Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5f56664f6-spj7j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-07T15:19:15.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Criminal History Enhancements at Sentencing

from Part III - Criminal Justice and Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

By
Julian Roberts  and
Stefan Harrendorf
Edited by
Kai Ambos ,
Antony Duff ,
Julian Roberts ,
Thomas Weigend  and
Alexander Heinze
Kai Ambos
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Antony Duff
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Julian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend
Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Alexander Heinze
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Get access

Summary

A defendant’s prior crimes affect decision-making throughout the criminal process, from decisions taken by the police, prosecutors and investigating magistrates (bail), through to prison and parole authorities considering whether to release prisoners. It is at sentencing however, that criminal history has the greatest impact on decisions and the lives of defendants. Of all the aggravating factors, a criminal record is the most commonly invoked, the most powerful and also the most controversial. In general, people with prior convictions are treated more harshly in all criminal justice systems, civil and common law. This near-universal sentencing policy is variously described as a Recidivist Sentencing Premium, a Prior Record Enhancement, or Criminal History Enhancement; the German term is Strafschärfung für Rückfalltäter or, briefer, Rückfallschärfung. The penologist Nigel Walker referred to prior convictions as ‘the most obvious example of aggravation’ and Hessick and Hessick described the recidivist sentencing premium as ‘one punishment issue on which everyone seems to agree’. In this chapter, we argue that it is neither as obvious nor as consensual as these quotes suggest. Other authors seem closer to the truth when they describe ‘the controversial question of sentencing repeat offenders’.

