The judicial response to crime and the criminal: A utilitarian perspective

This paper examines the hypothesis that the sentencing decision of the criminal court is consistent with utilitarian principles and that the judiciary uses the length of incarceration as an instrument for the maximization of societal well-being. A theoretical model is developed, whose principal argu...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Orsagh, Thomas J. (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 1985
En: Journal of quantitative criminology
Año: 1985, Volumen: 1, Número: 4, Páginas: 369-386
Acceso en línea: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Journals Online & Print:
Gargar...
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway
Palabras clave:

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002c 4500
001 1764276493
003 DE-627
005 20250323030915.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 210725s1985 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/BF01064187  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1764276493 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1764276493 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |8 1\p  |a Orsagh, Thomas J.  |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)170028755  |0 (DE-627)060039698  |0 (DE-576)130944084  |4 aut 
109 |a Orsagh, Thomas J.  |a Orsagh, Thomas 
245 1 4 |a The judicial response to crime and the criminal: A utilitarian perspective 
264 1 |c 1985 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This paper examines the hypothesis that the sentencing decision of the criminal court is consistent with utilitarian principles and that the judiciary uses the length of incarceration as an instrument for the maximization of societal well-being. A theoretical model is developed, whose principal arguments are offender and offense attributes, resource costs, the availability of alternative sanctions, and the general crime rate. Four questions are considered: (i) How does a utilitarian court respond to a general increase in crime? (ii) How does the availability of alternative sanctions affect the length of incarceration ? (iii) How does a utilitarian court respond to offenders who are more likely to recidivate? (iv) How does the court respond to offenders who commit more serious offenses? The model is empirically evaluated, using cross-sectional data for the state of Georgia for individuals sentenced to prison in 1978 for a UCR index offense. The theoretical model provides few specific behavioral rules for the court to follow. Answers to the foregoing four questions are shown to depend upon both the efficacy of sanctions and the cost of the administration of those sanctions. It is not possible to predict, for example, how a utilitarian court should respond to a rise in crime or how it should respond to offenders who are likely to commit more serious offenses. The empirical analysis shows that, in fact, the sentence length varied inversely with the general offense rate, with the likelihood of imprisonment, and with the length of postprison probation. The evidence also indicates that sentences vary with the individual's original record but not with the offender's age or race. With the exception of possible gender bias, the court's sentencing behavior was consistent with utilitarian principles. 
650 4 |a probation vs incarceration 
650 4 |a race and gender bias 
650 4 |a cost and sentence length 
650 4 |a crime and sentence length 
650 4 |a Sentence Length 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of quantitative criminology  |d New York, NY [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1985  |g 1(1985), 4, Seite 369-386  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320578003  |w (DE-600)2017241-2  |w (DE-576)104082321  |x 1573-7799  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:1  |g year:1985  |g number:4  |g pages:369-386 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064187  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://link.springer.com/openurl/pdf?id=doi:10.1007/BF01064187  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
883 |8 1  |a cgwrk  |d 20250301  |q DE-101  |u https://d-nb.info/provenance/plan#cgwrk 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3957449804 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1764276493 
LOK |0 005 20210725061643 
LOK |0 008 210725||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)KrimDok#2021-07-24#E8B2B7367EDE7EAB780DF9390DF6A840070A188B 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw