DOCSLIB.ORG

Felony Sentencing and Jail Characteristics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Felony Sentencing and Jail Characteristics u.s. Departmentof Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Felony Sentencing .. and J ail Characteristics iion Paper 142523 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this alII) dgla!tssd material has been gr~fic Domain/OJP /BJS u. S. De!)artment of Justice to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permission (\f the ~wner. Felony Sentencing and Jail Characteristics John M. Dawson Bureau ofJustice Statistics Statistician June 1993, NCJ-142523 u.s. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Acting Director The Bureau of Justice Statistics, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, is part of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. ii Felony Sentencing and Jail Characteristics '--------- -- -- -- -- - -- --- --- ----------- Foreword The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) introduced this series of discussion papers in February 1992 to promote the exchange of information, analyses, and ideas on issues related to justice statistics and the operations of criminal justice systems both domestically and abroad. In the future, BJS will address issues that arise from ongoing analyses of BJS statistical data but that are not covered in our standard Bulletins or Special or Technical Reports. The Discussion Paper series will also provide a forum for scholarship, research, and analyses addressing selected topics of special interest and relevance to the justice community. In this discussion paper, BJS statistician John M. Dawson explores the possible relationship between sentencing State felons to jail and jail conditions such as crowding and other issues that resulted in court orders. While many of his findings remain tentative, or even inconclusive, we hope his innovative use of two statistical reporting series will encourage others to join the discussion. BJS looks forward to future statistical discussion papers testing alternative viewpoints and ideas. Lawrence A. Greenfeld. Acting Director Bureau of Justice Statistics Felony Sentencing and Jail Characteristics 111 ~.------------------------------------------------------------------------- Felony Sentencing and Jail Characteristics This article concerns the impact that local jail conditions may have on a judge's choice of sentence in a felony case, particularly the decision to sentence a felon to jail rather than to prison or probation. On average, in State felony courts in the Nation's counties, jail sentences are infre­ quent: about 1 in 5 felony cases. In contrast, about half of convicted defendants receive a prison sentence, on average, and about a third receive straight probation (that is, no incarceration). Whether the felony court judges take jail conditions into account in sentencing may be evaluated statistically by comparing county sentencing rates in light of what is known about differences in conditions between those places. An analysis of sentencing rates was conducted using 1988 data collected for the Bureau of Justice Statistics by the Bureau of the Census in a national survey of felony cases sentenced in State courts and in a census of county jails. Felony Sentencing and Jail Characteristics 1 The hypothesis considered in this analysis was that the jail sentence rate might be high or low depending on certain characteristics of the county jails. If certain jail character­ istics could be found to correlate with sentencing, the correlation would support the inference that judges are influenced by such characteristics. The data show that the likelihood of a jail sentence is lower in counties with jails under court order to limit the number of inmates. While this is true in the Nation as a whole, no relationship is found between such orders and use of jail sentences in the 75 largest counties that accounted for approximately half of all felony convictions. The data show, however, even after accounting for such court orders, that certain opportunities and resources available to jail inmates may influence judges to sentence more felons to jail. This influence is manifested statistically in three ways: 1. more split probation sentences among probation cases 2. more jail terms among split probation cases 3. more jail and fewer prison sentences among non probation cases. The positive-influence model holds up for property crimes and drug trafficking, but not for violent felony cases. It also holds more strongly in cases involving only a single conviction charge than in cases with multiple conviction charges. In other words, the availability of opportunities and resources in county jails appears to have less effect on sentencing in the more serious cases. The model does not hold uniformly across States. This issue was examined in a formal analysis of variance of work release using the data for the 27 States with sampled counties falling into both the with and without work release 2 Felony Sentencing and Jail Characteristics categories. The model fits in 9 of those States, fails to do so in 7, and is ambiguous in the other 11. Because the jail and sentencing variables are both for 1988, any conclusions about direction of causality between them are purely judgmental. Introduction Most felons convicted in the State court systems located in the Nation's 3,109 counties are normally sentenced to prison, jail, probation, or some combination of the three. If sentenced to incarceration, felons will ordinarily serve time in a State prison rather than a county jail. On average, in State felony courts in the Nation's counties, jail sentences are given in about 1 in 5 felony cases. In con­ trast, about half of convicted defendants receive a prison sentence, on average, and about a third receive straight probation. According to the most recent national statistics, about 25% of felony cases involved a jail sentence, com­ pared to 44% a prison sentence, and 31 % a sentence to straight probation or other sanction without incarcera­ tion. A sentencing judge usually has the option of committing a defendant to custody of the county sheriff or municipal authority rather than to the State department of corrections. For the person being sentenced, jail may be preferable because it is closer to home and family. Jail may also offer more opportunity than prison for rehabilitation or for a productive means of serving time. From the judge's perspective, the drawback is that a jail is not ordinarily as secure a place of confinement