Type
Chapter
Information
Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 261 - 303
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alex, M., Nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung: Ein rechtsstaatliches und kriminalpolitisches Debakel, Bochum, Felix-Verlag (2013).Google Scholar
Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K., Reflections on Crime and Culpability, Cambridge University Press (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andenaes, J., ‘The General Preventive Effects of Punishment’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 114 (1966), 949–83.Google Scholar
Ashworth, A., Sentencing and Criminal Justice, 6th edn, Cambridge University Press (2015).Google Scholar
Ashworth, A. and Roberts, J. V., Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring the English Model, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Baurmann, M., ‘Vorüberlegungen zu einer empirischen Theorie der Generalprävention’, in Schünemann, B., Hirsch, A. von and Jareborg, N. (eds.), Positive Generalprävention: Kritische Analysen im deutsch‐englischen Dialog, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (1998), 1–16.Google Scholar
Becker, G. S., ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’, Journal of Political Economy, 76 (1968), 169–217.Google Scholar
Bentham, J., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 2nd edn, 2 vols., London, W. Pickering (1823), II.Google Scholar
Cavadino, M. and Dignan, J., ‘Penal Policy and Political Economy’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6 (2006), 435–56.Google Scholar
Cochran, J. K. and Chamlin, M. B., ‘Can Information Change Public Opinion? Another Test of the Marshall Hypotheses’, Journal of Criminal Justice, 33 (2005), 573–84.Google Scholar
Cooter, R., ‘Expressive Law and Economics’, Journal of Legal Studies, 27 (1998), 585–608.Google Scholar
Cox, E., The Principles of Punishment: As Applied in the Administration of the Criminal Law by Judges and Magistrates, London, Law Times Office (1877).Google Scholar
Dölling, D., Entorf, H., Hermann, D. and Rupp, T., ‘Is Deterrence Effective? Results of a Meta-Analysis of Punishment’, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15 (2009), 201–24.Google Scholar
Dressel, J. and Farid, H., ‘The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism’, Science Advances, 4 (2018).Google Scholar
Dubber, M. D., ‘Positive Generalprävention und Rechtsgutstheorie: Zwei zentrale Errungenschaften der deutschen Strafrechtswissenschaft aus amerikanischer Sicht’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 117 (2005), 485–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, R. A., Punishment, Communication, and Community, Oxford University Press (2001).Google Scholar
Eschelbach, R., ‘§ 46 StGB’, in Satzger, H., Schluckebier, W. and Widmaier, G. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 4th edn, Cologne, Heymanns (2018).Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S., ‘Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments’, American Economic Review, 90 (2000), 980–94.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gintis, H., ‘Human Motivation and Social Cooperation: Experimental and Analytical Foundations’, Annual Review of Sociology, 33 (2007), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J., ‘The Expressive Function of Punishment’, in Feinberg, J. (ed.), Doing and Deserving, Princeton University Press (1970), 95–118.Google Scholar
Feldman, Y., ‘The Expressive Function of Trade Secret Law: Legality, Cost, Intrinsic Motivation, and Consensus’, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6 (2009), 177–212.Google Scholar
Feuerbach, J. P. A. von, Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland gültigen peinlichen Rechts, 11th edn, Gießen, Heyer (1832).Google Scholar
Flander, B. and Meško, G., ‘Penal and Prison Policy on the Sunny Side of the Alps: The Swan Song of Slovenian Exceptionalism?’ European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22 (2016), 565–91.Google Scholar
Frase, R., ‘Prior-Conviction Sentencing Enhancements: Rationales and Limits Based on Retributive and Utilitarian Proportionality Principles and Social Equality Goals’, in Roberts, J. V. and Hirsch, A. (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Oxford, Hart (2014), 117–36.Google Scholar
Frase, R. and Hester, R., ‘Magnitude of Criminal History Enhancements’, in Frase, R., Roberts, J. V., Mitchell, K. and Hester, R., Sourcebook of Criminal History Enhancements, Minneapolis, Robina Institute (2015), 19–28.Google Scholar
Frase, R. and Roberts, J. V., Paying for the Past: Prior Record Enhancements in the US Sentencing Guidelines, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar
Frase, R., Roberts, J. V., Mitchell, K. and Hester, R., Sourcebook of Criminal History Enhancements, Minneapolis, Robina Institute (2015).Google Scholar
Funk, P., ‘Is There an Expressive Function of Law? An Empirical Analysis of Voting Laws with Symbolic Fines’, American Law and Economics Review, 9 (2007), 135–59.Google Scholar
Gallas, W., ‘Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Lehre vom Verbrechen’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 67 (1955), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, L., Lebendiges und Totes in Feuerbachs Straftheorie, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2009).Google Scholar
Green, D., When Children Kill Children, Oxford University Press (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrendorf, S., Rückfälligkeit und kriminelle Karrieren von Gewalttätern, Universitätsverlag Göttingen (2007).Google Scholar
Harrendorf, S., ‘Neues zur Gefährlichkeit von Gewalttätern: Rückfälligkeit im sechsjährigen Intervall 2004 – 2010’, in Albrecht, H.-J. and Jehle, J.-M. (eds.), National Reconviction Statistics and Studies in Europe, Universitätsverlag Göttingen (2014), 183–210.Google Scholar
Harrendorf, S., ‘Sentencing Thresholds in German Criminal Law and Practice: Legal and Empirical Aspects’, Criminal Law Forum, 28 (2017), 501–39.Google Scholar
