Download Free Previous Convictions At Sentencing Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Previous Convictions At Sentencing and write the review.

This latest volume in the Penal Theory and Penal Ethics series addresses one of the oldestquestions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender's previous convictions affect the sentence? Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists.
This book is a step-by-step guide to the sentencing of felonies, misdemeanors, and impaired driving in North Carolina. It includes the felony and misdemeanor sentencing grids that apply under Structured Sentencing and a table showing the different sentencing levels for DWI. The book also includes materials on diversion programs (deferred prosecution and conditional discharge), probation supervision, fines and fees, and sex offender registration.
This paper provides an overview of the federal sentencing system. For historicalcontext, it first briefly discusses the evolution of federal sentencing during the past fourdecades, including the landmark passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA),1 inwhich Congress established a new federal sentencing system based primarily on sentencingguidelines, as well as key Supreme Court decisions concerning the guidelines. It thendescribes the nature of federal sentences today and the process by which such sentencesare imposed. The final parts of this paper address appellate review of sentences; therevocation of offenders' terms of probation and supervised release; the process whereby theUnited States Sentencing Commission (the Commission) amends the guidelines; and theCommission's collection and analysis of sentencing data.
"Project of the American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Standards Committee, Criminal Justice Section"--T.p. verso.
This book provides an accessible and systematic restatement of the desert model for criminal sentencing by one of its leading academic exponents. The desert model emphasises the degree of seriousness of the offender's crime in deciding the severity of his punishment, and has become increasingly influential in recent penal practice and scholarly debate. It explains why sentences should be based principally on crime-seriousness, and addresses, among other topics, how a desert-based penalty scheme can be constructed; how to gauge punishments' seriousness and penalties' severity; what weight should be given to an offender's previous convictions; how non-custodial sentences should be scaled; and what leeway there might be for taking other factors into account, such as an offender's need for treatment. The volume will be of interest to all those working in penal theory and practice, criminal sentencing and the criminal law more generally.
This book contains commentary on three key sentencing statutes, and on sentencing law for nine offence categories.
All modern sentencing systems, in the US and beyond, consider the offender's prior record to be an important determinant of the form and severity of punishment for subsequent offences. Repeat offenders receive harsher punishments than first offenders, and offenders with longer criminal records are punished more severely than those with shorter records. Yet the vast literature on sentencing policy, law, and practice has generally overlooked the issue of prior convictions, even though this is the most important sentencing factor after the seriousness of the crime. In Paying for the Past, Richard S. Frase and Julian V. Roberts provide a critical and systematic examination of current prior record enhancements under sentencing guidelines across the US. Drawing on empirical data and analyses of guidelines from a number of jurisdictions, they illustrate different approaches to prior record enhancements and the differing outcomes of those approaches. Roberts and Frase demonstrate that most prior record enhancements generate a range of adverse outcomes at sentencing. Further, the pervasive justifications for prior record enhancement, such as the repeat offender's assumed higher risk of reoffending or greater culpability, are uncertain and have rarely been subjected to critical appraisal. The punitive sentencing premiums for repeat offenders prescribed by US guidelines cannot be justified on grounds of prevention or retribution. Shining a light on a neglected but critically important topic, Paying for the Past examines the costs of prior record enhancements for repeat offenders and offers model guidelines to help reduce racial disparities and reallocate criminal justice resources for jurisdictions who use sentence enhancements.