11 Sentencving

4/9/2015

1

FINAL EXAM: Sunday April 19th

7:00 to 9:30

Sentencing ‐ judicial determination of a legal sanction for individual convicted of an offence

(Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 1997)

(1) Sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility

(2) Sentences are to meet at least one of a series of sentencing objectives

DeterrenceSeeks to inhibit criminal behav by instilling fear of punishment 

‐ Specific: prevent particular offender from repeat criminality

‐ General: prevent others from committingsimilar offences

Sentencing Objectives:

Denunciation-- publicly censure the individual for crime committed

Incapacitation-- prevention of crime by incarcerating

4/9/2015

2

Rehabilitation - seeks to reform offender

(education, training, counseling)- concept dev in 1930s as result of growth of psy

Reparations--Attempts to make victim “whole again”

--addresses need of victim-- $$ for bills, replacement, counseling

• Judges must also:

– Consider aggravating and mitigating factors

– Use comparable sentences for similar offenders committing similar crimes

– Use alternatives to incarceration if at all possible

Sentencing Disparity

Sentencing disparity refers to variations in sentences handed down by different judges (or the same judge on different occasions) for similar offenders committing similar offences (McFatter, 1986)

Sentencing Disparity (cont’d)

Unwarranted sentencing disparity results from reliance on extra-legal factors (i.e., factors not legally relevant)

Can be categorized as:

Systematic factors (e.g., how lenient judges believe sentences should be)

Unsystematic factors (e.g., mood of the judge on any particular day)

4/9/2015

3

Studying Sentencing Disparity

Sentencing disparity can be studied in one of two ways:

Simulation studies

Official sentencing statistics

Using either method it’s clear that sentencing disparity does exist in Canada

(Birkenmayer & Roberts, 1997)

Decisions made in situations of judgmental uncertainty

Under such situations, people resort to simplifying heuristics

Judgmental Heuristics Mental shortcuts that reduce complex problem solving to simpler judgements

Beneficial under most circumstances but can lead to systematic distortions/biases

a. Anchoring Effect Numeric estimates are assimilated to a previously

considered standard (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974)

Anchoring effects found in variety of context (e.g., pricing decisions)

Given criminal sentencing often involves numeric estimate, anchoring may play a role in disparity

e.g.,  Sentence demanded by prosecutorRecommendation of parole officer

4/9/2015

4

But this is indirect evidence only

Real life cases diff not only in terms of sentencing recommendation but on variety of factors

Need to provide Judges with identical cases that differ only with respect to sentencing recommendation

Englich & Mussweiler (2001)  

“Anchoring in Court”

Study 1

Participants are Judges (German)

Presented with a hypothetical sexual assault trial

Independent Variable: Prosecutor’s recommendation

For ½ Js – Low  (Prosecutor recommends 2 mo.)

½ Js – High (Prosecutor recommend 34 mo.)

Dependent Variable:  Judges’ sentences

Results

Low (2 mo):

High (34 mo):

18.70 mo28.78 mo

Js decisions dramatically influencedby Prosecutor’s demand!

Studies 2 & 3 

1. Does anchoring occur if anchor is irrelevant to decision?

2. Are experienced Js less susceptible to anchoring effects?

Ps are 1) Law students (study 2) 

2) experienced trial Js (study 3)

Using same case vary with 2 Independent variables

1) Sentencing demand:  ½ High

½ Low

2) Who makes recomm: ½ Prosecutor

½ Student

4/9/2015

5

Results:

For both samples, sentencing demand main effect:

↑ demand (M= 24.41)  >  ↓ demand (M=17.64)

Didn’t matter if sentencing recomm came from prosecutor or science student 

Anchoring appears to be independent of perceived relevance of the demand & robust to experience

b. False consensus effectTendency to overestimate the consensus for our own opinions, attributes….

Doobs & Roberts:

292 Fed. Judges read a civil case

render their own decision

predict how others will vote

find Js differ widely, but believe others would make the same decision as them

• One way of reducing sentencing disparity is to use sentencing guidelines

• In 1999, mandatory minimum sentences were specified for 29 offences in Canadian Criminal Code

• But, sentencing guidelines in Canada are very broad and may not significantly reduce sentencing disparity

(Roberts, 1991)

• Ongoing debate about deterrence and rehabilitation

• Many researchers do not believe that get-tough strategies reduce crime

• However, certain rehabilitative efforts do appear to reduce re-offending

4/9/2015

6

• Canadian researchers have led the way in establishing principles of effective correctional intervention(Andrews & Bonta, 2006)

• Correctional interventions that incorporate these principles have been shown to reduce recidivism rates (Andrews et al., 1990)

• Intermediate sanctions that incorporate treatment programs reduced recidivism by 10% (Gendreau et al, 2000)

• Parole involves:– Conditional release into community

– Rehabilitation

– A high degree of supervision

– Return to prison if conditions are breached

9‐

Myths Concerning Parole Parole reduces sentence time

Parole is automatically granted when inmates become eligible

Offenders released on parole frequently re-offend

Victims do not play a role in parole decisions

Parole Decision Making Decisions are made by members of Canada’s

National Parole Board (NPB)

Offenders become eligible for parole after serving the first third, or the first seven years, of their sentence

Formal hearing takes place between the offender and the NPB and a formal risk assessment is conducted

4/9/2015

7

Risk Assessment (NPB) This risk assessment includes an examination of:

Criminal history

Mental status

Performance on earlier releases

Information from victims

Institutional behaviour

Feasibility of release plans, etc.

