Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe 'totality principle' in law aims to show mercy to offenders in multiple-offence (MO) cases and retain ordinal proportionality in punishing those who commit different categories of offence. The effect of this principle in practice, however, is largely unknown. The present study involved an analysis of data released by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales to estimate the prevalence of MO cases and compare the penalties they received against comparable single-offence (SO) cases. MO cases represented approximately half of the cases in the sample which included violent, property, drugs and driving offences. Offence-specific regression analyses revealed that MO/SO case status was not a significant predictor of receiving a custodial sentence or of custody length. Thus, by applying the totality principle, sentencers may be letting MO offenders 'off lightly'. Potential explanations for this unintentional effect on decision-making lies in how the totality principle is defined and interpreted, and recommendations are made for revising the guideline on application of the totality principle.

King's discussion is pertinent to the British defence and security agenda, where influence was recently named as a key objective and capability. I argue that as stakeholders, it is our obligation to monitor the application of our psychological science in order to minimize or avoid the risks of its misinterpretation and misapplication. Academic scholars could contribute in a number of ways to military social influence campaigns. In doing so, we may realize that our understanding of social influence is limited. Future research on influence ought to consider its relevance for the social world we now live in. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract: The main goal was to capture how decision makers interpret the phrase 'substantial grounds' for denying bail stated in the Bail Act 1976. It was found that magistrates who remanded the defendant into custody, judged the mean risks of the defendant absconding, offending on bail, and obstructing justice to be significantly greater than did those who bailed the defendant. Thus, the mean interpretation of 'substantial grounds' across magistrates was from 46% to 51% (on a 0% to 100% scale). However, there was great variability across magistrates. We discuss the implications of the present findings for encouraging consistent, transparent and justifiable interpretations of bail law.

The right to vote is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. However, full suffrage of the adult population has not been realized in many present-day democracies. Internationally, millions of prisoners (and ex-offenders in some nations) are disenfranchised. Being excluded from the civic process is a threat to democracy. In this article, I argue that removing a prisoner's right to vote can lead to inequality and injustice that is counter to democratic ideals. By contrast, enfranchisement of prisoners can promote their rehabilitation and social reintegration, and can have a real impact on the political climate of a nation. I also discuss the arguments for and against prisoner disenfranchisement, explore public opinion on this issue, and track recent legislative changes to disenfranchisement policy internationally. Areas for future psychological inquiry are highlighted. ; El derecho de voto es uno de los principios fundamentales de la democracia. Sin embargo, el sufragio universal de la población adulta no se ha visto realizado en muchas de las democracias actuales. Internacionalmente, millones de presos (y ex delincuentes, en algunos países) han sido privados del sufragio. La exclusión del proceso cívico es una amenaza a la democracia. En este artículo sostengo que eliminar el derecho a votar de un preso puede conducir a la desigualdad y la injusticia que es contraria a los ideales democráticos. Por el contrario, la restitución del sufragio de los presos puede favorecer su rehabilitación y reinserción social, y puede tener un impacto real sobre el clima político de un país. También discuto los argumentos a favor y en contra de la privación del derecho a sufragio a los presos, exploro la opinión pública sobre esta cuestión y realizo un seguimiento de los últimos cambios legislativos a la política de privación del sufragio internacionalmente. Son destacadas áreas para la futura investigación psicológica.

The right to vote is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. However, full suffrage of the adult population has not been realized in many present‐day democracies. Internationally, millions of prisoners (and ex‐offenders in some nations) are disenfranchised. Being excluded from the civic process is a threat to democracy. In this article, I argue that removing a prisoner's right to vote can lead to inequality and injustice that is counter to democratic ideals. By contrast, enfranchisement of prisoners can promote their rehabilitation and social reintegration, and can have a real impact on the political climate of a nation. I also discuss the arguments for and against prisoner disenfranchisement, explore public opinion on this issue, and track recent legislative changes to disenfranchisement policy internationally. Areas for future psychological inquiry are highlighted.

The right to vote is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. However, full suffrage of the adult population has not been realized in many present-day democracies. Internationally, millions of prisoners (& ex-offenders in some nations) are disenfranchised. Being excluded from the civic process is a threat to democracy. In this article, I argue that removing a prisoner's right to vote can lead to inequality & injustice that is counter to democratic ideals. By contrast, enfranchisement of prisoners can promote their rehabilitation & social reintegration, & can have a real impact on the political climate of a nation. I also discuss the arguments for & against prisoner disenfranchisement, explore public opinion on this issue, & track recent legislative changes to disenfranchisement policy internationally. Areas for future psychological inquiry are highlighted. References. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract: Conditional bail is a popular alternative to a remand in custody when magistrates believe a defendant poses a risk if released unconditionally. In the present study, magistrates made bail decisions on systematically designed hypothetical cases. It was found that on average, magistrates attached more than one condition to bail, and they were limited in the types of conditions they imposed. Although there was no difference in the consistency of magistrates' conditional and unconditional bail decisions, magistrates were more likely to disagree on a case when deciding to grant conditional bail, and they were less confident in their conditional bail decisions. In addition, magistrates' imposition of conditions was affected by both legal and extra‐legal factors. Implications for enhancing magistrates' performance are discussed.

Bail Information Schemes gather and provide information on a defendant's community ties to the court. Past evaluations have concluded that schemes are effective because more defendants are granted bail. However, the evaluations include possible confounds and other limitations, thus threatening the validity of their findings. They are also incompatible with research showing that magistrates do not always attend to community ties information. Here, an experiment examined the effect of community ties information on magistrates' bail decisions on hypothetical cases. It was found that schemes do not significantly affect decisions, although they do serve to significantly increase confidence in decisions. Implications for the future of schemes are discussed.

A prison sentence is often geared toward punishment of offenders, reduction of crime, and/or protection of the public. However, in many jurisdictions, those in prison may suffer from collateral or "invisible" consequences such as denial of their voting rights. Despite the growing global social and legal debates on prisoner disenfranchisement policy, there have been few empirical studies of this issue. We explored and compared a sample of the prisoners' and the public's views of prisoner disenfranchisement policy in the United Kingdom. Although the public were more likely than prisoners to consider voting as important, they were less aware of prisoner disenfranchisement. A high proportion of prisoners said they would vote in prison, however, only a third had voted in the past (outside prison). Prisoners and the public held different attitudes toward prisoner disenfranchisement, and the public were more likely to view this policy as fair. Prisoners were more likely to believe that their vote could influence elections, and this best predicted their intentions to vote. These findings are further considered in relation to political party affiliation, prisoner populations, and offense types. We identify future directions for research on prisoner disenfranchisement.