The sentencing process
著者
書誌事項
The sentencing process
(The international library of criminology, criminal justice and penology)
Dartmouth, c1997
大学図書館所蔵 全27件
  青森
  岩手
  宮城
  秋田
  山形
  福島
  茨城
  栃木
  群馬
  埼玉
  千葉
  東京
  神奈川
  新潟
  富山
  石川
  福井
  山梨
  長野
  岐阜
  静岡
  愛知
  三重
  滋賀
  京都
  大阪
  兵庫
  奈良
  和歌山
  鳥取
  島根
  岡山
  広島
  山口
  徳島
  香川
  愛媛
  高知
  福岡
  佐賀
  長崎
  熊本
  大分
  宮崎
  鹿児島
  沖縄
  韓国
  中国
  タイ
  イギリス
  ドイツ
  スイス
  フランス
  ベルギー
  オランダ
  スウェーデン
  ノルウェー
  アメリカ
注記
A collection of essays originally published in law journals from 1963 to 1994
Includes bibliographical references and index
内容説明・目次
内容説明
This text focuses upon the study of the recognition of the sentencing process, which has formed a field of study, quite recently, in its own right. The earliest essays in this volume date from 1963, and the topic began to receive more systematic attention across different jurisdictions, by the early 1970s. At this time, practioners and academics from the UK and the USA were realising that while much reforming effort had been directed towards the substantive criminal law and its procedures, little had been done about the law and procedure of sentencing. A rather sharp distinction between the "trial stage" and the "sentencing stage" had been assumed. Characteristic of the trial stage were adversarial proceedings and the operation of strict rules of admissibility and proof. However, when it came to the sentencing stage, these rules were relaxed. The sentencing aims at that time were utilitarian with the focus on the rehabilitation of the offender. The adversarial contest gave way largely to a diagnostic or problem-solving model.
Information about the background, personal circumstances and motivation of the defendant, was presented to the sentencer and used as a basis for the sentence to be imposed. At the time of his writing his article in 1972, Judge Marvin Frankel described sentencing as "a wasteland in the law". He saw sentencing procedure and practise, which was highly discretionary and, since it was so subjective to the prefered approach of the individual judge, one which generated massive disparity in outcome. The aim of this work is to describe and assess developments and reform in the sentencing process which have taken place since that essay was written.
目次
Part 1 Establishing facts and providing reasons. Part 2 Having a say on sentence. Part 3 Issues of evidence and process
「Nielsen BookData」 より