as a prison and is even less so if it has programs such as work release in which inmates enjoy some freedom from confinement. Felony Sentencing and Jail Characteristics 3 ---,----------~~~~~~- ~~~~~------------- Data and methods The data used to explore impacts of jail conditions on sentencing decisions are two nationwide county data collections conducted in 1988. Because the jail and sentencing data are contemporaneous, any inferences about causal paths between the two types of factors are judgmental. The. sentencing data are from the National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP) survey. The jail data are from the Census of Local Jails. Both surveys were conducted by the Bureau of the Census on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Both data collections are described fully in reports published by the BJS,I The NJRP data give the sentences received by approxi­ mately 80,000 felons during 1988 in a nationwide probability survey of 300 out of the Nation's 3,109 counties and independent cities. Of those 300, 54 were chosen to be statistically representative of the 75 largest counties, in which 37% of the population resided. Those 75 largest counties accounted for about half of the crimes reported to police, and about half of felony convictions, during 1988. Sentence information was available in virtually all case records. The jail census covered all of the Nation's 3,316 jails. The counties surveyed in NJRP accouhted for 545 of them. In 9 counties out of 10 there was but a single jail; places elsewhere had a system made up of a combination of county and municipal jails, sometimes including facilities IFe[ony Sentences in State Courts, 1988, BJS Bulletin, NCJ-126923, December 1990; Census of Local Jails, 1988, BJS Bulletin, NCJ-121101, February 1990. 4 Felony Sentencing and Jail Characteristics for women or for various levels of security. In single-jail counties, a judge considering a jail sentence knows where the person would be confined. In multijail counties, it is assumed for this analysis that the judge would not know which facility would be used. In the 75 largest counties, the mean number of jails in a county was 4, contrasting with a mean of 1 jail per county elsewhere. The subject of jail systems is therefore more complex in the largest counti,es. The data from 279 counties in each of the 2 sources were merged. Twenty of the NJRP counties could not be used in this analysis because they had no jails within their boundaries or because they had consolidated jail and prison systems. Another county could not be used because it had no felony cases during 1988. For each county the following sentencing rates were computed: Percentage of felons in 1988 sentenced to- • Straight probation: Percentage sentenced to probation without an incarceration tenn (STR8) . • Split probation: Percentage sentenced to probation following some tenn of incarceration (SPLT). - STR8 + SPLT = The overall probation rate. Split probation - prison: Percentage sentenced to be on probation following a prison tenn (SP/PRIS). Split probation - jail: Percentage sentenced to be on probation following a jail term (SP/JAIL).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Legal Term for Cheating on Wife
    Legal Term For Cheating On Wife Is Vassili regular or crackpot after concupiscent Noe generate so awhile? Affordable Gordie untidies very round while Spike remains unbreeched and inspired. How peristomatic is Preston when hard-fisted and prepubescent Wit cackle some underbridge? The unsatisfied spouse cheated on discrimination is attorney for worry, wife on incurable insanity of up until they help When your spouse must be responsible for me at times, the terms favorable settlement. Cultural factors are legal questions are legal term. The intensity that in the outcome of the obligation. You from your letter, on legal term for cheating wife was the dependent spouse wins! We are legal action for legal cheating on wife. Child custody of legal term adultery is something to have terms you ask for you from voluntarily engages in this url into account. Focusing on your spouse cheats does not carry out. This is for spousal support. Imagine your reality, but a number of a petition seeking a person other. To legal term for my wife must show his. If you cheated with someone cheating wife cheats his legal term for adultery, is natural to you and think about outside in terms of. He finishes the similarities between a divorce case law may change their own home to a cheating on wife for legal term relationship to one of trust and pay in the original concept. If one does adultery laws that, it makes people cheat on your marital property. This cheating wife cheats his affection is termed in terms have. That one of. Our sleeves and harmony with your wife cheated with a relationship, emotional infidelity is.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy
    California Law Review VOL. 61 SEPTEMBER 1973 No. 5 The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy Phillip E. Johnson* The literature on the subject of criminal conspiracy reflects a sort of rough consensus. Conspiracy, it is generally said, is a necessary doctrine in some respects, but also one that is overbroad and invites abuse. Conspiracy has been thought to be necessary for one or both of two reasons. First, it is said that a separate offense of conspiracy is useful to supplement the generally restrictive law of attempts. Plot- ters who are arrested before they can carry out their dangerous schemes may be convicted of conspiracy even though they did not go far enough towards completion of their criminal plan to be guilty of attempt.' Second, conspiracy is said to be a vital legal weapon in the prosecu- tion of "organized crime," however defined.' As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, "the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modem crimi- nal law, because to unite, back of a criniinal purpose, the strength, op- Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. A.B., Harvard Uni- versity, 1961; J.D., University of Chicago, 1965. 1. The most cogent statement of this point is in Note, 14 U. OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REv. 56, 61-62 (1956): "Since we are fettered by an unrealistic law of criminal attempts, overbalanced in favour of external acts, awaiting the lit match or the cocked and aimed pistol, the law of criminal conspiracy has been em- ployed to fill the gap." See also MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03, Comment at 96-97 (Tent.
