This essay explores and critiques a theory of criminal justice which privileges the role of public intuitions about punishment over more traditional influences on sentencing principles and practice. This movement may be termed ‘Democratising Punishment’ and it has important consequences for sentencing in all jurisdictions. Several recent books advocate reforms such as deriving sentencing principles from public opinion research or sentencing by juries rather than legal professionals. In the essay we critique this perspective and note the threats to principled sentencing arising from greater public involvement in the sentencing of offenders.
AndrewsDABontaJ (2010) Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law16: 39–55.
2.
BagaricMEdneyR (2004) The Sentencing Advisory Commission and the hope of smarter sentencing. Current Issues in Criminal Justice16: 125–139.
3.
BarkerV (2009) The Politics of Imprisonment: How the Democratic Process Shapes the Way America Punishes Offenders, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BennettC (2014) Public opinion and democratic control of sentencing policy. In: RybergJRobertsJV (eds) Popular Punishment, New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
BibasS (2012) The Machinery of Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BottomsA (1995) The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In: ClarksonCMorganR (eds) The Politics of Sentencing Reform, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
7.
BowersWSandysMSteinerB (1998) Foreclosed impartiality in capital sentencing: Jurors’ predispositions, guilt-trial experience, and premature decision making. Cornell Law Review83: 1476–1556.
8.
De KeijserJW (2014) Penal theory and popular opinion: The deficiencies of direct engagement. In: RybergJRobertsJV (eds) Popular Punishment, New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
De KeijserJWElffersH (2009) Public punitive attitudes: A threat to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system? In: OswaldMEBieneckSHupfeldJ (eds) Social Psychology of Punishment of Crime, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
10.
De KeijserJWVan KoppenPJ (2007) Paradoxes of proof and punishment: Psychological pitfalls in judicial decision making. Legal and Criminological Psychology12: 189–205.
11.
De KeijserJWVan KoppenPJElffersH (2007) Bridging the gap between judges and the public?Journal of Experimental Criminology3: 131–161.
12.
DekkerPVan De MeerT (2007) Vertrouwen in de rechtspraak nader onderzocht, Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
13.
DoobARobertsJV (1984) Social psychology, social attitudes and attitudes toward sentencing. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science16: 269–280.
14.
DzurA (2012a) Punishment, Participatory Democracy, and the Jury, New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
DzurA (2012b) Participatory democracy and criminal justice. Criminal Law and Philosophy6: 115–129.
16.
ElffersHDe KeijserJW (2007) Different perspectives, different gaps: Does the general public demand a more responsive judge. In: KuryH (eds) Fear of Crime – Punitivity: New Developments in Theory and Research, Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr N Brockmeyer.
17.
GreenD (2006) Public opinion versus public judgment about crime: Correcting the comedy of errors. British Journal of Criminology46: 131–154.
18.
HoffmanM (2003) The case for jury sentencing. Duke Law Journal52: 951–1010.
IndermaurDRobertsLSpiranovicCMackenzieGGelbK (2012) A matter of judgment: The effect of information and deliberation on public attitudes to punishment. Punishment & Society14: 147–165.
21.
IontchevaJ (2003) Jury sentencing as democratic practice. Virginia Law Review89: 311–383.
22.
KingNNobleR (2004) Felony jury sentencing in practice: A three-state study. Vanderbilt Law Review57: 885–962.
23.
KingNNobleR (2005) Jury sentencing in noncapital cases: Comparing severity and variance with judicial sentences in two states. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies2: 331–337.
24.
LaceyN (2008) The Prisoner’s Dilemma: Political Economy and Punishment in Contemporary Democracies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
LanniA (1999) Jury sentencing in noncapital cases: An idea whose time has come (again). Yale Law Journal108: 1775–1803.
26.
MooreMS (1987) The moral worth of retribution. In: SchoemanF (eds) Responsibility, Character and the Emotions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
New South Wales Law Reform Commission (2007) Role of Juries in Sentencing, Report 118. Sydney: New South Wales Law Reform Commission.
28.
NozickR (1981) Philosophical Explanations, Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
29.
PrattJ (2007) Penal Populism, London: Routledge.
30.
RobertsJVGazal-AyalO (2013) Sentencing reform in Israel: An analysis of the statutory reforms of 2012. Israel Law Review46: 455–479.
31.
RobertsJVHoughM (2005) Sentencing young offenders: Public opinion in England and Wales. Criminal Justice5: 211–232.
32.
RobertsJVHoughM (2005) Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal Justice, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
33.
RobertsJVStalansLJ (2004) Restorative sentencing: Exploring the views of the public. Social Justice Research17: 315–334.
34.
RobertsJVStalansLSIndermaurDHoughM (2003) Penal Populism and Public Opinion, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
Robinson P (2013) Intuitions of Justice and the Utility of Desert. New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
RobinsonPBartonJListerM (2014) Empirical desert, individual prevention, and limiting retributivism: A reply. New Criminal Law Review17: 312–375.
37.
RybergJRobertsJV (2014) Popular Punishment: The Normative Significance of Public Opinion for Sentencing Theory and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
SimonDScurichN (2011) Lay judgments of judicial decision making. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies8: 709–727.
39.
SloboginCBrinkley-RubinsteinL (2013) Putting desert in its place. Stanford Law Review65: 77–136.
40.
StalansLJ (2002) Measuring attitudes to sentencing. In: RobertsJVHoughM (eds) Changing Attitudes to Punishment, Cullompton, Devon: Willan.
41.
ThornberryTPKrohnMD (2000) The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In: DuffeeDCrutchfieldRDMastrofskiSMazerolleLMcDowallD (eds) Criminal Justice 2000 Vol. 4: Innovations in Measurement and Analysis, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
42.
TrahanA (2011) In their own words: Capital jurors’ reactions to mitigation strategies. International Journal of Punishment & Sentencing7: 1–16.
43.
Van Den HaagE (1975) Punishing Criminals: Concerning a very Old and Painful Question, New York: Basic Books.
