Judges perceptions on Specific Deterrence and Criminal Sentencing Practices

• In Event: Judicial Discretion in the Sentencing Process 1.

Abstract

Specific deterrence as a philosophy of punishment seeks to ensure that a specific defendant does not re-offend. In this project, researchers interviewed judges in Austria and the US to determine the extent to which judges consider specific deterrence in sentencing offenders in criminal court. Specifically, researchers were interested in understanding whether theoretical principles of specific deterrence differ from considerations of aggravating and mitigating legal circumstances, and the extent to which extra-legal factors provide context for judges to issue sentences tailored to the needs of a specific offender even if that means deviation from sentencing guidelines. Fifteen judges in Austria were interviewed and a corresponding fifteen judges in the US were interviewed to understand these perceptions. Judges individually participated in a 60 minute interview that was recorded and transcribed. The survey was administered in German in Austria and in English in the US. Data were analyzed using qualitative data analysis techniques including coding for themes and patterns. Preliminary analysis reveals that judges in Austria are more aware of the construct of specific deterrence, but judges in both countries consider environmental factors in sentencing decisions. Discretion remains an important function of judges. The extent to which AI could be used to assist judges in sentencing decisions presents complex concerns for judges that appears to threaten their function as discretionary enforcers of punishment in the legal system. While scholars have argued that AI could help remove bias in sentencing, judges seem to fear the introduction of bias against defendants. Judges also expressed the need for additional training in the areas of risk assessment use, trauma informed care, and simulations to help judges understand the unique circumstances of criminal defendants. Outcomes provide guidance for training of criminal court judges relating to integration of theory into practice in criminal court sentencing.

Authors

• Stacy C Moak, University of Alabama Birmingham

• Nina Kaiser, Hans Gross Centre for Interdisciplinary Criminal Sciences (Institute of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedural Law and Criminology, University of Graz, Austria)

• Ida Leibetseder, Hans Gross Centre for Interdisciplinary Criminal Sciences (Institute of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedural Law and Criminology, University of Graz, Austria)