Figure - uploaded by Jose Pina-Sánchez
Content may be subject to copyright.
Rates by Number of Prior Convictions, Offence Categories Source: CCSS. We do not include sexual offences as the category contains too many diverse types of offences.
Source publication
Most offenders appearing for sentencing have a criminal record. Despite the prevalence of previous convictions, little is known about their impact on sentence outcomes, and in particular the decision to imprison. How should previous convictions affect sentence outcomes? Competing theoretical models exist. Previous convictions may simply disentitle...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... offending is clearly a more frequent occurrence for some types of offending. Table 3 summarises custody rates from the CCSS for different categories of prior offending and reveals the model underlying the consideration of previous convictions in the Crown Court. The first offender (no priors) category attracts a significant reduction in severity compared to the second category (1-3 priors). ...Context 2
... assault offences provide a good illustration of the trend. As can be seen in Table 3, the gap between the first two categories of prior convictions is very striking-the custody rate for first offenders is almost 30 percentage points lower than the second category (from 38 per cent to 65 per cent). However, once the offender has multiple convictions, additional prior offences make little difference to the custody rate. ...Context 3
... the cumulative model would predict a further steep increment from the category 4-9 to 10 or more priors, no such increase occurs: the custody rate is approximately the same which reflects the pattern prescribed by the PLM. The same general pattern emerges for other categories of indictable offences (see Table 3). There is a very significant gap between custody rates for first offenders and those with modest records, but subsequent additional priors have only limited aggravating effect. ...Citations
... However, to some extent, such form of measurement error will be indirectly controlled for after including offenders' age in the same model. As for the case of age, previous convictions will be introduced in our models as an order-two polynomial term (Roberts and Pina-Sánchez, 2014). In addition to the Magistrates' and Crown Court offenders data, this study will use open data describing the relative deprivation in local areas across England and Wales (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2022). ...
In the study of sentencing disparities, class related hypotheses have received considerably less attention than explanations based on offenders’ ethnicity. This is unfortunate since the two mechanisms are likely interrelated, at the very least as a result of their overlap in the population, with ethnic minorities being generally more deprived than the White majority. In this registered report we propose exploring the mediating and moderating effects between offenders’ area deprivation and their ethnic background using a novel administrative dataset capturing all offences processed through the England and Wales Crown Court. Specifically, we seek to test whether the reported ethnic disparities in sentencing are explained away by area deprivation, and whether White offenders from deprived areas are more disadvantaged than the average ethnic minority offender. Results from this empirical analysis will shed new light on the underlying causes of sentencing disparities, but crucially-if deprivation is shown to play a major role in the generation of ethnic disparities-they will also help inform the adequate policy responses to redress this problem.
... However, to some extent, such form of measurement error will be indirectly controlled for after including defendants' age in the same model. As for the case of age, and following the quadratic relationships between previous convictions and sentence severity reported in the literature (Roberts and Pina-Sánchez, 2014), previous convictions will be introduced in our models as an order-two polynomial term. ...
In the study of sentencing disparities, class related hypotheses have received considerably less attention than explanations based on offenders’ ethnicity. This is unfortunate since the two mechanisms are likely interrelated, at the very least as a result of their overlap in the population, with ethnic minorities being generally more deprived than the White majority. In this registered report we propose exploring the mediating and moderating effects between offenders’ area deprivation and their ethnic background using a novel administrative dataset capturing all offences processed through the England and Wales Crown Court. Specifically, we seek to test two key hypotheses: i) the reported ethnic disparities in sentencing are mediated and explained away by area deprivation; and ii) ethnic disparities are moderated by area deprivation, with ethnic disparities being narrower in the more deprived areas. Results from this empirical analysis will shed new light on the underlying causes of sentencing disparities, but crucially - if deprivation is shown to play a major role in the generation of ethnic disparities - they will also help inform the adequate policy responses to redress this problem.
... There would be many more issues to discuss about the guidelines, such as, for example, the correlation between the use of the guidelines and imprisonment rates (Reitz, 2013;Tonry, 2016), the impact of criminal records on the final level of sentence severity (Frase, 2014;Roberts & Pina-Sánchez, 2014;Tonry, 1996), or the effectiveness of guidelines in the reduction of sentence disparities, including those related to the race, ethnicity and gender (Frase, 2005;Reitz, 2013;Tonry, 2016). However, in terms of integrity, that is, control of judicial discretion, three elements of sentencing guidelines models should be highlighted: its mandatory/advisory nature, the question involving the so-called "departure sentences", and the latitude of sentence ranges. ...
