Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Directions for Research and Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sentencing: A Social Process

Part of the book series: Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies ((PSLS))

  • 916 Accesses

Abstract

Sentencing scholarship has been marked by an impatience to solve perceived normative problems. The preoccupations of the legal-rational and judicial-defensive traditions respectively for and against reform impedes the development of a deeper conceptualisation of the reality of sentencing decision-making. Recapping key messages of the book, this chapter develops the normative implications for key policy and reform conundrums, including rules and discretion; consistency and individualisation in sentencing; the efficiency and quality of justice; and the effectiveness of punishment. The reader is invited to reflect on questions comprising the development of a research agenda re-conceptualising sentencing as a social process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Professions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Abei, M., Delgrande, N., & Marguet, Y. (2015). Have Community Sanctions and Measures Widened the Net of the European Criminal Justice Systems? Punishment & Society, 17(5), 575–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2013). The Struggle for Supremacy in Sentencing. In A. Ashworth & J. Roberts (Eds.), Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring the English Model (pp. 15–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandes, S. (2015). Remorse and Criminal Justice. Emotion Review, 8(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, M. (1992). The Myth of Discretion. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The Uses of Discretion (pp. 129–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, M., & Maguire, N. (Eds.). (2017). The Enforcement of Offender Supervision in Europe. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canton, R., & Dominey, J. (2018). Probation. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlen, P. (1976). Magistrates’ Justice. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper, J. (1972). American Criminal Justice: The Defendant’s Perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, K., Chui, W., Young, S., & Ong, R. (2018). Why Do Criminal Trials ‘Crack’? An Investigation into Late Guilty Pleas in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 13(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of Social Control. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cover, R. (1986). Violence and the Word. Yale Law Journal, 95, 1601–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, D., & Moorhead, R. (2007). Judgecraft. Social & Legal Studies, 16(3), 315–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (1999). Queer Property, Queer Persons: Self-Ownership and Beyond. Social & Legal Studies, 8(3), 327–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2007). Property: Meanings, Histories, Theories. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H. (1977). Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M. (1982). Plea Bargaining and the Structure of the Criminal Courts. Justice System Journal, 7(3), 338–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M. (1979). The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, A., & Freiberg, A. (2018). Plea Negotiations: Pragmatic Justice in an Imperfect World. London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). Knowledge/Power. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and Modern Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, P. (2016). Justice Denied? The Experience of Unrepresented Defendants in the Criminal Courts. London: Transform Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormley, J., & Tata, C. (2019, in press). ‘To Plead or Not to Plead? “Guilty” Is the Question: Re-thinking Plea Decision-Making in Anglo-American Countries. In C. Spohn & P. Brennan (Eds.), Sentencing Policies and Practices in the 21st Century. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M. (2016). The Lived Sentence: Rethinking Sentencing, Risk and Rehabilitation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heumann, M. (1975). A Note on Plea Bargaining and Case Pressure. Law & Society Review, 9(3), 515–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heumann, M. (1978). Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, J. (1971). Sentencing as a Human Process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office. (1961). Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Business of the Criminal Courts. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough, M., & Park, A. (2002). How Malleable Are Attitudes to Crime and Punishment? In V. Roberts & M. Hough (Eds.), Changing Attitudes to Punishment (pp. 163–183). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, J., Hunter, G., & Kirby, A. (2015). Inside Crown Court. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T. (1972). Professions and Power. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, V. (2008). A Scoping Study Adopting a “Whole-Systems” Approach to the Processing of Cases in the Youth Courts. Legal Services Research Centre, Legal Services Commission Research Findings. London: UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, N. (2018). Women, Crime and Character in the Twentieth Century. Journal of the British Academy, 6, 131–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leibling, A. (2000). Prison Officers, Policing and the Use of Discretion. Theoretical Criminology, 4(3), 333–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (2010). Street Level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, G. (2016). What Is the Impact of Probation in Advising Sentencing and Promoting Community Sanctions and Measures? In F. McNeill, I. Durnescu, & R. Butter (Eds.), Probation: 12 Essential Questions. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather, L. M. (1979). Plea Bargaining or Trial? The Process of Criminal-Case Disposition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, B. (2016). Comparing Trends in Convictions and Non-Court Disposals in Scotland. Scottish Justice Matters, 4(1), 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2007). Youth Justice? The Impact of System Contact on Patterns of Desistance from Offending. European Journal of Criminology, 4(3), 315–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2010). Youth Crime and Justice: Key Messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 10(2), 179–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBarnet, D., & Whelan, C. (1991). The Elusive Spirit of Law: Legal Formalism and the Struggle for Legal Control. Modern Law Review, 54(6), 848–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, C. (1983). Politics and Plea Bargaining: Victims’ Rights in California. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, F. (2015). Desistance and Criminal Justice in Scotland. In H. Croall, G. Mooney, & M. Munro (Eds.), Crime, Justice and Society in Scotland. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, F. (2019). Pervasive Punishment: Making Sense of Mass Supervision. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, F., & Beyens, K. (2013). Introduction: Studying Mass Supervision. In F. McNeill and K. Beyens (Eds.), Offender Supervision in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, F., & Weaver, B. (2010). Changing Lives? Desistance Research and Offender Management (SCCJR Project Report; No. 03/2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. (2003). Thinking About the Demand for Probation Services. Probation Journal, 50(1), 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R., & Haines, K. (2007). Services Before Trial and Sentence. In L. Gelsthorpe & R. Morgan (Eds.), Handbook of Probation (pp. 182–209). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, N. (1974). The Future of Imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedelsky, J. (2011). Law’s Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, M. (2013). The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1–2), 51–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, P. (1990). Book Review: Social Inquiry Reports by Bottoms and Stelman. British Journal of Criminology, 30, 109–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach Anleu, S., & Mack, K. (2017). Performing Judicial Authority in the Lower Courts. London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., & von Hirsch, A. (2014). Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives. Oxford: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schinkel, M. (2014). Being Imprisoned. London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Executive. (2000). National Standards for Social Enquiry and Related Reports and Court Based Social Work Services. Edinburgh: Social Work Services Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Government. (2015). Evaluation of Community Payback Orders. Criminal Justice Social Work Reports and the Presumption Against Short Sentences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tait, D. (2002). Sentencing as Performance: Restoring Drama to the Courtroom. In C. Tata & N. Hutton (Eds.), Sentencing & Society: International Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tata, C. (2007). In the Interests of Clients or Commerce? Legal Aid, Supply, Demand, and ‘Ethical Indeterminacy’ in Criminal Defence Work. Journal of Law & Society, 34(4), 489–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tata, C. (2018). Reducing Prison Sentencing Through Pre-Sentence Reports? Why the Quasi-Market Logic of ‘Selling Alternatives to Custody’ Fails. Howard Journal of Crime & Justice, 57(5), 472–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tata, C. (2019). “Ritual Individualization” Creative Genius at Sentencing, Mitigation and Conviction. Journal of Law & Society, 46(1), 112–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tata, C., Burns, N., Halliday, S., Hutton, N., & McNeill, F. (2008). Assisting and Advising the Sentencing Decision Process: The Pursuit of ‘Quality’ in Pre-sentence Reports. British Journal of Criminology, 48(6), 835–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tata, C., & Hutton, N. (1998). What “Rules” in Sentencing? Consistency and Disparity in the Absence of “Rules”. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 26(3), 339–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, E., Clarke, R., & McArt, D. (2014). The Intensive Alternative to Custody: “Selling” Sentences and Satisfying Judicial Concerns. Probation Journal, 61(1), 44–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (2016). Sentencing Fragments: Penal Reform in America, 1975–2025. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, M. E. (2007). Coercion to Compromise: Plea Bargaining, the Courts, and the Making of Political Authority. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A., Knapp, K., & Tonry, M. (1987). The Sentencing Commission and Its Guidelines. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, B. (2016). Offending and Desistance: The Importance of Social Relations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, B., & Barry, M. (2014). Managing High Risk Offenders in the Community. European Journal of Probation, 6(3), 278–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigend, T. (2006). Why Have a Trial When You Can Have a Bargain? In A. Duff, L. Farmer, S. Marshall, & V. Tadros (Eds.), The Trial on Trial: Volume 2 Judgment and Calling to Account (pp. 207–222). Portland: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

    Cyrus Tata

Authors
  1. Cyrus Tata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cyrus Tata .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tata, C. (2020). New Directions for Research and Policy. In: Sentencing: A Social Process. Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01060-7_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01060-7_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01059-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01060-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation