The import/export trade in sentencing and corrections innovations between the United States and Europe is unbalanced. Humane, cost-effective sanctions such as prosecutorial fines, community service orders, and day fines have proliferated across national boundaries in Europe, but U.S. borders have proved impermeable. By contrast, American symbolic policies and rhetoric (e.g., three strikes, boot camps, truth in sentencing) have been adopted in mild forms in some English-speaking countries, but other European countries have shown no interest. The European focus on effectiveness, moderation, and humanity results in large part from constitutional arrangements that insulate sentencing and corrections policies from partisan and populist politics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albrecht, Hans-Jörg
. 1997. “Sentencing and Punishment in Germany.” Pp. 181-189 in Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times, edited by M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Ashworth, Andrew
. 1995. Sentencing and Criminal Justice. London: Butterworths.
3.
Australian Law Reform Commission
. 1980. Sentencing of Federal Offenders. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.
4.
Bedau, Hugo Adam
. 1996. The Death Penalty in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
Botvin, Gilbert
. 1990. “Substance Abuse Prevention: Theory, Practice, and Effectiveness.” Pp. 461-519 in Drugs and Crime, vol. 13, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Canadian Sentencing Commission
. 1987. Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach. Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing Centre.
7.
Clarkson, Chris
and Rod Morgan, eds. 1995. The Politics of Sentencing Reform. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
Cole, George
, Barry Mahoney, Marlene Thornton, and Roger A. Hanson. 1987. The Practices and Attitudes of Trial Court Judges Regarding Fines as a Criminal Sanction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
9.
Doob, Anthony N.
1995. “The United States Sentencing Commission's Guidelines: If You Don't Know Where You Are Going, You May Not Get There.” Pp. 199-250 in The Plitics of Sentencing Reform, edited by C. Clarkson and R. Morgan. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
Doob, Anthony N.
and Voula Marinos. 1995. “Reconceptualizing Punishment: Understanding the Limitations on the Use of Intermediate Punishments.”University of Chicago Law School Roundtable2:413-433.
Hillsman, Sally
. 1995. “Day Fines in New York.” Pp. 21-26 in Intermediate Sanctions in Overcrowded Times, edited by M. Tonry and K. Hamilton. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
13.
Home Office
. 1996. Protecting the Public: The Government's Strategy on Crime in England and Wales. Cm 3190. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
14.
Hood, Roger
. 1998. “Capital Punishment.” Pp. 739-776 in The Handbook of Crime and Punishment, edited by M. Tonry. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
Hope, Tim
. 1995. “Community Crime Prevention.” Pp. 21-89 in Building A Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, edited by M. Tonry and D. P. Farrington, vol. 19, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, edited by M. Tonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Killias, Martin
, André Kuhn, and Simone Nonêz. 1997. “Sentencing in Switzerland.” Pp. 203-211 in Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times, edited by M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad. New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
Kuhn, André
. 1997. “Prison Populations in Western Europe.” Pp. 124-133 in Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times, edited by M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
Leuw, Ed
and Ineke Haen Marshall, eds. 1994. Between Prohibition and Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy. Amsterdam: Kugler.
19.
Lingren, Sven Ake
. 1993. “A Criticism of Swedish Drug Policy.”International Journal on Drug Policy3(2):99-104.
20.
McDonald, Douglas
. 1986. Punishment Without Walls. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
21.
McIvor, Gill
. 1995. “CSOs Succeed in Scotland.” Pp. 77-84 in Intermediate Sanctions in Overcrowded Times, edited by M. Tonry and K. Hamilton. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
22.
Morris, Norval
and Michael Tonry. 1990. Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Moxon, David
. 1997. “England Abandons Day Fines.” Pp. 139-143 in Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times, edited by M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Nagin, Daniel
. 1998. “Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First Century.” Pp. 1-42 in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 23, edited by M. Tonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Pease, Ken
and Martin Wasik, eds. 1987. Sentencing Reform in England: Guidance or Guidelines?Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
26.
Petersilia, Joan
. 1997. “Probation in the United States.” Pp. 149-200 in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 22, edited by M. Tonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
. 1993. Report. Cm 2263. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
28.
Steenhuis, D. W.1997. “Nieuwe richtlijnen stap naar rechtsgelijkheid” [New Prosecutorial Sentencing Guidelines in the Fish Against Sentencing Disparity]. Opportuun3:3-6.
29.
Tak, Peter
and Anton van Kalmthout. 1998. “Prison Population Growing Faster in the Netherlands than in U.S.”Overcrowded Times9 (3):1, 12-16.
30.
Tonry, Michael
. 1996. Sentencing Matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
Tonry, Michael
and Kathleen Hatlestad, eds. 1997. Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times—A Comparative Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
Turner, Susan
and Joan Petersilia. 1996. Day Fines in Four Jurisdictions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
33.
Tyler, Tom R.
and Robert J. Boeckmann. 1997. “Three Strikes and You Are Out, But Why? The Psychology of Public Support for Punishing Rule Breakers.”Law & Society Review31:237-265.
34.
van Kalmthout, Anton
and Hans-Jörg Albrecht. 1997. “Developments in the Conception and Use of Non-Custodial Sanctions.”CEP Bulletin6:1-6.
35.
van Kalmthout, Anton M.
and Peter Tak. 1992. Sanctions-Systems in the Member-States of the Council of Europe: Deprivation of Liberty, Community Service, and Other Substitutes. Boston: Kluwer.
36.
von Hirsch, Andrew
. 1997. “Sentencing Reform in Sweden.” Pp. 211-216 in Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times, edited by M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad. New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
Weigend, Thomas
. 1997. “Germany Reduces Use of Prison Sentences.” Pp. 177-181 in Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times, edited by M. Tonry and K. Hatlestad. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
Wilson, James Q.
1990. “Drugs and Crime.” Pp. 521-545 in Drugs and Crime, vol. 13, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Zimring, Franklin E.
and Gordon Hawkins. 1991. The Scale of Imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
