Advertisement

Exploring the Impact of Sentencing Factors on Sentencing Domestic Burglary

  • Keir Irwin-Rogers
  • Thomas W. Perry

Abstract

When an offender is sentenced in the criminal courts of England and Wales, the primary factor that determines the severity of the sentence is the seriousness of the offence. This principle has been firmly established in statute by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In section 143(1) of this act, courts are instructed to determine the seriousness of an offence by considering the offender’s culpability in committing the offence and any harm which the offence caused, was intended to cause, or might fore-seeably have caused. The principle that the seriousness of the offence should be the primary basis for the severity of the sentence is further reinforced by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, an independent, nondepartmental body of the Ministry of Justice, established by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Council puts this principle into practice in a number of ways, one of which is the provision of offence-specific sentencing guidelines that operationalise the concept of offence seriousness, (see Ashworth and Roberts, 2013 for discussion of the format of sentencing guidelines.)

Keywords

Ordinal Logistic Regression Previous Conviction Subordinate Role Mitigate Factor Sentencing Guideline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashworth, A. (2010) Sentencing and Criminal Justice. 5 th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashworth, A. and Roberts, J.V. (2013) The origins and nature of the sentencing guidelines in England and Wales. In: A. Ashworth and J.V. Roberts (eds) Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring the English Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper, J. (2013) Nothing personal: the impact of personal mitigation at sentencing since creation of the council. In: A. Ashworth and J.V. Roberts (eds) Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring the English Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dingwall, G. and Koffman, L. (2008) Determining the Impact of Intoxication in a Desert-Based Sentencing Framework. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8: 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dolinko, D. (2000) Justice in the Age of Sentencing Guidelines. Ethics, 110: 563–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garson, D.G. (2014) Ordinal Regression (Statistical Associates ‘Blue Book’ Series). Asheboro: Statistical Associates Publishing. Kindle edition.Google Scholar
  7. Gorard, S. (2013) Research Design: Robust Approaches for the Social Sciences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Jacobson, J. and Hough, M. (2007) Mitigation: The Role of Personal Factors in Sentencing. London: Prison Reform Trust.Google Scholar
  9. Kazemian, L. (2010) Assessing the impact of a recidivist sentencing premium on crime and recidivism rates. In: J.V. Roberts and A. von Hirsch (eds) The Role of Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Lee, J. (2010) Repeat offenders and the question of desert. In: J.V. Roberts and A. von Hirsch (eds) The Role of Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Mair, G. (2011) The Community Order in England and Wales: Policy and Practice. Probation Journal, 58: 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maslen, H. and Roberts, J.V. (2013) Remorse and sentencing: an analysis of sentencing guidelines and sentencing practice. In: A. Ashworth and J.V. Roberts (eds) Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring theEnglish Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Padfield, N. (2011) Intoxication as a sentencing factor: mitigation or aggravation? In: J.V. Roberts (ed.) Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pina-Sanchez, J. and Linacre, R. (2013) Sentence Consistency in England and Wales. British journal of Criminology, 53: 1118–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rex, S. and von Hirsch, A. (1998) Community Orders and the Assessment of Punishment Severity. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 10: 278–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roberts, J.V. (2008) Punishing Persistence. British journal of Criminology, 48: 468–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roberts, J.V. (2011) Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion. British journal of Criminology, 51: 997–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roberts, J.V. (2013) Punishing, more or less: exploring aggravation and mitigation at sentencing. In: J.V. Roberts (ed.) Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Roberts, J.V. and von Hirsch, A. (2010) Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Sentencing Council (2011a) Burglary Offences: Definitive Guideline. London: Sentencing Council.Google Scholar
  21. Sentencing Council (2011b) Assault Guideline: Response to Consultation. London: Sentencing Council.Google Scholar
  22. Tudor, S. (2008) Why Should Remorse be a Mitigating Factor in Sentencing? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2: 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walker, N. (1999) Aggravation, Mitigation and Mercy in English Criminal justice. London: Blackstone.Google Scholar
  24. Young, W. and King, A. (2013) Addressing problematic sentencing factors in the development of guidelines. In: J.V. Roberts (ed.) Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Keir Irwin-Rogers and Thomas W. Perry 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keir Irwin-Rogers
  • Thomas W. Perry

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations