Past or future crimes: deservedness and dangerousness in the sentencing of criminals
This text outlines the issues surrounding the debate over dangerous offenders. The author argues that there should be fairness in sentencing and that punishments should fit the crime. He assesses the principal issues affecting sentencing policies, and provides an in-depth argument for a model for deciding sentences. He is against the concept of selective incapacitation, fearing false positives and the unethical practice of sentencing persons for crimes not yet committed.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Evolution of the Debate
2 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Alfred Blumstein American Law Institute Andrew von Hirsch argument blameworthiness cardinal proportionality categorial incapacitation censure Chaiken chap chapter choice commit comparative condemnatory crime-control crime-prevention criminal conduct Criminal History Score criminal justice Criminal Law criminal record criminal sanction culpability Current Crime dangerous desert limits desert line desert rationale desert theory deterrence discussion example factors false positives future crimes Gottfredson grading gravity Greenwood's Guidelines for Sentencing H. L. A. Hart harm Ibid imprisonment in-out line incapacitation effects incarcerated individual prediction involves Joel Feinberg judgments less Mark Moore ment Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Model Penal Code moral Morris Morris's offender's ordinal parity Parole penal penalty scale persons potential predictive sentencing preventive previous convictions prior convictions prior criminal prison space punishment recidivism recidivists rehabilitative rely reprehensible requirements risk robbery rates rulemaker selective incapacitation sentencing commission sentencing grid Sentencing Law sentencing policy serious crimes strategy studies tencing tion tive utilitarian wrong