Equality and Human Dignity: The Missing Ingredients in American Sentencing

Tonry, Michael

doi:10.1086/686256

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As previously stated, social exclusion and shame increase the likelihood of reoffending and work against the purported mission of punishment and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, as Tonry (2016) argues, changing society's mindset is extremely difficult. He explains how the process of changing attitudes in society is slow and complicated, usually the result of intense social movements (Tonry, 2016).…”

Section: Community Membersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“We’re Silent Heroes”: Inmate Firefighters’ Experiences with Dignity and Shame in a Prison Labor Program

VanderPyl

2021

The Prison Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adults in custody (AICs) in a prison labor program experience conflicting messages and feelings of shame and dignity. Despite the program’s mission to help ease reentry, experiences of shame and shaming from correctional officers (COs) and the community may be setting AICs up for an increased likelihood of reoffending upon release. Using the concepts of shame and dignity, 21 program interviewee narratives were explored for their insights. Program improvements and recommendations for interventions with correctional officers, AICs, and the community are offered.

show abstract

Section: Community Membersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, as Tonry (2016) argues, changing society's mindset is extremely difficult. He explains how the process of changing attitudes in society is slow and complicated, usually the result of intense social movements (Tonry, 2016).…”

Section: Community Membersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“We’re Silent Heroes”: Inmate Firefighters’ Experiences with Dignity and Shame in a Prison Labor Program

VanderPyl

2021

The Prison Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Extensive research efforts have been dedicated to the exploration of sentencing disparities; Ulmer & Bradley (2018) and Ulmer (2012) both offer good summaries of the relevant literature. Identifying the specific factors behind these disparities has long been seen as a key task in sentencing scholarship -arguably as the field's most burning question (Spohn, 2015;Tonry, 2016;Ulmer, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Value of Judicial Experience? Exploring Judge Trajectories Using Longitudinal Data

Drápal

Pina-Sánchez

2022

Justice Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judicial experience is considered essential for the proper functioning of the sentencing system. We investigate how it influences judicial decisions and its role in reducing sentencing disparity. To do so, we analyze all Czech criminal decisions imposed in 2007-2017 using data that includes judge identifiers. This unique feature of our data enables us to measure judges' experience directly, as the number of criminal cases processed, and to assess patterns in between-judge disparities longitudinally over the course of judges' careers. We find that experienced judges impose more prison sentences, decide fewer cases via shortened procedure and find fewer defendants guilty. In addition, as judges become more experienced, between-judge disparities reduce across all the outcomes considered. Experience is thus an instrumental factor affecting judicial decisions throughout the criminal process, and one that contributes to greater consistency.

show abstract

“…This approach may be justified on retributive and incapacitative grounds (von Hirsch and Ashworth 1992; cf. Tonry 2016). However, its utility in reducing recidivism remains debated (see, generally, Cochran, Mears, and Bales 2014; Cullen, Jonson, and Nagin 2011; Gaes 2016; Mears, Cochran, and Cullen 2015; R.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Progressively Tougher Sanctioning and Recidivism

Mears

Cochran

2017

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The study tests two related hypotheses about recidivist sentencing premiums and the progressive sanctioning logic on which they rest: (1) among first-time felons, punitive sanctions will more effectively reduce recidivism than will less severe sanctions and (2) among second-time felons, progressively tougher sanctions will more effectively reduce recidivism than will progressions to comparable or less severe sanctions. Method: We use data on first-time and second-time felons and propensity score matching analyses to test these two hypotheses. Results: Although tougher punishment, and increasingly tougher punishment among second-time offenders, may sometimes reduce recidivism, less severe punishment appears on average to be more effective. Conclusions: The results raise questions about the effects of both tougher, and progressively tougher, types of sanctions in efforts to reduce recidivism.

show abstract

Equality and Human Dignity: The Missing Ingredients in American Sentencing

Cited by 4 publications

References 17 publications

“We’re Silent Heroes”: Inmate Firefighters’ Experiences with Dignity and Shame in a Prison Labor Program

“We’re Silent Heroes”: Inmate Firefighters’ Experiences with Dignity and Shame in a Prison Labor Program

What is the Value of Judicial Experience? Exploring Judge Trajectories Using Longitudinal Data

Progressively Tougher Sanctioning and Recidivism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About