Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Sentencing Disparity and Sentencing Guidelines: the Case of China

Sentencing Disparity and Sentencing Guidelines: the Case of China This study investigates sentencing disparity under the sentencing guidelines in China. Drawing upon the firsthand data of 509 criminal cases from a county-level court in 2015, our research examines the impact of legal and extralegal factors on sentencing outcomes and unveils a multiplicity of sentencing practices by judicial officers with three particular findings. First, the sentencing guidelines have to a great extent guided and affected sentencing judges, especially with regard to their in/out decisions (e.g., probation vs. imprisonment) and decisions on the length of imprisonment sentences. Second, substantial discretionary power is still left open for judges to determine in/out decisions. More specifically, female, elderly, and socially advantaged offenders are given more lenient sentences than others in judges’ in/out decisions. Third, there are different sentencing patterns across crime types (e.g., traffic casualty and dangerous driving); that is, offenders committing ordinary traffic casualty are under-punished while those committing dangerous driving are over-punished. These findings indicate that formal sentencing guidelines fail to reduce sentencing inconsistency by fostering a uniform and principled model of sentencing. This is mainly because the State’s overarching criminal justice policy has continued to have strong ramifications for sentencing outcomes in China. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asian Journal of Criminology Springer Journals

Sentencing Disparity and Sentencing Guidelines: the Case of China

Download PDF
29 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/sentencing-disparity-and-sentencing-guidelines-the-case-of-china-Varh4Jcdfh

References (92)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021
ISSN
1871-0131
eISSN
1871-014X
DOI
10.1007/s11417-021-09357-0
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This study investigates sentencing disparity under the sentencing guidelines in China. Drawing upon the firsthand data of 509 criminal cases from a county-level court in 2015, our research examines the impact of legal and extralegal factors on sentencing outcomes and unveils a multiplicity of sentencing practices by judicial officers with three particular findings. First, the sentencing guidelines have to a great extent guided and affected sentencing judges, especially with regard to their in/out decisions (e.g., probation vs. imprisonment) and decisions on the length of imprisonment sentences. Second, substantial discretionary power is still left open for judges to determine in/out decisions. More specifically, female, elderly, and socially advantaged offenders are given more lenient sentences than others in judges’ in/out decisions. Third, there are different sentencing patterns across crime types (e.g., traffic casualty and dangerous driving); that is, offenders committing ordinary traffic casualty are under-punished while those committing dangerous driving are over-punished. These findings indicate that formal sentencing guidelines fail to reduce sentencing inconsistency by fostering a uniform and principled model of sentencing. This is mainly because the State’s overarching criminal justice policy has continued to have strong ramifications for sentencing outcomes in China.

Journal

Asian Journal of Criminology – Springer Journals

Published: Jun 1, 2022

Keywords: Offender characteristics; Legal factors; Sentencing decision; Probation; Imprisonment; China

There are no references for this article.