This article calls attention to the tendency of liberal criminologists to mix facts and values when assessing sentencing policies. It argues that an objective methodology for ranking countries with respect to sentencing severity has yet to be developed and urges caution and clarification in making moral criticisms of US sentencing policy and imprisonment rates.
Austin, J.
, Clark, J., Hardyman, P. and Henry, D.A. (1999) `The impact of three strikes and you're out', Punishment & Society1(2).
2.
Beck, A.
and Greenfeld, L. (1995) Violent offenders in state prison: sentences and time served. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Selected Findings.
3.
Brown, J.
, Langan, P. and Levin, D. (1999) Felony sentences in state courts. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Bulletin.
4.
Heymann, P.
(2000) `Cautionary note on the expanding role of the US attorneys' offices, summary of proceedings', keynote address at the National Symposium on the Changing Role of US Attorneys' Offices in Public Safety, Arlington, Virginia14-16 November.
5.
Lynch, J.
(1988) `A comparison of prison use in England and Wales, Canada, the United States and West Germany: a limited test of the punitiveness hypothesis', Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology79(1): 180-217.
6.
Lynch, J.
(1993) `A cross-national comparison of the length of custodial sentences for serious crime', Justice Quarterly10(4): 639-660.
7.
Lynch, J.
(1995) `Crime in international perspective', in J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia (eds) Crime. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.
8.
Pease, K.
(1994) `Cross-national imprisonment rates: limitations of method and possible conclusions', British Journal of Criminology34: 116-130.
9.
Zimring, F.E.
and Hawkins, G. (1991) The scale of imprisonment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
