Degrees of negative judgement
Insights from a qualitative study of six sentencing remarks on judges’ sentencing practices
Studies on sentencing are dominated by normative studies prescribing how judges should sentence. Few studies
examine how judges actually sentence. This study provides an insight into the empirical reality of judges’ sentencing practices by
examining their negative judgements (of propriety) of offenders and their behaviour in six sentencing
remarks. It finds that judges are doing more appraisal work when their sentencing decisions are below or much higher than the
starting point, but less appraisal work when their sentencing decisions are just a few years above the starting point. Such
findings demonstrate that the starting point has a binding power on judges’ sentencing practices despite judges having the
discretion to arrive at a sentencing decision of any length (whatever the starting point). Findings of the current study could
provide meaningful starting points for future examination of large quantities of sentencing remarks.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The appraisal framework
- 3.Data and methodology
- 4.Analysis
- 4.1Texts 1, 5 and 6
- Text 1: Palmer
- Text 5: McCluskie
- Text 6: Pyott
- 4.2Texts 2 and 3
- Text 2: Capp
- Text 3: Taylor
- 4.3Text 4: Hunnisett
- 4.4Across the six texts
- 5.Discussion and conclusion
- Notes
-
References