... Although significant regional differences exist in sentencing practices, many countries worldwide punish repeat offenders more severely. The severity of their offence and their past criminal record can have a variety of distinct effects on the severity of their sentence (Roberts and Pina-Sanchez 2014). Our research findings demonstrate that the presence of a prior conviction, additional charges, and mitigating and aggravating circumstances Laws 2022, 11, 70 13 of 15 mainly affected the length of the prison sentence. ...
This article focuses on the structure of female and male crimes and gender disparities in sentencing in Lithuania, which present a significant gap in criminological research. Using Lithuanian court decisions on five types of offenses—murder, grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm, drug distribution, and theft—we attempt to answer whether women are punished more leniently than men. Our research demonstrates that gender is a significant factor only in some sentences. Only the length of a prison sentence showed a statistically significant difference. When the importance of legal and extralegal factors in imposing prison length is compared, legal factors are found to be more significant predictors. The prison sentence length was mainly affected by the presence of a prior conviction, additional charges, and mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Although the average prison sentence for men in cases of grievous bodily harm and drug distribution was significantly longer than for women, the regression models developed for each offence type revealed that neither gender nor other extralegal factors appeared to be significant in determining the length of the prison sentence. The results allow us to argue that future research should focus more on analyzing extralegal factors and judges’ motives in discretionary sentencing decisions.
... It should also be noted that the marginal effect is strongest when transitioning from no previous convictions to one to three previous convictions, with that effect decaying as the number of previous convictions increases. This corroborates the 'progressive loss of mitigation' model described by von Hirsch (2010) (see also Roberts 2008;Roberts and Pina-Sánchez 2014), and refutes the 'cumulative sentencing' model, under which the marginal increase in severity for every additional relevant previous conviction is constant. ...
For reasons of methodological convenience statistical models analysing judicial decisions tend to focus on the duration of custodial sentences. These types of sentences are however quite rare (7% of the total in England and Wales), which generates a serious problem of selection bias. Typical adjustments employed in the literature, such as Tobit models, are based on questionable assumptions and are incapable to discriminate between different types of non-custodial sentences (such as discharges, fines, community orders, or suspended sentences). Here we implement an original approach to model custodial and non-custodial sentence outcomes simultaneously avoiding problems of selection bias while making the most of the information recorded for each of them. This is achieved by employing Pina-Sánchez et al. (Br J Criminol 59:979–1001, 2019) scale of sentence severity as the outcome variable of a Bayesian regression model. A sample of 7242 theft offences sentenced in the Crown Court is used to further illustrate: (a) the pervasiveness of selection bias in studies restricted to custodial sentences, which leads us to question the external validity of previous studies in the literature limited to custodial sentence length; and (b) the inadequacy of Tobit models and similar methods used in the literature to adjust for such bias.
... The CCSS therefore enables more accurate and informative empirical research on sentencing than has previously been possible. This claim is supported by the remarkable body of research in the Crown Court that has been amassed over the last five years (see for example Belton, 2018;Fleetwood et al., 2015;Irwin Rogers and Perry, 2015;Lightowlers, 2018;Lightowlers and Pina-Sánchez, 2017;Maslen, 2015;Maslen and Roberts, 2013;Pina-Sánchez, 2015;Pina-Sánchez and Grech, 2017;Pina-Sánchez andLinacre, 2013, 2014;Roberts, 2013;Roberts and Bradford, 2015;Roberts and Pina-Sánchez, 2014;Roberts et al., 2018). The level of detail with which the characteristics occurring in individual cases are recorded in the CCSS sets it apart from other large datasets that have been used to investigate sentencing disparities. ...
