000			04287cam a2200349 a 4500
005			20250918153359.0
008			120510s2011 enk b |01 0 eng
020			_a9780521197809 (hardback) _cRM
039		9	_a201306021433 _badnan _c201305201246 _dsa'diah _y05-10-2012 _zsa'diah
040			_aDLC _cDLC _dDLC _dUKM
043			_ae-uk-en
090			_aC31.39KD.M535 2
090			_aC31.39KD _b.M535 2
245	0	0	_aMitigation and aggravation at sentencing / _cedited by Julian V. Roberts.
260			_aCambridge : _bCambridge University Press, _c2011.
300			_axvii, 285 p. ; _c24 cm.
490	0		_aCambridge studies in law and society
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
505	8		_aMachine generated contents note: 1. Exploring aggravation and mitigation at sentencing Julian Roberts; 2. Re-evaluating the justifications for aggravation and mitigation at sentencing Andrew Ashworth; 3. The search for principles of mitigation: integrating cultural demands Allan Manson; 4. Personal mitigation at sentencing and assumptions about offending and desistance Joanna Shapland; 5. Intoxication as a sentencing factor: mitigating or aggravating? Nicola Padfield; 6. Beyond the partial excuse: Australasian approaches to provocation as a sentencing factor Arie Freiberg and Felicity Stewart; 7. Equality before the law: racial and social background factors as sources of mitigation at sentencing Kate Warner; 8. Personal mitigation: an empirical analysis in England and Wales Jessica Jacobson and Mike Hough; 9. Exploring public attitudes to sentencing factors in England and Wales Julian Roberts and Mike Hough; 10. The pernicious impact of perceived public opinion on sentencing: findings from an empirical study of the public's approach to personal mitigation Austin Lovegrove; 11. Addressing problematic sentencing factors in the development of guidelines Warren Young and Andrea King; 12. Proof of aggravating and mitigating facts at sentencing Kevin Reitz; 13. Mitigation in federal sentencing in the United States Will Berry; 14. The discretionary effect of mitigating and aggravating factors: a South African case study Stephan Terblanche.
520			_a'This innovative volume explores a fundamental issue in the field of sentencing: the factors which make a sentence more or less severe. All sentencing systems allow courts discretion to consider mitigating and aggravating factors, and many legislatures have placed a number of such factors on a statutory footing. Yet many questions remain regarding the theory and practice of mitigation and aggravation. Drawing on legal and sociological perspectives and examining mitigation and aggravation in various jurisdictions, the essays provide practical illustrations of specific factors as well as theoretical justifications. After the foreword by Andrew von Hirsch, a number of contributors address broad conceptual issues raised at sentencing. These contributions are followed by several empirical chapters including an exploration of personal mitigation in English courts. The authors are leading scholars from a range of common law jurisdictions including England and Wales, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa'-- _cProvided by publisher.
520			_a'Explicit guidance for sentencing decisions, and an explicit rationale to guide them, has been a notable feature of sentence-reform efforts over recent decades. In England and Wales, a system of sentencing guidelines is in place, based on statutory standards and guidelines provided by the Sentencing Council. Meanwhile, an extensive literature on sentencing theory has developed - for example, that based on notions of desert and proportionate sanctions, or on notions of'limiting retributivism' (see von Hirsch and Ashworth 2005FWD-003, chs. 9 and appendix 2)'-- _cProvided by publisher.
650		0	_aSentences (Criminal procedure) _zEngland _vCongresses.
700	1		_aRoberts, Julian V.
907			_a.b15357594 _b2021-05-28 _c2019-11-12
942			_c01 _n0 _kC31.39KD.M535 2
914			_avtls003500116
990			_amab
991			_aFakulti Undang-Undang
998			_au _b2012-10-05 _cm _da _feng _genk _y0 _z.b15357594
999			_c519489 _d519489