The prosecution of environmental offences in New Zealand

This paper will examine the background law regarding environmental offences under the Resource Management Act 1991 (NZ), prosecution trends, sentencing for RMA offences (including principles of sentencing, sentencing discretion, legislative guidance, appellate guidance, guideline judgments, and tariffs), the use of costs in conjunction with sentencing, recent appeal judgments, and finally draw conclusions regarding consistency and sentencing in relation to environmental offences. Where relevant comparisons will be made with the Australian jurisdictions

Politics and Strategy in Judicial Decision-Making: Evidence from federal human trafficking sentencing

This thesis investigates the effects of judicial ideology and judge characteristics on sentencing in human trafficking cases. Despite research on federal prosecutions of human trafficking, almost nothing is known about sentencing for federal human trafficking offenders. Previous research on sentencing has been limited by the lack of data linking judges to specific sentencing decisions. Using new data that matches judges to defendants convicted of federal human trafficking offenses, I observe that judicial ideology has an effect on overall sentence length—but only for district court judges appointed by Democratic presidents. I also find that partisan composition of the circuit court, rather than ideology of the sentencing judge, affects the likelihood of downward departures from the Sentencing Guidelines. When Democrat-appointed judges make up a majority of the circuit court, district court judges are 2.1 times as likely to depart below the Sentencing Guidelines. These findings confirm positive political theories of sentencing that model judges as strategic decision makers within a "judicial hierarchy."Undergraduate Research ScholarshipNo embargoAcademic Major: PhilosophyAcademic Major: Political Scienc

Ethnic Disparities in Sentencing and the Washington Sentencing Reform Act: The Case of Yakima County

An important issue confronting the criminal justice system is sentencing disparity. Sentencing disparity involves inequitable sanctions imposed on individuals who have committed similar offenses. These inequalities in sentencing patterns have allegedly centered on group differences and may reflect an ethnic or racial bias

Principles, Pragmatism, and Politics: The Evolution of Washington State’s Sentencing Guidelines

Although the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines have received much attention (and criticism), we do well to remember that the United States is a federal system, and that each of the fifty states has its own sentencing rules and procedures. Today, roughly half of the states have sentencing commissions that issue guidelines -which are generally similar to the federal guidelines in form but different in structure and content. This article examines the history and operation of sentencing in Washington state, an early leader in the development of sentencing guidelines in the United States

Fifteen Years after the Federal Sentencing Revolution: How Mandatory Minimums Have Undermined Effective and Just Narcotics Sentencing Perspectives on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Sentencing

Federal criminal sentencing has changed dramatically since 1988. Fifteen years ago, judges determined if and for how long a defendant would go to jail. Since that time, changes in substantive federal criminal statutes, particularly the passage of an array of mandatory minimum penalties and the adoption of the federal sentencing guidelines, have limited significantly judicial sentencing power and have remade federal sentencing and federal criminal practice. The results of these changes are significantly longer federal prison sentences, as was the intent of these reforms, and the emergence of federal prosecutors as the key players in sentencing. Yet, at the same time, average sentence length appears to be falling slowly as judicial tendency to use the authority granted in the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the Guidelines ) to mitigate sentences through downward departures appears to be increasing

State Sentencing Guidelines: Profiles and Continuum

Describes twenty-one state sentencing commissions; highlights key attributes of each state's sentencing guidelines and the composition of each commission; and compares guideline systems along a continuum from "more voluntary" to "more mandatory.

