Sentencing: New trajectories in law By E.A.O. Freer, Abingdon: Routledge. 2021. pp. 131. £44.99 (hbk); pp. 146. £16.99 (pbk). ISBN: 9780067862619; 9781032063027

Q2 Social Sciences
Avril M. Brandon
{"title":"Sentencing: New trajectories in law By E.A.O. Freer, Abingdon: Routledge. 2021. pp. 131. £44.99 (hbk); pp. 146. £16.99 (pbk). ISBN: 9780067862619; 9781032063027","authors":"Avril M. Brandon","doi":"10.1111/hojo.12518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The author of this book, Elaine A.O. Freer, makes evident that the work does not attempt to cover all sentencing law, nor is it a systematic analysis of sentencing comments. Rather, the aim is to examine what can be understood as the five statutory sentencing aims and objectives that judges must consider in England and Wales: punishment; deterrence; rehabilitation; protection; and reparation (Sentencing Act 2020, s. 57(2)). Moreover, rather than viewing these aims from an abstract perspective, the author seeks to shed light on their implementation in practice – examining the process and purpose of sentencing, beyond the confines of its legalistic aspects. To do this, the author draws on cases in which the author, a practising barrister, was involved, and comments made by judges during sentencing. Chapters are titled and ordered by sentencing aim, allowing the reader to engage in the chapters on a stand-alone basis or as a whole. This book focuses only on the sentencing of adults.</p><p>The introductory chapter does, as the author notes, the ‘heavy lifting’ (p.19) in laying the foundations for this text. The author provides concise but comprehensive information on sentencing disposals in England and Wales, referencing legislation extensively throughout. This greatly enhances the accessibility of the book to a wide audience, appealing to those at all stages of academia, researchers and legal practitioners. Those with a limited background in law will find this chapter to be particularly insightful and relevant when engaging with the rest of the book.</p><p>The first chapter considers sentencing as a means of punishment. The author suggests that ‘the criminal justice system has adopted an overly simplistic obsession with punishment, driven by politicians’ misunderstanding of what the public actually want to happen to those who break the social contract by offending’ (p.21). To that end, they question whether imprisonment is <i>the</i> punishment or <i>for</i> punishment, discussing Sykes's (<span>1958</span>) pains of imprisonment. Reflecting on whether punishment can be administered via other sentence types, the author posits that legislature has overlooked the individual experience of punishment – that is, that each person experiences punishment differently, based on their own circumstances. For some, the deprivation of liberty through imprisonment may be less impactful than a community order sentence. Within this scope, the author notes the impact of gender, and the additional pains of imprisonment that can be observed in the 21st century. The author also reflects on public misunderstandings of sentences, fuelled in part by erroneous media reporting. The author concludes that a modern approach to punishment should consider the factors that lead to offending, and moreover, that increased public awareness of sentencing and the reasons why certain sentences are imposed, would be beneficial.</p><p>The second chapter reflects on sentencing to reduce crime and as a deterrent. In doing so, the author notes that judges’ conflation of punishment and deterrence makes it difficult to separate Chapters 1 and 2. Indeed, the author suggests that punishment and deterrence may be different sides of the same coin – one looking backward and punishing the offence, the other looking forward and deterring future offences. Drawing on this, they describe the concept of general deterrence, which aims to deter wider society, and specific deterrence, which focuses on the individual receiving punishment. Further, the author contrasts primary and secondary desistance, the former being the temporary cessation of offending behaviour, while the latter is the transformation of identity from an offender to non-offender. They argue that in England and Wales, the system struggles to provide opportunities for secondary desistance to occur, while discussing relevant efforts (e.g., the privatisation of parts of the National Probation Service's role through the use of Community Rehabilitation Companies). The author again looks to the role of the media, positing that for sentences to adequately deter potential offenders, they must be reported on correctly. Finally, they discuss the ‘Sword of Damocles’, first proposed by Cicero (pp.58–59). This proposes that if an individual knows that they will be punished, and that their punishment will be definite and immediate, they are less likely to offend. In this way, the threat of punishment may be enough of a deterrent.