NCJ Number
198961
Journal
Criminal Justice Volume: 3 Issue: 1 Dated: February 2003 Pages: 57-82
Date Published
February 2003
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the findings of an investigation into protective sentences in England and Wales.
Abstract
The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 allows an extension of the normal sentence for a serious violent or sexual offense if that is the only adequate way to protect the public from serious harm from the offender. This research analyzed the operation of Section 109 of the Act, which provides for automatic life sentences for offenders that commit a second serious offense. The research sample was drawn from cases listed for hearing at six First Tier Crown Court Centers selected from each of the six Circuits. It concentrated on the specific offense groups of manslaughter, wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent, rape, attempted rape, and indecent assault. The results highlight numerous examples of judicial failure to explain fully sentencing decisions as consistent with principles of openness and transparency. Despite the significance of the distinction between the commensurate and the additional protective element in the longer than commensurate sentence, there were no sample cases where this relationship was identified and explained by the judge. Although all but one case involved previous convictions of a similar nature, the importance attached to these by the judge in the prediction of future harm varied considerably. Judges relied on the psychiatric report when making the dangerousness assessment. Harm prediction appeared a predominantly judicial decision while judicial assessments of risk were rooted firmly in psychiatric report recommendations. Defense mitigation was largely directed towards the risk issue rather than harm prediction. There were clear indications that judges in any event drew their main inferences on risk from previous convictions and offense circumstances as the determinant factors to be extracted from any psychiatric report. In none of the four automatic life cases examined was any explanation given of the reasons for the imposition of an automatic life sentence. There is evidence of the need for a widening of standards guiding the practicing judiciary, that judges should reflect communitarian notions of moral behavior, and that public perceptions of justice should be equated with transparency of process. 20 notes, 89 references