Skip Navigation



British Journal of Criminology Advance Access published online on August 19, 2008
British Journal of Criminology, doi:10.1093/bjc/azn055
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
48/6/835    most recent
azn055v1
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 Tata, C.
Right arrow Articles by McNeill, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The British Journal of Criminology 0:azn055 (2008)
© The Author 2008. 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

Assisting and Advising the Sentencing Decision Process

The Pursuit of ‘Quality’ in Pre-Sentence Reports

Cyrus Tata*, Nicola Burns, Simon Halliday, Neil Hutton and Fergus McNeill

* Centre for Sentencing Research, Law School, Strathclyde University, Glasgow G4 OLT, Scotland, UK; Cyrus.Tata{at}strath.ac.uk. Nicola Burns, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Applied Social Science, Glasgow University; Simon Halliday, Law School, Strathclyde University, Scotland; and Law School, UNSW, Australia; Neil Hutton, Centre for Sentencing Research, Strathclyde University; Fergus McNeill, Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, University of Glasgow and Glasgow School of Social Work.


  Abstract

Pre-sentence reports are an increasingly prevalent feature of the sentencing process. Yet, although judges have been surveyed about their general views, we know relatively little about how such reports are read and interpreted by judges considering sentence in specific cases, and, in particular, how these judicial interpretations compare with the intentions of the writers of those same reports. This article summarizes some of the main findings of a four-year qualitative study in Scotland examining: how reports are constructed by report writers; what the writers aim to convey to the sentencing judge; and how those same reports are then interpreted and used in deciding sentence. Policy development has been predicated on the view that higher-quality reports will help to ‘sell’ community penalties to the principal consumers of such reports (judges). This research suggests that, in the daily use and interpretation of reports, this quality-led policy agenda is defeated by a discourse of judicial ‘ownership’ of sentencing.


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




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.