Sentence reductions for a guilty plea: The impact of the revised guideline on rates of pleas and ‘cracked trials’

In 2017, the Sentencing Council introduced a revised guideline for plea-based sentence reductions. The revisions were designed to provide greater certainty and to accelerate the timing of guilty pleas. Late pleas resulting in ‘cracked trials’ have long been a problem in the court system. The guideline was not intended to change the rate of defendants who plead guilty, but rather to increase the percentage of pleas entered early in the criminal process. This brief article reports findings from an analysis of data from the Crown Court before and after the introduction of the revised sentencing guideline. Findings reveal that the overall guilty plea remained stable over the period 2014–2019. The guideline appears to have had no effect on the timing of guilty pleas entered, and in fact the percentage of ‘cracked’ trials rose in the post-guideline period.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES IN INDONESIA AND THE ISSUE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN FINE IMPLEMENTATION

This article discusses the imposition of fines for environmental crimes cases in Indonesia. Due to the absence of law, there are explanations gaps concerning indicators that can be considered when imposing fines on environmental crimes. This study discusses three research questions using the desk research: First, how has Indonesia regulated the application of fines for environmental crimes in Indonesia; Second, what are the indicators to be considered to determine proportional fines as sentencing for environmental crimes in Indonesia; and Third, how has Indonesia applied fines as sentencing for environmental crimes within Indonesian courts. In answering these questions, the study conducts a comparative analysis between the practices of the UK and Singapore regarding environmental crimes. The results of this study indicate that sentencing was ultimately imposed by fulfilling the elements required in the article, added with aggravating and mitigating factors associated with the facts in the trial. In addition, the judgment did not provide further explanation as to how the fine was determined. Therefore, this creates urgency for the Supreme Court to formulate a particular sentencing guideline for handling environmental crimes. The guideline must include provisions on what indicators and stages need to be considered by judges while imposing fine in factual cases. Abstrak: Artikel ini membahas tentang penjatuhan pidana denda dalam kasus tindak pidana lingkungan hidup di Indonesia, mengingat undang-undang tidak memberikan penjelasan lebih lanjut mengenai indikator yang dapat dipertimbangkan oleh hakim manakala menjatuhkan pidana denda dalam tindak pidana lingkungan hidup. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian normatif, penelitian ini membahas permasalahan yang dituangkan dalama tiga pertanyaan penelitian: Pertama, bagaimana pengaturan mengenai sanksi pidana denda dalam tindak pidana lingkungan hidup di Indonesia; Kedua, apa saja indikator yang dapat dipertimbangkan untuk menentukan penjatuhan pidana denda yang proporsional dalam pemidanaan atas tindak pidana lingkungan hidup di Indonesia; dan Ketiga, bagaimana penerapan penjatuhan sanksi pidana denda tindak pidana lingkungan hidup dalam praktik peradilan di Indonesia. Penelitian ini turut membandingkan ketentuan, pedoman pemidanaan, dan penerapannya di Inggris dan Singapura terkait tindak pidana lingkungan hidup. Temuan penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa pemidanaan dalam kasus pada akhirnya dijatuhkan dengan pemenuhan unsur-unsur pasal semata, ditambah dengan faktor memberatkan dan meringankan yang dikaitkan dengan fakta dalam persidangan. Putusan Hakim juga tidak mencantumkan penjelasan lebih lanjut tentang bagaimana besaran pidana denda itu ditentukan. Karenanya, terdapat suatu urgensi bagi Mahkamah Agung untuk menyusun suatu pedoman pemidanaan khusus untuk penanganan tindak pidana lingkungan hidup. Pedoman pemidanaan ini mencakup ketentuan tentang indikator apa saja yang perlu dipertimbangkan oleh hakim dalam menjatuhkan pidana beserta tahapan yang perlu dilalui dalam hal pemidanaan. Kata Kunci: pemidanaan, tindak pidana lingkungan hidup, pidana denda, proporsionalitas