</p><p>Chapter 3 reviews sentencing as rehabilitation. This chapter, in the author's words, ‘stands part opposition, part reinforcement to the previous chapter, offering rehabilitation as both the opposite of punishment and yet also something that can serve as punishment itself’ (p.66). The author notes that a significant criticism, and indeed, great shame, may be that rehabilitation features only during the sentencing stage, by which time the defendant already has a conviction – the collateral impacts of which will be experienced. This chapter focuses largely on suspended sentence orders (SSOs) and community orders (COs). Again, the author notes disparities between public or victim's attitudes to sentencing and political imperatives, further advocating for increased public awareness of sentencing practices.</p><p>Chapter 4 looks to sentencing as protection. They consider the four primary recipients – the victim, potential future victims, society as a whole and in some cases, the defendants themselves. The author observes that the idea behind the application of the sentencing aims is that, in combination, they reduce future offending and, as a result, protect all parties from the negative effects of offending behaviour. However, each method of providing protection may have different reaches. The author goes on to say that the two main ways in which a focus on protection is visible is in mandatory minimum sentences and specific sentences for dangerous offenders. Building on this, the author reflects on the idea of dangerousness, asking: who is a dangerous offender? Again, the wide accessibility of this book is evidenced, as the author provides comprehensive detail on the offences that render an offender ‘dangerous’, exploring how the level of dangerousness is ascertained, and the accompanying available sentencing options. Further, the use of judges’ comments proves invaluable within this chapter. For example, in discussing the protection of society, the author highlights two cases in which the judge remarked on the good character of one and the need for community protection from the other. The author is critical of mandatory minimal sentencing, suggesting that unless the period of imprisonment is used to better equip the offender for a law-abiding life upon release, they are no more effective than a period of time set by a judge. Moreover, they point to the use of some sentences which may protect the community in the shorter term but come at a prohibitive cost to the offender. The author concludes by taking a wider comparative approach in this chapter, reflecting on the continued use of capital punishment in the United States and its stark contrast with the Norwegian approach.</p><p>Finally, Chapter 5 considers the aim of sentencing as reparation. Within this chapter, the author discusses restitution orders, the victim surcharge, court costs and COs and SSOs. They note that reparation is integrated throughout the sentencing process and highlight the importance of compensation within the criminal justice system by drawing attention to its mandatory nature. The author does not shy away from controversial elements of sentencing, for example, the victim surcharge. Within this chapter, the author also dedicates time to reviewing restorative justice procedures. While the use of restorative justice falls outside the remit of this book (applying to out-of-court disposals), the author identifies the strengths and challenges of this approach. Further, they note that a weakness of the English and Welsh system may be that restorative justice techniques are not available as a diversionary tactic, and instead rely on there being a conviction before it can take place.</p><p>In conclusion, this book seeks to illustrate the variety of judicial aims in sentencing and the ways in which they manifest in the day-to-day running of the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court. By using real sentencing remarks, the reader can ‘examine the theory through the prism of practice’ (p.127). Indeed, as the author points out, these sentencing remarks illustrate the difficult sentencing decisions that judges must undertake, even with sentencing guidelines in place. It is through these real-life examples that the gulf between practice and theory can be observed, and that the abstract becomes real.</p>","PeriodicalId":37514,"journal":{"name":"Howard Journal of Crime and Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hojo.12518","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Howard Journal of Crime and Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hojo.12518","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The author of this book, Elaine A.O. Freer, makes evident that the work does not attempt to cover all sentencing law, nor is it a systematic analysis of sentencing comments. Rather, the aim is to examine what can be understood as the five statutory sentencing aims and objectives that judges must consider in England and Wales: punishment; deterrence; rehabilitation; protection; and reparation (Sentencing Act 2020, s. 57(2)). Moreover, rather than viewing these aims from an abstract perspective, the author seeks to shed light on their implementation in practice – examining the process and purpose of sentencing, beyond the confines of its legalistic aspects. To do this, the author draws on cases in which the author, a practising barrister, was involved, and comments made by judges during sentencing. Chapters are titled and ordered by sentencing aim, allowing the reader to engage in the chapters on a stand-alone basis or as a whole. This book focuses only on the sentencing of adults.

