skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 51501 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: SENTENCING - DISCRETION AND JUSTICE IN JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING (FROM PSYCHOLOGY IN THE LEGAL PROCESS, 1977, BY BRUCE D SALES - SEE NCJ-51491)
Author(s): W AUSTIN; M K UTNE
Corporate Author: Spectrum Publications, Inc
United States of America
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 32
Sponsoring Agency: Spectrum Publications, Inc
Jamaica, NY 11432
US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare
Rockville, MD 20857
Grant Number: MH27203-01
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THE STRUCTURAL, PERSONAL, AND INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCES ON JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING ARE DESCRIBED, WITH REFERENCE TO RESEARCH FINDINGS.
Abstract: AN OVERVIEW OF JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING IDENTIFIES SOURCES OF TENSION--THE GENERAL LAW VERSUS THE SPECIFIC CASE, RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICTING EXPECTATIONS ABOUT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AND THE PROPER FUNCTION OF PUNISHMENT--IN THE JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING PROCESS. RESEARCH ON EXTRALEGAL FACTORS THAT SEEM TO INFLUENCE JUDICIAL DECISIONS IS CITED IN A DISCUSSION OF THE ROLE OF DISCRETION IN JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING. SIX GENERAL GOALS OF LEGAL SANCTION--JUSTICE, RETRIBUTION, VALUE AFFIRMATION, DETERRENCE, REHABILITATION, AND EFFICIENCY--ARE EXAMINED FOR THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT ANY ONE OF SEVERAL GOALS MAY BE SALIENT IN ANY GIVEN DECISION, AND WEIGHTS ASSIGNED TO THE VARIOUS MOTIVES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF OFFENSES AND OFFENDERS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SOME BASIC QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN THE CHARACTER OF JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING, SUCH AS THOSE RECOMMENDED IN PROPOSALS TO CURTAIL JUDGES' DISCRETION, ARE UNDERTAKEN. THESE QUESTIONS CONCERN THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND MOTIVATIONAL BASIS OF JUDICIAL SANCTION, WAYS OF INTEGRATING PHILOSOPHY AND POLICY, THE EXTENT TO WHICH JUDGES' FLEXIBILITY SHOULD BE LIMITED, AND THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FACTORS THAT SHOULD LEGITIMATELY INFLUENCE SENTENCES. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS PROVIDED. (LKM)
Index Term(s): Judicial discretion; Sentencing/Sanctions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=51501

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.