Recent publications

• Dingwall, G. (2008) ‘Deserting Desert? Locating the Present Role of Retributivism in the Sentencing of Adult Offenders’, Howard  Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol 47(4), 400-410.

• Fish, M. J. (2008) ‘An Eye for an Eye, Proportionality as a Moral Principle of Punishment’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Vol 28(1), 57-71.

• Hough, M., Roberts, J. V., Jacobson, J., Moon, N and Steel, N. (2009) Public Attitudes to the Principles of Sentencing. Sentencing Advisory Panel Report No. 6. London: Sentencing Advisory Panel.

• Mitchell, B. and Mackay, R.D.  (2011)  ‘Investigating Involuntary Manslaughter: An Empirical Study of 127 Cases’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31(1) 165-91.

International comparisons

• Edney, R. and Bagaric, M. (2007) Australian sentencing Principles and practice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

• The Honourable Mr. Justice Gilles Renaud (2009)The Sentencing Code of Canada – Principles and Objectives, Lexis-Nexis Canada

• 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

• Wandall, R.H. (2008) Decisions to Imprison: Court Decision-Making Inside and Outside the Law, Aldershot: Ashgate.

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

• Cooper, J. 'The Sentencing Guidelines Council- A Practical Perspective'. [2008] Criminal Law Review 277.

• 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

• Jones, T. and Newburn, T (2006) ‘Three Strikes and You’re Out, Exploring Symbol and Substance in American and British Crime Control Politics’ Brit. J. of Criminology Vol 46(5) 781-802.

• 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

• Ashworth, A. (2010) 'Sentencing Guidelines and the Sentencing Council' Criminal Law Review 389-401.

• 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 for Scotland (2006) The Scope to Improve Consistency in Sentencing, 4th Report. http://www.scottishsentencingcommission.gov.uk/publications.asp

• 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'.]