British Journal of Criminology Advance Access originally published online on May 15, 2006
British Journal of Criminology 2006 46(5):803-821; doi:10.1093/bjc/azl002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The British Journal of Criminology 46:803-821 (2006)
© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Denying Responsibility
Sentencers’ Accounts of their Decisions to Imprison
* Jacqueline Tombs, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK; j.tombs{at}stirling.ac.uk. Elizabeth Jagger, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 OBA, Scotland, UK; l.jagger{at}gcal.ac.uk.
The reasons for dramatic rises in prison populations are the focus of much debate. This paper examines just one of these: the sentencing practices of the judiciary who play a pivotal role both in determining the use of imprisonment itself and in the severity of prison sentences. Drawing on research with Scottish sentencers, it explores how they made decisions to imprison, how they viewed prison, how they justified sending people there and how ‘borderline’ offenders were dealt with. We found that although sentencers viewed imprisonment as a severe punishment, they normalized their routine incarceration of individuals by, in effect, denying final responsibility for their actions. Sentencers’ accounts of borderline decisions, in which individuals committing the same offence could be accorded either a custodial or a community disposal, illustrated these denials most starkly and revealed an overarching retributivism in their custodial decisions. This retributivism was without proportionality in so far as it was directed at the offender rather than proportionate to the offence. In conclusion, we argue for future sentencing policies and legislation to take heed of sentencers’ logic in use.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. Phipps Rape and Respectability: Ideas about Sexual Violence and Social Class Sociology, August 1, 2009; 43(4): 667 - 683. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. McAra Crime, Criminology and Criminal Justice in Scotland European Journal of Criminology, October 1, 2008; 5(4): 481 - 504. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Tata Sentencing as Craftwork and the Binary Epistemologies of the Discretionary Decision Process Social Legal Studies, September 1, 2007; 16(3): 425 - 447. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Millie, J. Tombs, and M. Hough Borderline sentencing: A comparison of sentencers' decision making in England and Wales, and Scotland JCriminology and Criminal Justice, August 1, 2007; 7(3): 243 - 267. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|