    [Show full text]
  • A Distributive Theory of Criminal Law
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 52 (2010-2011) Issue 1 Article 2 October 2010 A Distributive Theory of Criminal Law Aya Gruber [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Repository Citation Aya Gruber, A Distributive Theory of Criminal Law, 52 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1 (2010), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol52/iss1/2 Copyright c 2010 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr William and Mary Law Review VOLUME 52 NO. 1, 2010 A DISTRIBUTIVE THEORY OF CRIMINAL LAW AYA GRUBER* ABSTRACT In criminal law circles, the accepted wisdom is that there are two and only two true justifications of punishmentretributivism and utilitarianism. The multitude of moral claims about punishment may thus be reduced to two propositions: (1) punishment should be imposed because defendants deserve it, and (2) punishment should be imposed because it makes society safer. At the same time, most penal scholars notice the trend in criminal law to de-emphasize intent, centralize harm, and focus on victims, but they largely write off this trend as an irrational return to antiquated notions of vengeance. This Article asserts that there is in fact a distributive logic to the changes in current criminal law. The distributive theory of criminal law holds that an offender ought to be punished, not because he is culpable or because punishment increases net security, but because punishment appropriately distributes pleasure and pain between the offender and victim.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2
    PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Why Misprision of a Felony Is Not a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude
    DePaul Law Review Volume 69 Issue 1 Fall 2019 Article 5 Misapprising Misprision: Why Misprision Of A Felony Is Not A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude Alexandra Carl Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alexandra Carl, Misapprising Misprision: Why Misprision Of A Felony Is Not A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, 69 DePaul L. Rev. 143 (2020) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol69/iss1/5 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\D\DPL\69-1\DPL105.txt unknown Seq: 1 5-FEB-20 12:14 MISAPPRISING MISPRISION: WHY MISPRISION OF A FELONY IS NOT A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE INTRODUCTION Immigration is an area of American law in which archaic terminol- ogy and hyper-technical statutory interpretation collide with human lives. The results can be arbitrary, absurd, or tragic. Noncitizens’ be- havior is scrutinized, categorized, and judged according to different standards than those that citizens must meet or even consider, and the consequences can be disproportionately devastating. One illustrative example is the immigration law term “crime involving moral turpi- tude” (CIMT). This antiquated term is not officially defined, nor does any list of crimes definitively involving moral turpitude exist. There are no “crimes involving moral turpitude” outside of immigration law, so citizens never need to evaluate whether their behavior may or may not be legally turpitudinous.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Felony Murder Rule: Purpose and Effect
    The American Felony Murder Rule: Purpose and Effect Daniel Ganz 21090905 UC Berkeley, Spring 2012 Legal Studies Honors Thesis Supervised by Professor Richard Perry Ganz 1 I. Abstract Most US states have a felony murder rule, which allows prosecutors to charge felons with murder for any death that occurs during and because of the commission of the felony. This allows the felon to be convicted with murder without requiring the prosecution to prove the mens rea that would otherwise be necessary for a murder conviction. Much of the legal scholarship indicates that the purpose of the felony murder rule is to deter felonies and to make felons limit their use of violence while they're committing the felony by making the felon internalize more fully the negative consequences of their actions. It's unclear whether legislatures that adopt felony murder rules are more concerned with deterring criminal behavior or making criminals less violent when committing felonies. We analyze judicial decisions to infer what judges believed were the intentions of the legislatures that adopted felony murder statutes. We also use regression analysis to determine whether felony murder statutes are correlated with lower crime rates or lower rates of the average number of deaths that occur during felonies. We do this both by modeling felony rates and rates of felony- related deaths as a function of whether a state has a felony murder rule, and by determining how felony rates and rates of felony-related deaths change when a state adopts or abolishes a felony murder rule. Our results indicate that the felony murder rule does not have a significant effect on crime rates or crime-related death rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of a Sample of Felony Offenses
    NORTH CAROLINA SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION CLASSIFICATION OF A SAMPLE OF OFFENSES (Effective 12/1/17) CLASS A FELONIES Maximum Punishment of Death or Life Without Parole First-Degree Murder. (14-17) CLASS B1 FELONIES Maximum Punishment of Life Without Parole First-Degree Forcible Sexual Offense. (14-27.26)/First-Degree Second-Degree Murder. (14-17(b)) Statutory Sexual Offense. (14-27.29) First-Degree Forcible Rape. (14-27.21)/First-Degree Statutory Rape (14-27.24) CLASS B2 FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 484* Months Second-Degree Murder. (14-17(b)(1) and (2)) CLASS C FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 231* Months Second-Degree Forcible Rape. (14-27.22) First-Degree Kidnapping. (14-39) Second-Degree Forcible Sexual Offense. (14-27.27) Embezzlement (amount involved $100,000 or more). (14-90) Assault W/D/W/I/K/I/S/I. (14-32(a)) CLASS D FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 204* Months Voluntary Manslaughter. (14-18) Child Abuse Inflicting Serious Physical Injury. (14-318.4(a)) First-Degree Burglary. (14-51) Death by Vehicle. (20-141.4(a)(1)) First-Degree Arson. (14-58) Sell or Deliver a Controlled Substance to a Person Under 16 But Armed Robbery. (14-87) More than 13 Years of Age. (90-95(e)(5)) CLASS E FELONIES Maximum Punishment of 88* Months Sexual Activity by a Substitute Parent or Custodian. (14-27.31) Assault with a Firearm on a Law Enforcement Officer. (14-34.5) Assault W/D/W/I/S/I. (14-32(b)) Second-Degree Kidnapping. (14-39) Assault W/D/W/I/K.
    [Show full text]
  • Misprison of Felony
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 8 Fall 9-1-1953 Misprison of Felony E. L. Morgan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation E. Lee Morgan, Misprison of Felony, 6 S.C.L.R. 87. (1953). This Note is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Morgan: Misprison of Felony MISPRISION OF FELONY Misprision1 of felony has been defined in various ways, but per- haps its best definition is as follows: "Misprision of felony at common law is a criminal neglect either to prevent a felony from being committed or to bring the offender to justice after its com- mission, but without such previous concert with or subsequent assis- tance of him as will make the concealer an accessory before or after 12 the fact." In the modern use of the term, misprision of felony has been said to be almost, if not identically, the same offense as that of an acces- sory after the fact.3 It has also been stated that misprision is nothing more than a word used to describe a misdemeanor which does not possess a specific name.4 It is that offense of concealing a felony committed by another, but without such previous concert with or subsequent assistance to the felon as would make the concealing party an accessory before or after the fact.5 Misprision is distinguished from compounding an offense on the basis of consideration or amends; misprision is a bare concealment of crime, while compounding is a concealment for a reward by one 6 directly injured by the crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Statutes Imposing Collateral Consequences Upon Conviction
    FEDERAL STATUTES IMPOSING COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES UPON CONVICTION DISCLAIMER This monograph highlights significant collateral consequences that are imposed by federal law upon conviction of a felony offense. It is provided for informational purposes only, as an aid to further inquiry. The views expressed in the monograph on questions of federal or state law do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Justice. The Office of the Pardon Attorney does not have operational responsibility for the interpretation or enforcement of the statutes cited in the monograph. Readers should therefore consult with the appropriate agency with operational responsibility for administering the statutory provision of interest for authoritative and more complete information. In addition, the research for the preparation of the monograph was completed by the early fall of 2000. Because laws are revised frequently, readers are cautioned that the information in this monograph may be out of date and that they should consult with the appropriate agency for more current information. We have not attempted to describe all the adverse legal consequences of a felony conviction, and do not cover in depth the adverse consequences of conviction of a crime other than a felony. In addition, although disabilities may attend being charged with or agreeing to pretrial diversion for a crime, we have not attempted to explore those issues or to define what is meant by Aconviction@ of a crime, which may vary from context to context. For example, a person may not be considered Aconvicted@ for some purposes until sentence is imposed. Further, the treatment of military convictions, juvenile adjudications, and convictions in foreign countries or tribal courts is not covered to any significant degree in this monograph.
