From discretion to disagreement: explaining disparities in judges' pretrial decisions

Dhami, Mandeep K.

doi:10.1002/bsl.619

Cited by 52 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is consistent with judges' differences postulated by Baum (2010), the judicial disagreement explored by Dhami (2005) and also the disparity pattern found by Maguire (2010). These differences appear, in our data, in terms of both structure and content.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Sentence pronouncements: What judges say when sentencing

Rodrigues

Sacau

2013

European Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most studies about legal decision-making have been approached from a quantitative perspective and in the context of the Anglo-Saxon judicial tradition. Our study consists of a qualitative analysis of judges' sentence pronouncements in Portuguese courts. Sentence pronouncements are the moment when the decision is made public and, therefore, judges have to select which elements must be highlighted to the defendant. This trial moment is not clearly defined by the law, which gives judges the opportunity to develop it as they consider appropriate. Our results show that judges mainly transmit legal explanations and judges' viewpoints to offenders. The results also show that the structure and content of these oral presentations of sentencing show great variation among judges, panels of judges and situations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Sentence pronouncements: What judges say when sentencing

Rodrigues

Sacau

2013

European Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9(a-d). 13 As might be expected, given this scope for discretion in bail decision making and the lack of guidance in this area, research has found considerable variability in how decisions are made (see, for example, Dhami (2005), Hucklesby (1997) and various studies cited therein). Nonetheless, where bail is refused in instances where the statutory right to bail applies, the court is under a duty to explain its decision, and provide reasons for the refusal.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In addition, it can take into account any other matters deemed to be 'relevant' thereby affording decision makers considerable discretion (Dhami 2005). 13 Yet there has been remarkably little guidance offered to the courts on how this discretion should be exercised.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Remanded in Custody: An Analysis of Recent Trends in England and Wales

Player¹,

Roberts²,

Jacobson³

et al. 2010

The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article present statistics on remand in custody in England and Wales. Currently, these statistics are spread across a wide range of government statistical publications, making it challenging to determine trends. We demonstrate that decisions to remand in custody are not a major contribution to prison overcrowding. However, it is important from perspectives both of human rights and economy to keep trends under close review, and to search for better ways of reducing the remand population in prisons. At the end of the article we review a number of strategies designed to reduce the remand population in this jurisdiction.The rapid growth of the prison population in England and Wales over the past 15 years has attracted widespread media attention as well as public and political commentary. However, to date, discussion about the problem and the likely efficacy of various remedies has focused exclusively on the sentenced custodial population; little attention has been paid to the remanded population. Nor has there been any significant discussion about the fairness or the effectiveness of current remand practice. Remand decisions -often taken very quickly -result in the incarceration of significant numbers of individuals every year. The experience of imprisonment on remand can be immensely stressful and upsetting, particularly given the inherent uncertainty of the situation, and for many prisoners it can be as damaging to their social, domestic, and financial circumstances as a period of imprisonment under sentence. However, 'unlike sentencing practice the bail decision has attracted relatively little academic or public debate, yet it is a decision that has profound implications for the human rights of

show abstract

“…In other words, the prosecutors' recommendations predicted bail decisions in the observed cases 54 . These findings, showing little correspondence between what judges articulated as primary considerations motivating their decisions and their actual behaviour, were replicated in the UK in a series of archival and experimental studies of bail decisions 55 . The magistrates are required to state reasons for imposing conditions on bail.…”

Section: Correspondence Between Articulated Reasons and Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 93%

Unconscious influences in sentencing decisions: a research review of psychological sources of disparity

Goodman‐Delahunty

Sporer

2010

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on theoretical insights from basic psychological research, influences sourced in unanticipated or extra-legal aspects of criminal cases that can influence sentencing decisions are reviewed. Findings from empirical studies of observed disparities in sentencing decisions are summarized, including archival data, observational studies, field research and experimental investigations of simulated sentencing decisions. A criterion for inclusion was that the factor had to exert an influence outside the conscious awareness of the judge. The paper examines the effects on sentencing of some traditional extra-legal factors, such as judge and offender gender, as well as less traditional elements, such as the judge's attitudes and sentencing philosophy, the physical appearance of the offender, unforeseeable consequences of the crime, and reactions to acts of terrorism. Four sources of potential bias are distinguished: (a) features associated with the judge; (b) features associated with the offender, (c) unanticipated or remote consequences of the offence, and (d) contextual information at the time of the sentencing decision that heightens awareness of mortality. The effectiveness of sentencing reforms to reduce disparities arising from unconscious factors is discussed. The purpose of this review is to advance understanding of the psychology of sentencing and increase judicial and public awareness of unconscious biases and disparities in sentencing determinations.

show abstract

From discretion to disagreement: explaining disparities in judges' pretrial decisions

Cited by 52 publications

References 39 publications

Sentence pronouncements: What judges say when sentencing

Sentence pronouncements: What judges say when sentencing

Remanded in Custody: An Analysis of Recent Trends in England and Wales

Unconscious influences in sentencing decisions: a research review of psychological sources of disparity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About