Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:25 pm
Time: 11:25 pm
Results for judicial decision-making
8 results foundAuthor: Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center Title: Sentencing Guidelines: Australia, England and Wales, India, South Africa, Uganda Summary: Sentencing guidelines in the common law countries of Australia, England and Wales, India, South Africa, and Uganda vary significantly. England and Wales have a Sentencing Council that develops offense-specific guidelines that the courts must follow, while Uganda's Supreme Court has developed guidelines that are advisory only. In India and Australia, no formal guidelines exist and judges retain wide discretion in sentencing, but both countries have mechanisms in place to provide general guidance-in Australia through state legislation and in India through a series of court decisions that identify relevant sentencing factors. Details: Washington, DC: Law Library of Congress, 2014. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2014 at: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/sentencing-guidelines/sentencing-guidelines.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/sentencing-guidelines/sentencing-guidelines.pdf Shelf Number: 133423 Keywords: CourtsJudicial Decision-MakingSentencing Guidelines |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Pre-charge bail: summary of consultation responses and proposals for legislation Summary: The Government consulted1 on a series of measures whose intended impact was to reduce both the number of individuals subject to, and the average duration of, pre-charge bail. This consultation was open from 18 December 2014 until 8 February 2015 and was complementary to that carried out by the College of Policing between 27 March and 21 July 20142, the responses to which were published on 11 December 20143. The Government published proposals to reform the statutory framework for pre-charge bail on 18 December 2014 and the consultation period closed on 8 February 2015. Exactly 300 responses were received; a statistical breakdown and list of respondents are at the end of this document. The key themes emerging from the responses were: The main benefit of introducing statutory limits for pre-charge bail durations that people expected to see was a more focussed police investigation leading to speedier justice for the victim and accused. Other commonly raised benefits were that it would be a fairer system, protecting suspects' human rights and civil liberties; that there would be a reduction in the negative effects for individuals on bail and their families, including emotional or mental trauma and financial implications. 62 respondents (including 50 from police forces) also said that they perceived no benefits from introducing a statutory limit for pre-charge bail. While 62.3% of respondents did not respond to Question 10, which asked if any other criteria should be added or substituted for the authorising of a bail extension, the most commonly raised suggestion was that matters outside of police control should be taken into account, for example Crown Prosecution Service timescales, forensic examinations (including digital) and international enquiries. Other common suggestions included consideration of the needs of victims of crime, including safeguarding requirements and where there are special interview requirements. Also raised were the need to safeguard complex investigations, and introducing a proportionality and necessity test to releasing people on pre-charge bail. Of the 119 people (40%) who provided a response highlighting resource implications of each model, the most commonly raised issues were around the need for increased resources, including greater staff numbers. A number of respondents raised the increase in time and cost that would result from the proposals, and also raised concern around safeguarding of victims and witnesses, that the proposals would reduce the ability to investigate crime and lead to more cases being marked for "no further action" resulting in a potential lack of justice. Other themes included an increased court workload, and increase in officer time spent at court. Having considered the volume data compiled on the basis of the police's data collection, the Ministry of Justice was concerned that the number of cases that would fall to be considered in the Crown Court would exceed the available capacity in Crown Court centres. Given that the overwhelming majority of cases where pre-charge bail exceeds twelve months are dealt with in large urban centres, where District Judges (Magistrates Courts) sit regularly, it would be possible for applications to be considered by professional judges in the magistrates' courts and we will work with HM Courts & Tribunals Service and the judiciary to ensure there is a presumption that this should happen with these cases. On that basis, the Government has decided to have all pre-charge bail hearings dealt with in the magistrates' courts. Responses were received from across the country, the highest response rates were received from the South East of England (27.3% of responses), Greater London (15%) and the West Midlands (11.3%). The lowest levels of response were from Wales (3.7% of responses), North East England (1.7%) and Yorkshire and the Humber (1.3%). Two thirds of respondents favoured tightening of pre-charge bail and agreed to the principle of judicial oversight. Of the 135 respondents who expressed a preference, 78 favoured Model 2 (58%). Reasons for this included the cost implications of early court hearings, given the high volumes of cases at the earliest stage, and noted that many straightforward investigations require a degree of forensic analysis that will not be completed within 28 days, but would be within three months. Concern was also expressed that, particularly with a 28-day "limit", investigations might be rushed inappropriately