DENYING RESPONSIBILITY: Sentencers' Accounts of their Decisions to Imprison

The reasons for dramatic rises in prison populations are the focus of much debate. This paper examines just one of these: the sentencing practices of the judiciary who play a pivotal role both in determining the use of imprisonment itself and in the severity of prison sentences. Drawing on research...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of criminology 2006-09, Vol.46 (5), p.803-821
Main Authors: Tombs, Jacqueline, Jagger, Elizabeth
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Communities
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Criminal justice
Criminal punishment
Criminal sentences
Criminal sentencing
Criminals
Criminology
Decision making
Guilt
Imprisonment
Judges
Judicial power
JUDICIARY
Penal codes
Political participation
Prison overcrowding
PRISONS
Public policy
PUNISHMENT
Regression analysis
Responsibility
Sentenced offenders
Sentences (Criminal procedure)
SENTENCING
Sheriffs departments
Social control
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The reasons for dramatic rises in prison populations are the focus of much debate. This paper examines just one of these: the sentencing practices of the judiciary who play a pivotal role both in determining the use of imprisonment itself and in the severity of prison sentences. Drawing on research with Scottish sentencers, it explores how they made decisions to imprison, how they viewed prison, how they justified sending people there and how 'borderline' offenders were dealt with. We found that although sentencers viewed imprisonment as a severe punishment, they normalized their routine incarceration of individuals by, in effect, denying final responsibility for their actions. Sentencers' accounts of borderline decisions, in which individuals committing the same offence could be accorded either a custodial or a community disposal, illustrated these denials most starkly and revealed an overarching retributivism in their custodial decisions. This retributivism was without proportionality in so far as it was directed at the offender rather than proportionate to the offence. In conclusion, we argue for future sentencing policies and legislation to take heed of sentencers' logic in use.
ISSN:0007-0955
1464-3529
DOI:10.1093/bjc/azl002