Conditions of Parole Various conditions of parole must be met or the offender

may go back to prison

Examples include: Abstain from drugs and alcohol

Remain in Canada

Obey the law and keep the peace

Do not own or possess any weapons

Effectiveness of Parole NPB (2009) indicates --- offenders let out on parole

less likely to breach conditions or commit new offences compared to offenders let out on statutory release

Even offenders let out on statutory release are unlikely to commit further crimes

For past 30 years, Statistic Canada has been polling

members of public about their views on offender sentencing.

Typically asked:

In sentencing offenders, do you feel that judges are:

Too harsh?

Too lenient?

About right?

Public Attitudes Towards Sentencing

4/9/2015

8

Roberts et al. (2007)Last 30 years documents perceptions of sentences are too lenient

Large segment of public (77% -- 80% indicate sentences “too lenient” (Doob & Sprout, 1993, 1997; Doob, 2000; Roberts et al, 2007) Surveys

Questions are very general & vague

No info about:

the types of crimes

characteristics of case

characteristics of offender

Judgements are in the abstract!

Anthony Doob (2011)

Puts it this way….

“Unfortunately, one of the alternative responses that is not offered or is recorded is the quite reasonable, “How the [explicative] am I suppose to know? You folks don’t make these data available to anyone.”

Judgmental Heuristics

Mental shortcuts that reduce complex problem solving to simpler judgements

Beneficial under most circumstances but can lead to systematic distortions/biases

4/9/2015

9

Richard Leblanc Kristen Stewart

Margaret Atwood Jerome Luxton

Hilary Clinton Peter Mitchell

Nelly Furtado Michelle Obama

Michael Drayton Alan Nevins

Amy Winehouse Cliff Newman

Charles Fisher Oprah Winfrey

Alexander Lavigne John Schroeder

Bruce Holliday Robert Porter

Serena Ryder Henry Vaughan

Raymond Côté Ellen Page

Answer the following About how many of the names were female?

About how many of the names were male?

Were there more male or more female names?

Role of Judgmental Heuristics

a. Availability Heuristic

Tendency to base estimates of likelihood of an event on the basis of how easily instances come to mind

e.g., people overestimate odds of dying in a plane crash even though risk higher by driving in cars

Please picture a basket ball player in your head

4/9/2015

10

b. Representativeness Heuristic

tendency to judge the probability/likelihood of an event based on how typical event is

Eric the lottery ticket buyer lives in Canada, has several tattoos, & often wears dark sunglasses & a leather jacket.Is it more likely that he owns a motorcycle or a car?

# of car owners in Canada far greater than # of motorcycle owners, so more likely that Eric owns a car

c. Base rate fallacy

People are relatively insensitive to base rate information in favour of individuating info

What types of crime/offenders do people think of when answering sentencing question?

Crimes & Offenders that come to mind

ViolentMost serious crimes (murder, assault) Repeat offender Offender who fails to follow parole 55% of public thinks crimes have ↑↑ yet crime victimization surveys indicate violent victimizations remain fairly stable

4/9/2015

11

In short, people overestimate prevalence of crime & its nature

Why are perceptions so at odds with reality?

Media Coverage

1) Tendency to over represent violent crimes eg., 9% of crimes – violent 50% + of news reports of crime – violent murder represents 1% of all crime but 25% of crime

news stories

2) Report it inaccurately- not all info reported- prosecution slant

Are perceptions created/confirmed by what people read in papers?

Expose people to either:1) News account

or 2) Relevant court document

- Was the sentence imposed? --too lenient--about right--too harsh

Those exposed to court document:-- 19% -- too lenient-- 55% -- too harsh

Those exposed to news story:-- 63% -- too lenient

ConclusionIf provided with case info, people’s beliefs about sentencing are less severe

4/9/2015

12

What should be accomplished at sentencing?Ontario survey (Doob et al., 1998)

‐ approx 1000 adult residents surveyed

about adult & youth offenders

‐ rated importance of 5 purposes

Table 1: Importance of various purposes (1 = not at all to 100=very)

7.38 7.69

8.16 8.19

7.07 6.21

7.77 8.10

7.64 7.63

Purpose:

Table 2: What’s most effective way to control crime?     (% indicating what is “most effective”)

31.7% 24.6%

24.7% 19.3%

11.7% 24.2%

18.7% 22.0%

13.2% 9.9%

100% 100% (n=486) (n=487)

General Conclusions1. Just about all purposes – ratings ↑

2. Most believe harsher sentences not best way to make us safer

4/9/2015

13

Do people really want harsher sentences?

What are some consequences of harsher sentences?

a. ↑ prisons

b. ↓ resources for alternatives

c. ↓ resources for crime prevention

Respondents told:

Ontario prisons are overcrowded. 

Two solutions are: a) build more prisons,

b) use alternatives.

Q: What are your preference for investing in ↑ prisonsor in alternatives to prison?

Q: If gov had sum of $$ to spend on crime, should it be 

spent on prisons or programs to prevent crime?

Table 3: Preference for investing in more prisons or in altvs

34.5% 21.5%

65.5% 78.5%

100% 100% (n= 469) (n=479)

14.0% 11.4%

86.0% 88.6%

100% 100% (n= 487) (n=492)

Table 4: Preference for investing in more prisons or crime prevention

Public view of sentencing ‐ Paradox When asked about sentencing

– say it is too lenient

Favour harsher sentences

Yet, when provided with more detailed info or questions, it seems people do not favour harsher sentences

4/9/2015

14

Conclusions“Should sentences be harsher?”

People may give simple answer to simple question 

When pressed to make difficult  choices – you will

get diff numbers.

Farewell & Wishing You Much Success in Your Future Endeavors!

FINAL EXAM: Sunday April 197:00 to 9:30

Chapters 6(Child Victims),7 (Jury selection), 8(Jury performance),9(Role of MI), 11 (Sentencing)]+lectures, films.

Good Luck!

http://courseevaluations.yorku.ca/