Easton & Piper: Sentencing and Punishment 2e 
DevelopmentsEaston & Piper: Sentencing and Punishment 2e
Chapter 2
International comparisons
-
Wandall, R.H. (March 2006) 'Equality by numbers or words: a comparative study of sentencing structures in Minnesota and Denmark', Criminal Law Forum, 17(1) 1-14,
Retributivism
-
Markel, D. (2005) 'State be not proud: a retributivist defense of the commutation of Death Row and the Abolition of the Death Penalty', Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 40, 407-80. [This article argues that retributivism is compatible with humane punishment and considers this in the context of the use of the death penalty in the United States.]
Justice and discretion
Gelsthorpe, L. and Padfield, N. (eds) (2003) Exercising Discretion, Decision-making in the Criminal Justice System and Beyond. Cullompton, Willan Publishing.
Hawkins, K. (Ed.) (1992) The Uses of Discretion. Oxford, Clarendon Paperbacks.
Hawkins, K. (2002) Law as Last Resort. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Jacobson, J and Hough, M. (2007) Mitigation: the role of personal factors in sentencing. London: Prison Reform Trust, accessible at www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icpr/publications/mitigation_final_report.pdf
-
Millie, A., Tombs, J. and Hough, M. (2007) 'Borderline sentencing: a comparison of sentencers' decision-making in England and Wales and Scotland', Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7, 3, pp 242-267.
-
Raine, J. (2005) 'Courts, Sentencing and Justice in a Changing Political and Managerial Context' Public Money and Management Vol 35(5) 291-298. [This article examines the changing political and managerial perspectives in criminal justice over the last 25 years, noting in particular what Raine sees as a steady encroachment by the executive on judicial independence.]
-
Tarling, R. (2006) 'Sentencing Practice in Magistrates' Courts Revisited' The Howard Journal Vol 45(1) 29-41. [As noted in the book, this article discusses research that suggests that further guidance to magistrates may not be sufficient to reduce the continuing variations in sentencing practice.]
Tata, C., Burns, N., Halliday, S., Hutton, N. and McNeill, F. (2008) 'Assisting and Advising The Sentencing Decision Process: The Pursuit of 'Quality' in Pre-Sentence Reports' Br J Criminol, Vol 48, 835-855.
[This article summarizes some of the main findings of a four-year qualitative study in Scotland examining how reports are constructed and then used in deciding sentence. This research suggests that the policy aim that higher-quality reports will help to ‘sell’ community penalties to the principal consumers of such reports (judges) is defeated by a discourse of judicial ‘ownership’ of sentencing.]
Modern retributivism
Paul H. Robinson (March 2008) 'Competing conceptions of modern desert: vengeful, deontolgical and empirical' Cambridge Law Journal 67(1) 145-75. [This article argues that critiques of retributivism should be considered in relation to three different conceptions of modern desert theory. These are considered in relation to US and UK systems of punishment.]
Public attitudes
-
Hough, M., Roberts, J. V., Jacobson, J., Bredee, A. and Moon, N. (2008) Attitudes to the sentencing of offences involving death by driving. Sentencing Advisory Panel Report No. 5. London: Sentencing Advisory Panel.
-
Roberts, J. V., Hough, M., Jacobson, J., Bredee, A. and Moon, N. (2008) 'Public attitudes to sentencing offences involving death by driving', Criminal Law Review, 7, pps 525-538.
Sentencing guidance
-
Freiberg, A. and Gelb, K. (eds) (2008) Penal Populism, Sentencing Councils and Sentencing Policy, Willan Publishing, especially Chapter 8 by Andrew Ashworth: 'English sentencing guidelines in their public and political context'.
-
Hough, M and Jacobson, J (2008) A Sentencing Commission for England and Wales: Evidence to the Sentencing Commission working group, accessible at www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icpr/publications/Gage_evidence_ICPR.pdf
Sentencing Commission Working Group (2008) A Structured Sentencing Framework and Sentencing Commission, see: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/consultation_ssfsc_310308.pdf
Sentencing Guidelines Council (2007) Definitive Guideline on the Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea. London, SGC, Section F:'Application to Sentencing for Murder'.[This section refers to the relevant statutory provisions for setting the minimum term for murder and for taking account of a guilty please before explaining that such a discount'will have double the effect on time served in custody when compared with a determinate sentence' (para 6.4). Therefore the different approach to be taken is set out in para 6.6:'Where a Court determines that there should be a whole life minimum term, there will be no reduction for a guilty plea' but otherwise, where there is a plea of guilty at the first reasonable opportunity the'the reduction will not exceed one sixth and will never exceed 5 years'. For a late guilty plea the guideline recommends a 55 reduction'.]
View print version