The introductory chapter does, as the author notes, the ‘heavy lifting’ (p.19) in laying the foundations for this text. The author provides concise but comprehensive information on sentencing disposals in England and Wales, referencing legislation extensively throughout. This greatly enhances the accessibility of the book to a wide audience, appealing to those at all stages of academia, researchers and legal practitioners. Those with a limited background in law will find this chapter to be particularly insightful and relevant when engaging with the rest of the book.

The first chapter considers sentencing as a means of punishment. The author suggests that ‘the criminal justice system has adopted an overly simplistic obsession with punishment, driven by politicians’ misunderstanding of what the public actually want to happen to those who break the social contract by offending’ (p.21). To that end, they question whether imprisonment is the punishment or for punishment, discussing Sykes's (1958) pains of imprisonment. Reflecting on whether punishment can be administered via other sentence types, the author posits that legislature has overlooked the individual experience of punishment – that is, that each person experiences punishment differently, based on their own circumstances. For some, the deprivation of liberty through imprisonment may be less impactful than a community order sentence. Within this scope, the author notes the impact of gender, and the additional pains of imprisonment that can be observed in the 21st century. The author also reflects on public misunderstandings of sentences, fuelled in part by erroneous media reporting. The author concludes that a modern approach to punishment should consider the factors that lead to offending, and moreover, that increased public awareness of sentencing and the reasons why certain sentences are imposed, would be beneficial.

The second chapter reflects on sentencing to reduce crime and as a deterrent. In doing so, the author notes that judges’ conflation of punishment and deterrence makes it difficult to separate Chapters 1 and 2. Indeed, the author suggests that punishment and deterrence may be different sides of the same coin – one looking backward and punishing the offence, the other looking forward and deterring future offences. Drawing on this, they describe the concept of general deterrence, which aims to deter wider society, and specific deterrence, which focuses on the individual receiving punishment. Further, the author contrasts primary and secondary desistance, the former being the temporary cessation of offending behaviour, while the latter is the transformation of identity from an offender to non-offender. They argue that in England and Wales, the system struggles to provide opportunities for secondary desistance to occur, while discussing relevant efforts (e.g., the privatisation of parts of the National Probation Service's role through the use of Community Rehabilitation Companies). The author again looks to the role of the media, positing that for sentences to adequately deter potential offenders, they must be reported on correctly. Finally, they discuss the ‘Sword of Damocles’, first proposed by Cicero (pp.58–59). This proposes that if an individual knows that they will be punished, and that their punishment will be definite and immediate, they are less likely to offend. In this way, the threat of punishment may be enough of a deterrent.

Chapter 3 reviews sentencing as rehabilitation. This chapter, in the author's words, ‘stands part opposition, part reinforcement to the previous chapter, offering rehabilitation as both the opposite of punishment and yet also something that can serve as punishment itself’ (p.66). The author notes that a significant criticism, and indeed, great shame, may be that rehabilitation features only during the sentencing stage, by which time the defendant already has a conviction – the collateral impacts of which will be experienced. This chapter focuses largely on suspended sentence orders (SSOs) and community orders (COs). Again, the author notes disparities between public or victim's attitudes to sentencing and political imperatives, further advocating for increased public awareness of sentencing practices.

Chapter 4 looks to sentencing as protection. They consider the four primary recipients – the victim, potential future victims, society as a whole and in some cases, the defendants themselves. The author observes that the idea behind the application of the sentencing aims is that, in combination, they reduce future offending and, as a result, protect all parties from the negative effects of offending behaviour. However, each method of providing protection may have different reaches. The author goes on to say that the two main ways in which a focus on protection is visible is in mandatory minimum sentences and specific sentences for dangerous offenders. Building on this, the author reflects on the idea of dangerousness, asking: who is a dangerous offender? Again, the wide accessibility of this book is evidenced, as the author provides comprehensive detail on the offences that render an offender ‘dangerous’, exploring how the level of dangerousness is ascertained, and the accompanying available sentencing options. Further, the use of judges’ comments proves invaluable within this chapter. For example, in discussing the protection of society, the author highlights two cases in which the judge remarked on the good character of one and the need for community protection from the other. The author is critical of mandatory minimal sentencing, suggesting that unless the period of imprisonment is used to better equip the offender for a law-abiding life upon release, they are no more effective than a period of time set by a judge. Moreover, they point to the use of some sentences which may protect the community in the shorter term but come at a prohibitive cost to the offender. The author concludes by taking a wider comparative approach in this chapter, reflecting on the continued use of capital punishment in the United States and its stark contrast with the Norwegian approach.

Finally, Chapter 5 considers the aim of sentencing as reparation. Within this chapter, the author discusses restitution orders, the victim surcharge, court costs and COs and SSOs. They note that reparation is integrated throughout the sentencing process and highlight the importance of compensation within the criminal justice system by drawing attention to its mandatory nature. The author does not shy away from controversial elements of sentencing, for example, the victim surcharge. Within this chapter, the author also dedicates time to reviewing restorative justice procedures. While the use of restorative justice falls outside the remit of this book (applying to out-of-court disposals), the author identifies the strengths and challenges of this approach. Further, they note that a weakness of the English and Welsh system may be that restorative justice techniques are not available as a diversionary tactic, and instead rely on there being a conviction before it can take place.

