Skip Navigation



British Journal of Criminology Advance Access published online on May 15, 2006
British Journal of Criminology, doi:10.1093/bjc/azl002
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
46/5/803    most recent
azl002v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tombs, J.
Right arrow Articles by Jagger, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 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

Article

Denying Responsibility

Jacqueline Tombs 1 * and Elizabeth Jagger 2

1 University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK
2 Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 OBA, Scotland, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Jacqueline Tombs, E-mail: j.tombs{at}stirling.ac.uk


  Abstract

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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 SociologyHome page
A. Phipps
Rape and Respectability: Ideas about Sexual Violence and Social Class
Sociology, August 1, 2009; 43(4): 667 - 683.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 European Journal of CriminologyHome page
L. McAra
Crime, Criminology and Criminal Justice in Scotland
European Journal of Criminology, October 1, 2008; 5(4): 481 - 504.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Social Legal StudiesHome page
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]

Home page
 Criminal JusticeHome page
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]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.