    [Show full text]
  • § N.11 Burglary, Theft and Fraud
    Immigrant Legal Resource Center, www.ilrc.org § N.11 Burglary, Theft, Fraud January 2013 § N.11 Burglary, Theft and Fraud (For more information, see Defending Immigrants in the Ninth Circuit, Chapter 9, §§ 9.10, 9.13 and 9.35, www.ilrc.org/crimes) Table of Contents I. Overview II. Burglary: How to Avoid an Aggravated Felony and CIMT III. Theft: How to Avoid an Aggravated Felony and CIMT IV. Fraud or Deceit: How to Avoid an Aggravated Felony V. Review: When Does a CIMT Conviction Cause Inadmissibility or Deportability App. 13-1 Legal Summaries to Hand to Defendants I. OVERVIEW Burglary, theft and fraud convictions have two potential immigration consequences. They could constitute an aggravated felony conviction, in the categories of burglary, theft, or a crime of violence with a year’s sentence imposed, or fraud with a loss to the victim/s exceeding $10,000.1 In addition they can and frequently do constitute a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”).2 Including in felony cases, an informed criminal defender often can avoid conviction of an aggravated felony, the more serious immigration penalty, and sometimes can avoid a CIMT. A single offense has the potential to come within multiple adverse immigration categories, e.g. be an aggravated felony as burglary and as attempted theft. Check the offense against all immigration categories in this Note. The main defense strategies to avoid an aggravated felony in this area are: To avoid an aggravated felony for burglary or theft offenses, avoid a sentence imposed of one year or more on any single count.
    [Show full text]
  • 9Th Circ. Raises the Bar on Misprision of a Felony by Andrew Goldsmith
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] 9th Circ. Raises The Bar On Misprision Of A Felony By Andrew Goldsmith Law360, New York (June 23, 2017, 12:28 PM EDT) -- When special counsel Robert Mueller began his work last month, he may have been surprised to learn the Ninth Circuit had added a new element to one of the potential crimes within his jurisdiction just two days before his appointment. In United States v. Olson, the court held that misprision of a felony requires a defendant to know the crime he or she is concealing is a felony.[1] Apparently, no other court has considered the possibility of such a requirement in the 227 years since the crime was codified. Despite this critical change, Olson gives little guidance on how to prove, for example, that a defendant knew that a private citizen could be sentenced to more than a year in prison for corresponding with a foreign government to influence that government or to undermine the United States. The Andrew Goldsmith potential implications are not limited to cases under the purview of the special counsel’s office. In cases involving low-level or little-known underlying felonies, this new element may convert the most widely applicable obstruction statute, carrying among the lowest sentences for such a crime, into the most difficult to prove. Misprision of a Felony English law recognized “a duty to raise the ‘hue and cry’ and report felonies to the authorities” as early as the 13th century.[2] The first Congress codified misprision in 1790, and today’s 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Strict Liability's Criminogenic Effect
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 1-2-2017 Strict Liability's Criminogenic Effect Paul H. Robinson University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the American Politics Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, Public Administration Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons, and the Social Psychology and Interaction Commons Repository Citation Robinson, Paul H., "Strict Liability's Criminogenic Effect" (2017). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1713. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1713 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STRICT LIABILITY’S CRIMINOGENIC EFFECT Paul H Robinson1 It is easy to understand the apparent appeal of strict liability to policymakers and legal reformers seeking to reduce crime: if the criminal law can do away with its traditional culpability requirement, it can increase the likelihood of conviction and punishment of those who engage in prohibited conduct or bring about prohibited harm or evil. And such an increase in punishment rate can enhance the crime-control effectiveness of a system built upon general deterrence or incapacitation of the dangerous.
    [Show full text]