to the potential detriment of victims. A number of respondents argued for the 28-day review to be done by a Superintendent rather than a Chief Superintendent, as this rank is being phased out in a number of forces; we will change this. Taking account of the consultation responses and the various factors set out above, we propose to legislate to provide for Model 2 as the Government's preferred approach to the reform of pre-charge bail. However, in their response to the consultation, the police proposed a third model, which retains pre-charge bail authorisation within police forces for six months (judicial oversight thereafter) but with clear necessity and proportionality tests at 28 days and three months and with strong senior oversight. While, in the absence of legislative change, we would support all voluntary steps that police forces take to improve scrutiny and accountability for pre-charge bail decisions, the Government is clear that the police's proposed model does not go far enough. The Government also proposes to legislate to: - Enable the police to release someone pending further investigation without bail in circumstances where bail is not considered to be necessary; - Provide for a presumption to release without bail, with bail only being imposed when it is both "necessary" (e.g. where there is a need for conditions) and "proportionate" (for example, bail with onerous conditions is unlikely to be proportionate in a case where a low level non-custodial sentence would be the likely outcome, even if convicted); - Set a clear expectation that pre-charge bail should not last longer than a specified finite period of 28 days, as recommended by the College of Policing; - Set the extenuating circumstances in which that period might be extended further, and who should make that decision; - Establish a framework for the review by the courts of pre-charge bail; - Make clear that, where an individual has been released without bail while analysis takes place of large volumes of material, the police can make a further arrest where key evidence is identified as a result of the analysis of that material that could not reasonably have been done while the suspect was in custody or on bail; and - Provide in rules of court for a Public Interest Immunity-type procedure to withhold sensitive information from a suspect where its disclosure could harm the investigation, such as where disclosure might enable the suspect to dispose of or tamper with evidence, with a presumption of full disclosure at any subsequent trial. Legislation to give effect to these proposals would need to be taken forward in the next Parliament. As well as these changes in legislation, we will begin work immediately with the College of Policing and other bodies across the public sector to put in place memoranda of understanding to enable the police to access material required as part of a criminal investigation in a timely and efficient manner. We will also explore with the senior judiciary and the College of Policing what guidance might be given to custody officers and magistrates on the appropriate conditions of bail in particular circumstances. Details: London: Home Office, 2015. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418226/150323_Pre-Charge_Bail_-_Responses___Proposals.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418226/150323_Pre-Charge_Bail_-_Responses___Proposals.pdf Shelf Number: 135152 Keywords: Bail (U.K.)Criminal CourtsJudgesJudicial Decision-Making |
Author: Depew, Briggs Title: Judges, Juveniles and In-Group Bias Summary: We investigate the existence of in-group bias (preferential treatment of one's own group) in court decisions. Using the universe of juvenile court cases in a U.S. state between 1996 and 2012 and exploiting random assignment of juvenile defendants to judges, we find evidence for negative racial in-group bias in judicial decisions. All else the same, black (white) juveniles who are randomly assigned to black (white) judges are more likely to get incarcerated (as opposed to being placed on probation), and they receive longer sentences. Although observed in experimental settings, this is the first empirical evidence of negative in-group bias, based on a randomization design outside of the lab. Explanations for this finding are provided. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 22003: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22003.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22003.pdf Shelf Number: 137952 Keywords: JudgesJudicial Decision-MakingJuvenile CourtJuvenile DefendantsJuvenile OffendersRacial BiasRacial Discrimination |
Author: Danner, Mona J.E. Title: Risk-Based Pretrial Release Recommendation and Supervision Guidelines: Exploring the Effect on Officer Recommendations, Judicial Decision-Making, and Pretrial Outcome Summary: The Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI), known nationally as the "Virginia Model," was the first research-based statewide pretrial risk assessment in the country. The VPRAI examines eight risk factors that are weighted to create a risk score, and defendants are assigned to one of five risk levels ranging from low to high that represent the likelihood of pretrial failure. Although Pretrial Services staff consider the results of the VPRAI, there was previously no guidance for making pretrial release recommendations to the court or determining appropriate levels of pretrial supervision until the development of the Praxis. The Praxis is a decision grid that uses the VPRAI risk level and the charge category to determine the appropriate release type and level of supervision. Further, recent research indicates that the administration of evidence-based supervision techniques to pretrial defendants is associated with reductions in failure to appear and re-arrest. The Strategies for Effective Pretrial Supervision (STEPS) program was developed to shift the focus