Punishing Persistent Offenders: Exploring Community and Offender Perspectives
Despite very diverse approaches towards punishing crime, all Western jurisdictions punish repeat offenders more harshly (a practice known as the recidivist sentencing premium) . For many repeat offenders, their previous convictions have more impact on the penalty they receive than the seriousness of their current crime. Why do we punish recidivists more harshly? Some sentencing theorists argue that offenders should be punished only for the crimes they commit - not for the crimes committed and paid for in the past. From this perspective, punishing repeat offenders more severely amounts to double punishment. Having been punished once for an offence, the recidivist will pay for the crime again every time he re-offends. Is this fair? This volume explores the nature and consequences of the recidivist sentencing premium on both the theoretical and empirical levels. It begins by exploring the justifications for treating repeat offenders more harshly, and then provides examples of the practice from a number of jurisdictions including England and Wales, Canada, and the United States. Particular attention is paid to the views of two important groups: convicted offenders and the general public. If offenders believe that the recidivist sentencing premium is unjustified, they are less likely to accept the legitimacy of the justice system. As for members of the public, it is important to know whether this key element of the sentencing process is consistent with community views.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Reductivist Sentencing Perspectives
Retributivist objections to punishing defiance
The special case of the crime victim
13 other sections not shown
aggravating asked assault attribute blameworthiness burglary Canada chapter cing committed conduct consider consideration convictions at sentencing convictions play court crime seriousness crime victims criminal law criminal record Criminology cumulative sentencing desistance deterrence discount England and Wales example explain explored flat-rate fundamental attribution error harsher punishments harsher sentences Hirsch Home Office important imposition individual interviews judges jurisdictions justify level of culpability loss of mitigation number of previous offender's criminal offender's level offender's previous convictions offenders convicted ous convictions participants penal penalty perceptions perspective premeditation previ principle prior convictions prison progressive loss proportionality public opinion public support punitive recidivist premium recidivist sentencing premium reflect relevant remorse reoffending repeat offenders response restorative justice result retributive Roberts sanction scenarios sentence imposed sentence severity Sentencing Commission sentencing decisions sentencing factor Sentencing Guidelines sentencing laws sentencing model sentencing policy sentencing process sentencing system severity of sentence statistics statute statutory survey tencing tions victions views