We explore the presence of gender sentencing disparities using large samples of assault, burglary and drugs offences from the Crown Court Sentencing Survey. We find significantly harsher sentences imposed on male offenders even after controlling for most case characteristics, including mitigating factors such as 'caring responsibilities'. Specifically, the odds ratios of receiving a custodial sentence for offences of assault, burglary and drugs committed by a man as opposed to a woman are 2.84, 1.89 and 2.72. To put it in context, with the exception of offences 'with intent to commit serious harm', the gender effect was stronger than any other 'harm and culpability' factor for offences of assault. These disparities do not seem to stem primarily from differential interpretations of offender dangerousness. It is possible that they might be due to lower rates of reoffending amongst female offenders, or to the higher punitive effect of custodial sentences on women. What seems clear is that sentencing is not gender neutral. If gender-specific sentencing guidelines are to be developed in the future it would be important that the noted disparities are taken in consideration.
... However, until recently, the almost complete absence of empirical assessments of these new guidelines cast doubts over what, if any, changes in sentencing practice had resulted from their introduction (Ashworth, 2013;Ashworth and Roberts, 2013;Padfield, 2013). The release of the Crown Court Sentencing Survey -a government dataset describing cases processed in the Crown Courthas reversed this trend, transforming the landscape from one dominated by theoretical commentaries to one that is more evidence based (see for example Belton, 2018;Fleetwood et al., 2015;Irwin Rogers and Perry, 2015;Lightowlers and Pina-Sánchez, 2017;Maslen, 2015;Maslen and Roberts, 2013;Pina-Sánchez, 2015;Pina-Sánchez and Grech, 2017;Linacre, 2013, 2014;Roberts, 2013a;Roberts and Bradford, 2015;Roberts and Pina-Sánchez, 2014;Roberts et al., 2018). ...
... At the outset, we highlighted the new wave of studies that resulted from the publication of the CCSS, transforming sentencing research in England and Wales into a more empirically based discipline. These recent contributions have shed new light on important topics such as proportionality (Fleetwood et al., 2015); consistency (Pina-Sánchez, 2015;Pina-Sanchez and Grech, 2018;Linacre, 2013, 2014), individualisation (Roberts et al., 2018), severity (Pina-Sánchez and Lightowlers, 2016), compliance with the guidelines (Roberts, 2013a;Roberts and Bradford, 2015), or the use of different case characteristics (Belton, 2018;Irwin Rogers and Perry, 2015;Lightowlers and Pina-Sánchez, 2017;Maslen, 2015;Maslen and Roberts, 2013;Roberts and Pina-Sánchez, 2014). ...
The ‘England and Wales Sentencing Guidelines’ aim to promote consistency by organising the sentencing process as a sequence of steps, with initial judicial assessments subsequently adjusted to reflect relevant case characteristics. Yet, existing evaluations of the guidelines have failed to incorporate this structure adequately, instead concentrating solely on sentence outcomes. We use multivariate multilevel models to offer new insights into the decisions made throughout the sentencing process. Focusing on cases of assault sentenced at the Crown Court we show that the level of compliance with the guidelines is high. However, we also show that some case characteristics are being unduly considered at more than one stage of the sentencing process, meaning existing studies may be underestimating their true influence.
... Prior record enhancements are not unique to the United States, although like current punishment practices generally, the extent of additional punishment from PREs in the United States is exceptional. In other countries, prior convictions normally carry only a modest enhancement relative to the punishment imposed on first offenders (e.g., Roberts andPina-Sánchez 2014, 2015). In countries without formal guidelines (most jurisdictions) it is hard to determine how much weight prior convictions carry at sentencing or which dimensions of criminal history are influential. ...
The consequences of a person’s prior crimes remain after the debt to society is paid and the sentence is discharged. While the practice of using prior convictions to enhance the severity of sentence imposed is universal, prior record enhancements (PREs) play a particularly important role in US sentencing, and especially in guidelines jurisdictions. In grid-based guidelines, criminal history constitutes one of the two dimensions of the grid. The enhancements are hard to justify. Retributive theories generally reject the use of robust, cumulative record-based enhancements. Research into recidivism suggests that the preventive benefits of PREs have been overstated. The public support the consideration of prior convictions at sentencing, but there is convincing evidence that people are less punitive in their views than are many US guideline schemes. PREs exacerbate racial disparities in prison admissions and populations, result in significant additional prison costs, undermine offense-based proportionality, and disrupt prison resource prioritization.
The ‘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.