of typical staff/defendant interaction from conditions compliance to criminogenic needs and eliciting prosocial behavior. The current research project tested the use of both the Praxis release recommendation and supervision guidelines, and the STEPS evidence-based supervision techniques in an agency random assignment study. The research examined the effect of the Praxis on pretrial officer release recommendations, judicial release decisions, and pretrial supervision practices, and the effect of the Praxis and STEPS supervision techniques on pretrial outcomes" (p. 1). Seven research questions are organized into three research objectives: what the underlying assumptions of the Praxis are in relation to VPRAI and charge category; the impact of Praxis on pretrial officer release recommendations, judicial released decision, and differential pretrial supervision practices; and the influence of Praxis and evidence-based supervision techniques on pretrial outcomes (court appearance, public safety, and compliance with release conditions). Details: St Petersburg, FL: Luminosity, 2015. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Risk%20Based%20Pretrial%20Release%20Rec%20&%20Superv%20Guidelines%20-%20Danner,%20VanNostrand,%20&%20Spruance%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Risk%20Based%20Pretrial%20Release%20Rec%20&%20Superv%20Guidelines%20-%20Danner,%20VanNostrand,%20&%20Spruance%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 139855 Keywords: BailJudicial Decision-MakingPretrial ReleaseRisk-Assessment |
Author: de Casio, Ana Cardenas Gonzalez Title: The Effect of the 'War on Organised Crime' on the Mexican Federal Judiciary: A Comparative Case Study of Judicial Decision-Making Summary: Using a comparative case study design, this thesis explores the impact on the Mexican federal judiciary of steep rises in violent crime, proliferation of armed organised crime groups, greater involvement of the military in crime control activities and the government's 'war on organised crime'. The thesis develops 'enemy penology' as a theoretical framework based on the observation that the Mexican government has increasingly conceptualised offenders as enemies and called for an explicitly militarised criminal justice response. Drawing on this theoretical framework, the thesis analyses qualitative data from two different sites - a 'crime control as warfare' scenario (highly militarised state) and an unchanged context (less militarised state). Findings are examined within the enemy penology framework and also drawing on theories of judicial behaviour and judicial roles in order to explain the overarching finding that judges seem to have insulated themselves from the 'enemy penology' promulgated by the government. Analysis of 40 written judgements in drug cases and 28 semi-structured interviews with judges (drawn from a total of 56 interviews achieved during the fieldwork) indicated that decision making, guilt determination and sentencing were almost identical in the two locations despite stark differences in context. In both locations, the study observed an inclination to privilege police evidence, high conviction rates despite poor prosecutorial performance and insufficient evidence, and a tendency to impose minimum sentences. Interviewees discussed these issues as well as the impact of armed criminality, military involvement in crime control and judicial independence. Overall, the Federal judiciary appeared to be not influenced by the enemy penology paradigm reproduced by public officials and criminal policies. Mexican judicial behaviour was found to be strongly shaped by a formalistic and legalistic understanding of judicial duties where accuracy in law interpretation is expected, disregarding other goals, including politics and policy considerations. This understanding is enhanced by the judiciary through strict observance of precedents, reversals and enhancing law-interpreter and ritualist judicial roles. Nonetheless, the empirical data also showed that judges' views and opinions are informed by strategic goals, attitudes, motives, managerial needs and the pursuit of self-respect and recognition. In sum, examining court judgements and judges' views about deciding cases in the light of the prevalent 'enemy penology' provided a rich understanding of the way decision- making in criminal matters is constructed by judges as well as the complex and often contradictory layers that comprise the image and role of the Mexican federal judge. Details: London: King's College London, Dickson Poon School of Law, 2016. 332p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 13, 2016 at: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/57599059/2016_Gonz_lez_De_Cos_o_Ana_C_rdenas_1140394_ethesis.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Mexico URL: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/57599059/2016_Gonz_lez_De_Cos_o_Ana_C_rdenas_1140394_ethesis.pdf Shelf Number: 145441 Keywords: Drug OffendersJudgesJudicial Decision-MakingOrganized CrimeProsecutorsViolent Crime |
Author: Kleinberg, Jon Title: Human Decisions and Machine Predictions Summary: We examine how machine learning can be used to improve and understand human decision-making. In particular, we focus on a decision that has important policy consequences. Millions of times each year, judges must decide where defendants will await trial - at home or in jail. By law, this decision hinges on the judge's prediction of what the defendant would do if released. This is a promising machine learning application because it is a concrete prediction task for which there is a large volume of data available. Yet comparing the algorithm to the judge proves complicated. First, the data are themselves generated by prior judge decisions. We only observe crime outcomes for released defendants, not for those judges detained. This makes it hard to evaluate counterfactual decision rules based on algorithmic predictions. Second, judges may have a broader set of preferences than the single variable that the algorithm focuses on; for instance, judges may care about racial inequities or about specific crimes (such as violent crimes) rather than just overall crime risk. We deal with these problems using different econometric strategies, such as quasi-random assignment of cases to judges. Even accounting for these concerns, our results suggest potentially large welfare gains: a policy simulation shows crime can be reduced by up to 24.8% with no change in jailing rates, or jail populations can be reduced by 42.0% with no increase in crime rates. Moreover, we see reductions in all categories of crime, including violent ones. Importantly, such gains can be had while also significantly reducing the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics in jail. We find similar results in a national dataset as well. In addition, by focusing the algorithm on predicting judges' decisions, rather than defendant behavior, we gain some insight into decision-making: a key problem appears to be that judges to respond to 'noise' as if it were signal. These results suggest that while machine learning can be valuable, realizing this value requires integrating these tools into an economic framework: being clear about the link between predictions and decisions; specifying the scope of payoff functions; and constructing unbiased decision counterfactuals. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper no. 23180: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23180.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23180.pdf Shelf Number: 146686 Keywords: Decision-MakingJudgesJudicial Decision-MakingJudicial DiscretionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Arnold, David Title: Racial Bias in Bail Decisions Summary: This paper develops a new test for identifying racial bias in the context of bail decisions - a high-stakes setting with large disparities between white and black defendants. We motivate our analysis using Becker's (1957) model of racial bias, which predicts that rates of pre-trial misconduct will be identical for marginal white and marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially unbiased. In contrast, marginal white defendants will have a higher probability of misconduct than marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially biased against blacks. To test the model, we develop a new estimator that uses the release tendencies of quasi-randomly assigned bail judges to identify the relevant race-specific misconduct rates. Estimates from Miami and Philadelphia show that bail judges are racially biased against black defendants, with substantially more racial bias among both inexperienced and part-time judges. We also find that both black and white judges are biased against black defendants. We argue that these results are consistent with bail judges making racially biased prediction errors, rather than being racially prejudiced per se. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 23421: Accessed May 22, 2017 at: https://www.princeton.edu/~wdobbie/files/racialbias.pdf; http://www.nber.org/papers/w23421 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.princeton.edu/~wdobbie/files/racialbias.pdf Shelf Number: 145664 Keywords: BailJudicial Decision-MakingPretrial ReleaseRacial BiasRacial DiscriminationRisk Prediction |
Author: Leibovitch, Adi Title: Punishing on a Curve Summary: Does the punishment of one defendant change because of how she fares in comparison to the other defendants on the judge's docket? This article demonstrates that the troubling answer is yes. Judges sentence the same case more harshly when their caseloads contain relatively milder offenses, and more leniently when their caseloads contain more serious crimes. I call this problem "punishing on a curve." Consequently, the article shows how such relative sentencing patterns put into question the prevailing practice of establishing specialized courts or courts of limited jurisdiction. Because judges are punishing on a curve, the court's jurisdiction systematically shapes sentencing outcomes. Courts of limited jurisdiction usually specialize in relatively less serious crimes (such as misdemeanors, drug offenses, or juvenile cases). They treat the mild offenses on their docket more harshly than generalist courts, that also see severe crimes, would have treated them. This leads to the disturbing effect of increasing punitive outcomes vis-aa-vis these offenses, wholly contradictory to the missions of these courts. Such sentencing patterns undermine notions of justice and equitable treatment. They also undermine retributive principles and marginal deterrence across crimes of increasing severity. In light of the profound normative and practical implications, the article offers a remedy to standardize sentences through "statistical curving." In addition to consulting the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines for a particular offense, a judge should see the distribution of sentences for the same offense across different courts. The article illustrates the feasibility of the proposal empirically using sentencing data from neighboring judicial districts in Pennsylvania. It also explains how this proposal fits within the Supreme Court's jurisprudence following United States v. Booker, which rendered the sentencing guidelines advisory, and its potential advantage in improving appellate review. Details: Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 111, 2017, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2820197 Source: Internet Resource: Accessed Oct. 6, 2017 at: Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2820197 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2820197 Shelf Number: 147593 Keywords: Criminal CourtsJudicial Decision-MakingPunishmentSentencingSentencing Bias |