会员注册 | 登录 | 微信快捷登录 支付宝快捷登录 QQ登录 微博登录 | 帮助中心 人人文库renrendoc.com美如初恋!
站内搜索 百度文库

热门搜索: 直缝焊接机 矿井提升机 循环球式转向器图纸 机器人手爪发展史 管道机器人dwg 动平衡试验台设计

   首页 人人文库网 > 资源分类 > DOC文档下载

外文翻译--酒后驾驶量刑的歧视性分析.doc

  • 资源星级:
  • 资源大小:138.50KB   全文页数:26页
  • 资源格式: DOC        下载权限:注册会员/VIP会员
您还没有登陆,请先登录。登陆后即可下载此文档。
  合作网站登录: 微信快捷登录 支付宝快捷登录   QQ登录   微博登录
友情提示
2:本站资源不支持迅雷下载,请使用浏览器直接下载(不支持QQ浏览器)
3:本站资源下载后的文档和图纸-无水印,预览文档经过压缩,下载后原文更清晰   

外文翻译--酒后驾驶量刑的歧视性分析.doc

外文文献及翻译中文英文16094字数SentencerandOffenderFactorsasSourcesofDiscriminationinMagistratesPenaltiesforDrinkingDriversDiscriminationsinpenaltieswererelatedtooffenderslegallyrelevantprioroffensesandbloodalcoholconcentrations,andextralegalvariablesofoffenderage,genderandemploymentstatus.Menweretreatedmoreharshlythanwomen,andyoungoffendersmoreharshlythanallotheroffendersexceptthoseover56years.Unemployedoffenderswerefinedless,butdisqualifiedforlongerthanoffendersintheworkforce.Magistratesorientationsandcourtinteractedwithoffensecategoriestoproducefurtherdifferencesrelatedtobloodalcoholconcentrationandrecidivism.KEYWORDSsentencingjusticediscriminationdiscretion.Howdomagistratesdeterminejustpenaltiesforacommonoffensethatcausesdeath,injury,andpropertydamage,buthasquestionablestatusasacrimeGusfield,1981Aresentencersdeterminationsinfluencedmostlybyoffenseandoffendercharacteristics,bymagistratessentencingorientations,orbycombinationsofsentencerandcasefactorsTheaimofthisresearchwastoexaminethefactorsinfluencingmagistratespenaltiesforthesociallypertinentoffenseofdrinkdriving.WeusetheAustraliantermdrinkdrivingratherthantheAmericantermdrunkdrivingthroughout.Ourfirsttaskwastocarryoutacomprehensiveempiricalanalysisofpenaltiesthatincorporatedmagisterial,case,andinstitutionalfactorsinthesamestatisticalmodel.Thenwesoughttoapplytheextensiveanalysestothejusticeissueofhowmuchsentencersattendtolegallydefined,justifiableorlegitimizedfactors,andhowmuchtheyattendtooffendercharacteristicssuchasgenderandsocialclass.Attentiontooffendercharacteristicsisnotprescribedinformallaw,andwhilenormallyreferredtoasextralegalvariables,theyalsohavebeencalledlegallyirrelevantAlthoughthereiscontradictoryevidenceabouttheexactinfluenceofextralegaloffendercharacteristicsHaganandBumiller,1983,therearesufficientindicationsoftheirintrusionsintosentencingdeliberationstowarrantcontinuedpublicconcernandthoroughempiricalinvestigation.EvenaftertheintroductionoftheinfluentialMinnesotaSentencingGuidelines,MietheandMoore1985andMooreandMiethe1986foundthatgender,employment,andeducationallevelshadamajorimpactonprisonsentences.Sentencersadjustedguidelinepenaltiestofittheirsentencingphilosophies.Thepressingresearchissueistodeterminehowmuchdifferencesinpenaltiesareinfluencedbysentencersunwarranted,legallyirrelevantdiscriminationsbetweenoffenders,asopposedtotheirappropriateattentiontolegallyrelevantcasedetails.Campaignstoreducedrinkingprovideauniqueopportunityforanalyzinghowjusticeisdispensed,sincesentencingoutcomesandthesentencerscontributioncanbespecifiedinwaysnotnormallyachievableincriminologicalresearch,andsinceoffendersincludemanypersonsofgoodcharacterwhonormallywouldnotappearincourtHomel,1988Wood,1990.Australianstateparliamentshaverespondedtothesocialcostofdrinkinganddrivingbytyingpenaltiestogradedlevelsofoffensesdefinedbycombinationsofbloodalcohollevelsandrecidivism,andthisactionautomaticallylimitsmagistratesdiscretionarypowers.Consequently,thescopeofindividualsentencersdeliberationsisconstrainedbycircumscribedrangesofpenalties,atthesametimethattheyareinformedbypublicandmediaattentiontotheroadtollHomel,1990.Insuchasituation,itispossibletoinvestigatehowmagistratesapplytheirperspectivestothefundamentalcaseinformationspecifiedbythelegislation,inrelationtootherinformationaboutoffendersappearingbeforethem.AneffectivestrategyforunderstandingsentencingbehaviorsinvolvesanalyzinghowsentencerandcasefactorsinteractHagan,1975Hogarth,1971.McFatter,1986,althoughanalyticproceduresforencapsulatingtheseinteractionsarenosimplerthantheexplanationstheyseektosupply.Forexample,Grossman1966,Green1961,andHoodandSparks1970agreeaboutthefutilityofseekingonetooneassociationsbetweenajudgesbackgroundandthejudicialdecisionsheorsheproduces.Differentsentencerfactorswillbeconsideredrelevantinanyempiricalanalysis,dependingontheresearchersinterestsandcommitments,withconsequentpossibilitiesofvariationsinexplanatorypower.Forinstance,theoreticalassumptionsofstablepersonaltraitsandattitudesarelikelytoleadtoanalysesthatdonotlookforintrasentencervariabilityinresponsetodifferentcontextsDouglas,1989McFatter,1986.Althoughsomenotablestudieshaverelatedsentencersattitudes,goals,androledefinitionstosentencingoutcomese.g.,Gibson,1978Hogarth,1971Softley,1980,thereislimitedvalueinattemptingtopredictpenaltiesfromsentencerfactors,ifsentencerrelatedinfluencesarenotexaminedintermsoftheirresponsivenesstothedifferentconfigurationsofcasefeaturessuchastheactualoffensecategoryunderwhichanoffenseisclassifiedDouglas,1989.Sentencerfactorsmaybeonceremovedfromthecourtroomtask,andsimplyfunctionasthebackdroptothesentencersactualsentencingactivitiesGrossman,1966LawrenceandHomel,1987.Theworkofthesentenceristoselect,weigh,andapplyevidencetoparticularcases.Essentially,itisaninformationmanagementactivityandthesentencersrelevantactivitiesinvolvetheirinterpretivecognitiveworkMaynard,1982.Everythingelsetodowiththesentencerprovidesthesettingforthatwork.ExpertiseinmanaginginformationresideschieflyinprofessionalsabilitiestocompileandorganizetheirknowledgeandbeliefstructurestoallowthemtoconstructworkingimagesormentalmodelsofeachnewtaskChietal.,1988JohnsonLaird,1983.Asexperiencedprofessionalsapproachagiventaskfromthebasisofaccruedknowledge,theymentallyconstructtheirownworkingmodelsorimages,envisagingtheelementsandlinkagesinvolvedinthetaskenvironment.Accumulatedexperienceofsimilartaskssuggestsreoccurringpatternsofassociations,sothatfreshinstancescanbeinterpretedagainstthesewellknownpatternsandtheinternallyconstructedinterpretationstheysuggest.Becausedrinkdrivingcasesarefrequentinmagistratescourts,itisreasonabletoexpectthatanexperiencedmagistrateisabletocalluponstoredpatternsoftypicalcasesasthenextcaseispresentedincourt,andofcourse,thesestoredpatternsareinfluencedbythatmagistratesownattitudesandgoalsHogarth,1971Lawrence,1984.models,addingnormativevaluesandrulesaswellasaffectivemarkerstotheknowledgeusedforinterpretinginformation.Personalorientationsandcaseinformationarebroughttogetherinthesentencersmind,sothatheorshefindsawayofselectingandcategorizingthefactsaboutanoffenderscase,workingbackandforthbetweentheincominginformationandstoredpatternsofhowdifferenttypesofcaseshangtogetherLawrence,1988a,1991.Littlesensecanbemadeofthemassofcaseinformationthatmayaffectsentencingoutcomes,unlessweunderstandhowthatinformationisfiltered,interpreted,andclothedwithmeaningbytheindividualsentencer.IfexperiencedjudgingsharesthecharacteristicsofexpertiseovermanydomainsChietal.,1988theorientationssentencersapplytocasesarelikelytobetaskoffensespecific,andsensitivetodifferentdetailsandtheirsources.Forexample,asentencerseekingtorehabilitatealcoholdependentoffendersmaypaycarefulattentiontohowadrinkdrivercametopolicenotice,andhowmuchalcoholhehadconsumedonthisandotheroccasions.Thesentencermatchesthesedetailswithhisorhermentalimageofthetypicalalcoholicdrinkdriver,AnothermagistratewithatariffapproachmaysimplyslotbloodalcoholconcentrationBACintoanoffenThereislittledoubtthatpersonalandsocialcharacteristicscolorsentencersworkingseequation,andseekfewotherdetails.Eachsentencermayadoptoneormoreperspectivesonthesamepieceofinformation,becauseoneperspectivemaynotexhaustallthepossibleviewpointsthatanexperiencedpersoncanapplytothesamecase.Thetarifforientedsentencermaybeconcurrentlyorientedtowardsnotdiscriminatingagainstthepoor,sothatheorsheconsultsanimageofaknownclassofoffenderwhocannotpayanormaltariffpenaltybecausetheyareunemployed.Thatsentencerneedstoweightheimmediaterelevanceofeachorientationtothegivencaseparticulars,andcomeupwithapenaltythatsatisfiespersonalsentencingcriteria.Inthedomainofdrinkdriving,wewereabletodrawonasetofaprioriorientationsbasedonHomels1983a,1988extensiveresearch,andwecouldspecifydifferentpositionsonthoseorientations.Analysesofover15,000drinkdrivingcasesallowedHomeltoinferthatpenaltieswereinfluencedbythemagistratestoughorlenientstyles,goalsfordeterringspecificoffenders,orcontributingtothegeneraldeterrenceofthecommunitypropensitiestousetarifforindividualizedapproachestosentencingandperspectivesonadrinkdriversage,standingasapersonofgoodcharacter,andsusceptibilitytoalcoholdependency.FromthisandmanyotherstudiesusingarchivaldataseeHomel,1982,wegeneratedasetoforientationstoclassifyempiricallymagistratesexpressionsofmultipleperspectivesoninterpretingdrinkdrivingoffenses.Wewerespecificallyinterestedinorientationsrelatedtomagistratesvaryingpositionsontheseriousnessofdrinkdrivingasanoffensedeterrencetariffversusindividualizedsentencinggoalstheimportanceofanoffendersage,alcoholicdependence,andactualorpotentialcauseofacollisionandamagistratesoverallseverityinpenalizingdrinkdriversseeHomelLawrence,1992.Theavailabilityofapowerfulmultivariatelinearmodelthatcouldincorporatenominalcategoriesofseveralorientationsandtheirinteractionswithotherfactorsmeantwecouldusequalitativecodingsoforientationsthatwererealisticforthespecificoffense,withoutforcingpositionsintofalselyordinalclassifications.Withtaskspecificity,andawelldefinedoffensethatapproximatesafieldexperimentinwhichtheexpertsworkspaceisconstrainedandoutcomesarequantifiable,itispossibletobeexplicitaboutindividualdifferencesratherthantorelyuponglobaldescriptionsofmagistratesasidiosyncraticMcFatter,1986,p.150orstylisticallytoughorlenientHomel,1983a.Inaddition,bysamplingmagistratesandcasesfromtwolargecitycourtsthatwerecontrastedonoverallseverity,courtcouldbeusedasafurther,supraindividualfactor.Weexpectedthatthecomprehensivemodelingprocesswouldallowustoexplainmoreofthesentencingvariancethanispossibleusinggeneralmagistratefactors.SincetheinterpretivesentencingprocessisdependentontheadequacyofinformationmadeavailabletosentencersbyattorneysandwitnesseswithdifferentagendasandabilitiesLawrence,1984,1991Pope,1986,weincludedasmanylegalandextralegalvariablesaspossible.LegallyrelevantinformationiswelldefinedinthisareaBACinrelationtorecidivism,buttheextralegalorsocialvariablesrelatedtotheoffenderalsohavetobefittedintotheinterpretivepictureifdisparitiesaretobeidentified,makingacomplexsetofdifferentandconflictingfactorstobesortedandusedinthedecisionprocess.Adoptingthecommonpracticeoflabelingpersonalandsocialoffendervariablesasextralegalinordertoconsidertheirlegitimacy,wefocusedonthreetypesofoffendercharacteristicsthatconsistentlypromotedifferentoutcomesgender,age,andemploymentstatusasanindexofsocialclass.Thesethreefactorsthrowlightonthejusticeandequityissueaswellasbeingconsistentlyrecordedin

注意事项

本文(外文翻译--酒后驾驶量刑的歧视性分析.doc)为本站会员(英文资料库)主动上传,人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知人人文库网([email protected]),我们立即给予删除!

温馨提示:如果因为网速或其他原因下载失败请重新下载,重复下载不扣分。

copyright@ 2015-2017 人人文库网网站版权所有
苏ICP备12009002号-5