Trial Penalties under Florida’s Sentencing Guidelines: The Moderating Role of Case Seriousness

An extensive body of research has revealed that criminal defendants who are convicted at trials are given harsher sentences than those who plead guilty. However, it remains unclear how legally relevant case characteristics might moderate this relationship. In Florida, each felony offender is assigned a comprehensive numerical score which simultaneously quantifies multiple aspects of the seriousness of the case at hand, and judges evaluate this score in reference to the prescribed sentencing guideline recommendations. Analyses of data on defendants sentenced under this system ( N = 690,565) reveal that, for sentences to prison, trial-plea disparities are greatest in the middle range of case seriousness. For prison sentence length, however, these differences are most amplified among the most serious cases.

Discretion and Disparity under Sentencing Guidelines Revisited: The Interrelationship between Structured Sentencing Alternatives and Guideline Decision-making

Objectives: We argue that the reasons court actors conform to or depart from sentencing guideline recommendations likely vary depending on whether the decision involves an alternative sanction or incarceration and that these reasons may have consequences for ethnoracial disparities in the sentencing of defendants and how these disparities are understood. Method: We use recent (2012–2016) Pennsylvania sentencing data to examine (1) the relationship between defendant race/ethnicity and court actors’ decisions to depart downward and upward from the guidelines and (2) whether such relationships vary depending on whether they involve an alternative sanction, namely intermediate punishments (IPs). Results: We find that the association of defendant race/ethnicity with decisions to conform to the guidelines or to depart is greatly impacted by whether the sentence involves an IP. Blacks and, to a lesser extent, Latinos experienced greater disadvantage in guideline decision-making, whether conformity or departures, when the sentence involved an IP. Conclusions: Results suggest that the integration of IP into guideline systems may have (1) mobilized ethnoracial disparities in sentencing, (2) focused the location of sentencing disparities to sentences involving IP, and (3) changed the applicability of common interpretations of guideline decisions and disparities in their imposition.

Sentencing Guideline Departures

Sentencing guidelines were created with the goal of reducing unwarranted disparities in sentencing outcomes based on race, gender, and other legally irrelevant characteristics in order to establish a uniform sentencing system. In the 21st century, approximately 21 states and the federal courts use sentencing guidelines, although the types of guidelines used vary, with some more restrictive than others. With the quest to create more uniform sentences, scholars have examined whether the guidelines have actually reduced unwarranted disparities in sentencing outcomes. One area that has received attention from sentencing scholars as an avenue for the potential reintroduction of disparity into the sentencing process is the ability to sentence offenders outside of the guideline range, a practice otherwise known as “sentencing departures.” Departures from guideline sentences are either below or above the suggested guideline range for a particular offense, with most departures resulting in below guideline sentences. Both judges and prosecutors have the authority to issue departures. Within the federal sentencing guideline system, prosecutors have the sole discretion to offer substantial assistance and other types of government-sponsored downward departures. The amount of discretion given to federal judges to depart from the guidelines has changed dramatically over the years, and the use of departures has subsequently increased in recent years. Research has examined whether this increase in departures has resulted in an increase in unwarranted disparity once again. This research has primarily focused on two related questions: (1) Have departures increased disparities in sentencing outcomes based on race, ethnicity, gender, or other factors? (2) Who is most likely to receive a departure sentence? Several studies have found there to be differences in likelihood of receiving departures; with African Americans, males, and offenders charged with specific types of crimes less likely to receive downward departures. Other research, however, has further suggested that the increased use of departures may not have increased sentencing disparities based on race or ethnicity. Additionally, a new scope of research has emerged which takes a more nuanced examination of sentencing departures; looking at variations among districts, policy disagreement departures, and other considerations. Ultimately, the current body of research on the use, consequences, and implications of sentencing departures has provided some mixed findings and many questions remain unresolved. As research on departures continues, our understanding of the complex nature of sentencing decisions under guideline based systems will continue to grow.