youth as a mitigator in sentencing, due to lower perceived culpability. Such a conflict in goals may have led prior studies to overestimate the extent to which judges make prediction errors. Since one of the most important inputs to the risk score is effectively off-limits, risk assessment's expected benefits are curtailed. We find no evidence that risk assessment affected racial disparities statewide, although there was a relative increase in sentences for black defendants in courts that appeared to use risk assessment most.We conduct simulations to evaluate how race and age disparities would have changed if judges had fully complied with the sentencing recommendations associated with the algorithm. Racial disparities might have increased slightly, but the largest change would have been higher relative incarceration rates for defendants under the age of 23. In the context of contentious public discussions about algorithms, our results highlight the importance of thinking about how man and machine interact.

Impact of Diagnosis of Malingering on a Defendant's Sentence

In United States v. Bonnett , 872 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's sentencing enhancements following a guilty plea for receipt and distribution of child pornography. The appeals court ruled that malingering qualified for the district court's

Social Identity in the Canadian Courtroom: Effects of Juror and Defendant Race

The purpose of this study was to examine whether black (n = 90), Indigenous (n = 92), and white (n = 94) mock jurors would make harsher decisions in trials involving other-race defendants. Jury-eligible community members recruited via Qualtrics read a fictional impaired driving and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle case in which the defendant’s race varied (black, Indigenous, white). They then made verdict/sentencing decisions and completed measures of stereotypes. We predicted that mock jurors who endorsed negative racial stereotypes would be more likely to vote guilty and recommend harsher sentences for other-race defendants. Instead, we found that positive personally held stereotypes predicted leniency among white jurors judging Indigenous defendants but no such effects for other trial party combinations. Overall, the black defendant received significantly more lenient decisions as compared to the white defendant. Although no formal policy ensures that specific groups are represented on juries, these data indicate that people process trial information differently as a joint function of juror and defendant race.

Discretion and Disparity under Sentencing Guidelines Revisited: The Interrelationship between Structured Sentencing Alternatives and Guideline Decision-making

Objectives: We argue that the reasons court actors conform to or depart from sentencing guideline recommendations likely vary depending on whether the decision involves an alternative sanction or incarceration and that these reasons may have consequences for ethnoracial disparities in the sentencing of defendants and how these disparities are understood. Method: We use recent (2012–2016) Pennsylvania sentencing data to examine (1) the relationship between defendant race/ethnicity and court actors’ decisions to depart downward and upward from the guidelines and (2) whether such relationships vary depending on whether they involve an alternative sanction, namely intermediate punishments (IPs). Results: We find that the association of defendant race/ethnicity with decisions to conform to the guidelines or to depart is greatly impacted by whether the sentence involves an IP. Blacks and, to a lesser extent, Latinos experienced greater disadvantage in guideline decision-making, whether conformity or departures, when the sentence involved an IP. Conclusions: Results suggest that the integration of IP into guideline systems may have (1) mobilized ethnoracial disparities in sentencing, (2) focused the location of sentencing disparities to sentences involving IP, and (3) changed the applicability of common interpretations of guideline decisions and disparities in their imposition.

Federal Sentencing of Hispanic Defendants in Changing Immigrant Destinations

Research shows that federal punishment disparity between Hispanic and white defendants varies according to federal district court contexts. Recent sociological scholarship has also drawn distinctions between traditional Hispanic immigrant destinations and new or emerging immigrant destinations, and depicted the reception of Hispanic immigrants in new immigrant destinations as less welcoming and supportive than in traditional destinations. We examine whether federal courts in different Hispanic immigrant destinations exhibit differing levels of Hispanic citizen and non-citizen sentencing disadvantage circa 2000, and then circa 2010. We find that traditional destinations exhibit little or no Hispanic versus non-Hispanic disparity, while Hispanic citizens and non-citizens both received longer sentences in new destinations and in non-immigrant destinations circa 2000. By the early 2010s, emerging destinations did not sentence Hispanic citizens and non-citizens significantly differently from traditional destinations. However, new destinations, along with non-immigrant destinations, sentenced Hispanic non-citizens more harshly, especially the undocumented.