In conclusion, this book seeks to illustrate the variety of judicial aims in sentencing and the ways in which they manifest in the day-to-day running of the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court. By using real sentencing remarks, the reader can ‘examine the theory through the prism of practice’ (p.127). Indeed, as the author points out, these sentencing remarks illustrate the difficult sentencing decisions that judges must undertake, even with sentencing guidelines in place. It is through these real-life examples that the gulf between practice and theory can be observed, and that the abstract becomes real.

《量刑:法律的新轨迹》,E.A.O.Freer著,阿宾顿:劳特利奇。2021年,第131页。44.99英镑(hbk);第146页。16.99英镑(pbk)。ISBN:9780067862619;9781032063027
这本书的作者伊莱恩·a·o·弗里尔(Elaine A.O. Freer)明确表示,这本书并没有试图涵盖所有的量刑法,也不是对量刑评论的系统分析。相反,其目的是研究英格兰和威尔士法官必须考虑的五个法定量刑目的和目标:惩罚;威慑;康复;保护;和赔偿(《2020年量刑法》第57(2)条)。此外,作者不是从抽象的角度看待这些目标,而是试图阐明它们在实践中的执行情况- -在法律方面的限制之外审查量刑的程序和目的。为了做到这一点,提交人引用了作为执业大律师的提交人所参与的案件以及法官在判刑时的评论。章节的标题和顺序是根据量刑目标,允许读者在独立的基础上或作为一个整体参与章节。这本书只关注对成年人的判决。正如作者所指出的,引言一章在为本文奠定基础方面做了“繁重的工作”(第19页)。作者就英格兰和威尔士的量刑处置提供了简明而全面的资料,并在整个过程中广泛引用了立法。这大大提高了本书对广大读者的可访问性,吸引了学术界、研究人员和法律从业人员的各个阶段。那些在法律背景有限的人会发现这一章是特别有见地和相关时,参与其余的书。第一章论述量刑作为一种刑罚手段。作者认为,“刑事司法系统对惩罚采取了过于简单化的执念,这是由于政客们误解了公众对那些违反社会契约的人的实际期望”(第21页)。为此,他们讨论了赛克斯(Sykes, 1958)的监禁之痛,质疑监禁是惩罚还是为了惩罚。在反思惩罚是否可以通过其他刑罚类型来执行时,作者认为立法机构忽视了惩罚的个人经历——即每个人根据自己的情况不同地经历惩罚。对一些人来说,通过监禁剥夺自由的影响可能不如社区秩序判决。在这个范围内,作者注意到性别的影响,以及在21世纪可以观察到的监禁的额外痛苦。作者还反思了公众对句子的误解,部分原因是媒体的错误报道。作者的结论是,一种现代的惩罚方法应该考虑到导致犯罪的因素,而且,提高公众对量刑和判处某些判决的原因的认识将是有益的。第二章反思量刑对减少犯罪和威慑的作用。在这样做时,发件人指出,法官将惩罚和威慑混为一谈使得很难将第1章和第2章分开。事实上,作者认为惩罚和威慑可能是同一枚硬币的两面——一面回顾过去惩罚犯罪,另一面展望未来威慑未来犯罪。在此基础上,他们描述了一般威慑和特定威慑的概念,前者旨在威慑更广泛的社会,后者关注的是受到惩罚的个人。此外,作者还对比了初级和次级抵抗,前者是暂时停止犯罪行为,而后者是将罪犯的身份从罪犯转变为非罪犯。他们认为,在英格兰和威尔士,在讨论相关努力(例如,通过使用社区康复公司将国家缓刑服务的部分角色私有化)的同时,该系统努力为二级戒毒的发生提供机会。作者再次着眼于媒体的作用,认为要使判决充分震慑潜在的罪犯,就必须对其进行正确报道。最后,他们讨论了西塞罗首先提出的“达摩克利斯之剑”(第58 - 59页)。这表明,如果一个人知道他们将受到惩罚,并且他们的惩罚将是明确和立即的,他们就不太可能犯罪。通过这种方式,惩罚的威胁可能足以起到威慑作用。第三章回顾量刑作为康复的意义。用作者的话说,这一章“部分反对前一章,部分加强前一章,提供康复作为惩罚的对立面,但也可以作为惩罚本身”(第66页)。发件人指出,一项重大的批评,实际上是极大的耻辱,可能是改造只在量刑阶段出现,到那时被告已经被定罪- -其附带影响将会经历。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice is an international peer-reviewed journal committed to publishing high quality theory, research and debate on all aspects of the relationship between crime and justice across the globe. It is a leading forum for conversation between academic theory and research and the cultures, policies and practices of the range of institutions concerned with harm, security and justice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信