Run-On Sentence: Remedies for Erroneous Career Offender Enhancements

Guilty pleas have come to resolve all but a fraction of federal criminal cases. So for most federal defendants, sentencing is the criminal justice process’s most important phase. That phase begins with the calculation of a recommended sentencing range based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. If a defendant has previously committed two violent crimes or drug offenses, the Guidelines designate him a career offender and drastically enhance his recommended sentencing range. The range is only advisory, but judges must consult and account for the range, and it plays an unquestionably significant role in the defendant’s ultimate sentence. What if the Supreme Court later clarifies that the defendant’s crimes were not career offender predicates after all? What if the correct inputs would have yielded a shorter sentence? This Note examines remedies for mistakes like erroneously applying the career offender enhancement. It begins by exploring the federal sentencing system’s background and the available remedies for sentencing errors in general, including some remedies grounded in a due process right to be sentenced based on accurate information. It discusses sentencing and appellate-review practices since the Supreme Court made the Guidelines advisory, and observes how courts of appeals have treated those practices—erroneous career offender enhancements are generally curable on direct appeal, but recent appellate decisions have denied relief to prisoners who are subjected to the same errors but whose sentences had already become final. This discussion concludes by scrutinizing those cases and discussing them in the context of concerns for due process and fundamental fairness

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Policies and Cocaine Use in the U.S., 1985–2013

Background: As of May 2017, the United States federal government renewed its prioritization for the enforcement of mandatory minimum sentences for illicit drug offenses. While the effect of such policies on racial disparities in incarceration is well-documented, less is known about the extent to which these laws are associated with decreased drug use. This study aims to identify changes in cocaine use associated with mandatory minimum sentencing policies by examining differential sentences for powder and crack cocaine set by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA) (100:1) and the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which reduced the disparate sentencing to 18:1.Methods: Using data from National Survey on Drug Use and Health, we examined past-year cocaine use before and after implementation of the ADAA (1985–1990, N = 21,296) and FSA (2009–2013, N = 130,574). We used weighted logistic regressions and Z-tests across models to identify differential change in use between crack and powder cocaine. Prescription drug misuse, or use outside prescribed indication or dose, was modeled as a negative control to identify underlying drug trends not related to sentencing policies.Results: Despite harsher ADAA penalties for crack compared to powder cocaine, there was no decrease in crack use following implementation of sentencing policies (odds ratio (OR): 0.72, p = 0.13), although both powder cocaine use and misuse of prescription drugs (the negative control) decreased (OR: 0.59, p \u3c 0.01; OR: 0.42, p \u3c 0.01 respectively). Furthermore, there was no change in crack use following the FSA, but powder cocaine use decreased, despite no changes to powder cocaine sentences (OR: 0.81, p = 0.02), suggesting that drug use is driven by factors not associated with sentencing policy. Conclusions: Despite harsher penalties for crack versus powder cocaine, crack use declined less than powder cocaine and even less than drugs not included in sentencing policies. These findings suggest that mandatory minimum sentencing may not be an effective method of deterring cocaine use

Conceptions and representations of the sentencing decision process

This article attempts to reflect on the success of attempts by academic research to understand and explain the sentencing decision process. It identifies conventional themes in the conception and representation of that decision process and argues that there are some important difficulties associated with them and consequently implications for both the findings of sentencing research and for approaches to sentencing reform. The article suggests a possible alternative approach to conceptualizing and representing the sentencing decision process and also raises questions about the nature of the discretionary (legal) decision process more generally

Rates of recidivism among offenders referred to Forum Sentencing

Aim: To determine whether the NSW Forum Sentencing program is more effective than the conventional sentencing process in reducing recidivism.Method: Offenders referred to Forum Sentencing in 2011 were matched with offenders who were ‘eligible’ for Forum Sentencing but who were sentenced in a NSW Local Court where Forum Sentencing was not operating. These two groups were matched on a large number of covariates using propensity score techniques and were then compared on the time to first new proven offence using Cox regression. All offenders in both groups were followed up for a minimum of 6 months after finalisation of their index offence. The analysis was conducted using an intention-to-treat research design.Results: Of the 575 offenders referred to Forum Sentencing, 552 could be matched with an ‘equivalent’ offender in the control group based on the covariates measured at the index court appearance. Cox regression analyses showed that there was no significant difference between the matched groups in the time to first new offence. This lack of an effect remained even after controlling for other relevant covariates.Conclusion: This study finds no evidence that offenders who are referred to the NSW Forum Sentencing program are less likely to re-offend than similar offenders who are dealt with through the normal sentencing process