New Crimes and Punishments: A Case Study Regarding the Impact of Over-Criminalization on White Collar Criminal Cases

Over-criminalization takes many forms and impacts the American criminal justice system in varying ways. This article focuses on a select portion of the over-criminalization phenomenon by examining two types of over-criminalization prevalent in white collar criminal law. The first type of over-criminalization discussed in this article is Congress’s propensity for increasing the maximum criminal penalties for white collar offenses in an effort to punish financial criminals more harshly. The second type of over-criminalization addressed in this article is Congress’s tendency to create vague and overlapping criminal provisions in areas already criminalized in an effort to expand the tools available to prosecutors and increase the number of financial criminals prosecuted each year. While these types of over-criminalization are not the most egregious examples of the phenomenon, they are important to consider because the statutes being affected by these legislative enactments are far from obscure and, in fact, represent some of the most commonly charged offenses in the federal system. While much has been written about the plethora of negative consequences resulting from over-criminalization generally, it is worth noting that not everyone believes these negative consequences outweigh the potential benefits that might flow from the two types of over-criminalization discussed in this article. First, some might argue that repeatedly increasing the statutory maximums for white collar offenses is justified because doing so means culpable individuals will receive longer prison sentences reflective of their conduct and, in addition, others will be deterred from committing such crimes. Second, some might argue that enacting broad new criminal provisions in areas already criminalized is justified because such enactments provide prosecutors with the tools necessary to ensure that creative and sophisticated white collar criminals are brought to justice in larger numbers, thereby deterring others from committing similar offenses. This article will examine the accuracy of the underlying premises utilized by both of these “justifications” for the over-criminalization discussed herein – (a) the assumption that increasing statutory maximums results in ever lengthening sentences for individual white collar defendants, and (b) the assumption that enacting additional laws that are vague and overlapping in areas already criminalized results in increased levels of enforcement against white collar criminals. Through such an examination, this article seeks to understand whether new crimes and punishments really achieve their intended goals and, if not, what this means for the over-criminalization debate and, in particular, the over-criminalization “justifications” discussed above.

Federal Sentencing of Hispanic Defendants in Changing Immigrant Destinations

Scholars have found evidence of disparities in criminal punishment disadvantaging Hispanic defendants, especially Hispanic non-citizens. Research has also shown that federal punishment disparity between Hispanic and white defendants varies according to federal district court contexts. Recent scholarship has drawn distinctions between traditional Hispanic immigrant destinations and new or emerging immigrant destinations, and depicted the reception of Hispanic immigrants in new immigrant destinations as less welcoming and supportive than in traditional destinations. We examine whether federal courts in different Hispanic immigrant destination types exhibit differing levels of Hispanic citizen and non-citizen sentencing disadvantage circa 2000, and then circa 2010. We find that traditional destinations exhibit little or no Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic disparity. But Hispanic non-citizens especially received longer sentences in new destinations and in non-immigrant destinations, both circa 2000 and 2010. By contrast, the emerging immigrant destinations of 2010-2012 did not sentence Hispanic citizens and non-citizens significantly differently from traditional destinations.

Same Crime: Different Punishment? Investigating Sentencing Disparities Between Irish and Non-irish Nationals in the Irish Criminal Justice System

Irelandâ?Ts economic growth from the late 1990s prompted sustained and diverse inward migration, resulting in substantial changes in the population and reshaping the social and cultural landscape. These shifts have also been visible among those processed by the criminal justice system, with a marked increase in the number of non-Irish nationals committed to Irish prisons. International research suggests that racism is a significant issue within criminal justice systems, with ethnic minority groups often disadvantaged. Despite these findings and the growth in non-Irish national prisoners, little research has assessed the impact of racial bias on Irish sentencing outcomes. This exploratory study examines whether disparities exist between the sentencing of Irish and non-Irish defendants, using data from the Irish Prison Service. Non-Irish nationals were statistically significantly under-represented in the offence categories, â?~attempted robberyâ?T, â?~vehicle theftâ?T, â?~criminal damageâ?T, â?~robberyâ?T, â?~parking fine offencesâ?T, â?~assault causing harmâ?T, â?~intoxication in a public placeâ?T, â?~threatening behaviour in a public placeâ?T, â?~unlawful possession of drugsâ?T and â?~no television licenceâ?T. They were statistically significantly over-represented in the offence categories, â?~driving under the influenceâ?T, â?~no vehicle insuranceâ?T, â?~theftâ?T and â?~possession of drugs for sale/supply (to the value of <â,¬13,000)â?T. The implications of non-Irish national over-representation in the offence, â?~possession of drugs for sale/supply (to the value of <â,¬13,000)â?T will be explored in the discussion.

Punishment in Indian Country: Ironies of Federal Punishment of Native Americans

Native Americans are US citizens, but they are also tribal nationals subject to complex and unique criminal jurisdiction arrangements over Indian lands. Tribal nations typically have tribal court jurisdiction over less serious crimes, but for serious crimes the federal justice system often supersedes tribal authority, exposing Native Americans to more severe punishments. In addition, recent federal programs have attempted to foster greater tribal/federal criminal justice coupling. Yet, examinations of criminal punishment of Native Americans are few, and most are outdated and/or of very limited generalizability. We examine the punishment of Native American defendants in federal court, focusing on 28 federal districts with substantial Indian presence. Using recent US Sentencing Commission data, as well as contextual data from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal courts, we focus on differences in the federal sentencing of Native American defendants, and how these differences are conditioned by indicators of tribal-federal criminal justice coupling.