Harrendorf, S., Absolute und relative Bagatellen: Grenzen des Strafrechts bei geringfügiger Delinquenz (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Harrendorf, S. and Geng, B., ‘Der rational kalkulierende Verbrecher? Zu Entwicklung, Stand und Zukunftsperspektiven ökonomischer Kriminalitätstheorien’, in Körnert, J., Lege, J. and Grube, C. (eds.), Recht trifft Wirtschaft, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2019), 181–212.Google Scholar
Heinz, W., ‘Neue Straflust der Strafjustiz – Realität oder Mythos?’ Neue Kriminalpolitik, 22 (2011), 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzberg, R. D., ‘Setzt strafrechtliche Schuld ein Vermeidenkönnen voraus?’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 124 (2012), 12–63.Google Scholar
Hessick, C. B. and Hessick, F. A., ‘Double Jeopardy as a Limit on Punishment’, Cornell Law Review, 97 (2011), 45–86.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. von, ‘Criminal Record Rides Again’, Criminal Justice Ethics, 10 (1991), 2–57.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. von, ‘Begründung und Bestimmung tatproportionaler Strafen’, in Frisch, W., Hirsch, A. von and Albrecht, H.-J. (eds.), Tatproportionalität: Normative und empirische Aspekte einer tatproportionalen Strafzumessung, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2003), 47–82.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. von, Bottoms, A., Burney, E. and Wikström, P. O., Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity, Oxford, Hart (1999).Google Scholar
Hirsch, H. J., ‘Tatstrafrecht – ein hinreichend beachtetes Grundprinzip?’, in Prittwitz, C., Baurmann, M., Günther, K., Kuhlen, L., Merkel, R., Nestler, C. and Schulz, L. (eds.), Festschrift für Klaus Lüderssen zum 70. Geburtstag am 2. Mai 2002, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2002), 253–67.Google Scholar
Holz, W., Justizgewähranspruch des Verbrechensopfers, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2007).Google Scholar
Hörnle, T., Tatproportionale Strafzumessung, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horstkotte, H., ‘Die Vorschriften des Ersten Gesetzes zur Reform des Strafrechts über den Rückfall und die Maßregeln der Sicherung und Besserung’, Juristenzeitung, 5 (1970), 152–6.Google Scholar
Indermaur, D., Roberts, L. D., Spiranovic, C., Mackenzie, G. and Gelb, K., ‘A Matter of Judgement: The Effect of Information and Deliberation on Public Attitudes to Punishment’, Punishment & Society, 14 (2012), 147–65Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. B., The Eternal Criminal Record, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press (2015).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., Schuld und Prävention, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (1976).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., ‘Das Strafrecht zwischen Funktionalismus und ‚alteuropäischem’Prinzipiendenken: Oder: Verabschiedung des ‚alteuropäischen Strafrechts’?’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 107 (1995), 843–76.Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., Staatliche Strafe: Bedeutung und Zweck, Paderborn, Schöningh (2004).Google Scholar
Jehle, J.-M., ‘Approach, Structure and Outcome of the German Reconviction Study’, in Albrecht, H.-J. and Jehle, J.-M. (eds.), National Reconviction Statistics and Studies in Europe, Universitätsverlag Göttingen (2014), 25–41.Google Scholar
Jehle, J.-M., Albrecht, H.-J., Hohmann-Fricke, S. and Tetal, C., Legalbewährung nach strafrechtlichen Sanktionen: Eine bundesweite Rückfalluntersuchung 2010 bis 2013 und 2004 bis 2013, Mönchengladbach, Forum Verlag Godesberg (2016).Google Scholar
Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T., Lehrbuch des Strafrechts: Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1996).Google Scholar
Jolliffe, D. and Hedderman, C., ‘Investigating the Impact of Custody on Reoffending Using Propensity Score Matching’, Crime and Delinquency, 61 (2015), 1051–77.Google Scholar
Kaspar, J., Verhältnismäßigkeit und Grundrechtsschutz im Präventionsstrafrecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2014).Google Scholar
Kaspar, J., Gutachten C zum 72. Deutschen Juristentag: Sentencing Guidelines versus freies tatrichterliches Ermessen – Brauchen wir ein neues Strafzumessungsrecht?, Munich, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar
Kaufmann, A., Lebendiges und Totes in Bindings Normentheorie, Göttingen, Otto Schwartz (1954).Google Scholar
Kazemian, L., ‘Assessing the Impact of a Recidivist Sentencing Premium on Crime and Recidivism Rates’, in Roberts, J. V. and Hirsch, A. von (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Oxford, Hart (2014), 227–50.Google Scholar
Killias, M., ‘Zur Bedeutung von Rechtsgefühl und Sanktionen für die Konformität des Verhaltens gegenüber neuen Normen: Das Beispiel der Gurtanlegepflicht’, in Lampe, E. J. (ed.), Das sogenannte Rechtsgefühl, Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag (1985), 257–72.Google Scholar
Kinzig, J., Legalbewährung gefährlicher Rückfalltäter, 2nd edn, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimke, D., Sack, F. and Schlepper, C., ‘Stopping the “Punitive Turn” at the German Border’, in Kury, H. and Shea, E. (eds.), Punitivity: International Developments, I: Punitiveness – A Global Phenomenon?, Bochum, Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer (2011), 289–340.Google Scholar
Köhler, M., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Berlin, Springer (1997).Google Scholar
Kunz, K. L., ‘Vorleben und Nachtatverhalten als Strafzumessungstatsachen’, in Frisch, W. (ed.), Grundfragen des Strafzumessungsrechts aus deutscher und japanischer Sicht, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (2011), 135–50.Google Scholar
Kury, H., Brandenstein, M. and Obergfell-Fuchs, J., ‘Dimensions of Punitiveness in Germany’, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15 (2009), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y., ‘Repeat Offenders and the Question of Desert’, in Roberts, J. V. and Hirsch, A. (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Oxford, Hart (2014), 49–72.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. and Cullen, F. T., ‘The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3 (2007), 297–320.Google Scholar
Liszt, F. von, ‘Der Zweckgedanke im Strafrecht’, Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 1 (1883), 1–47.Google Scholar
Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S. and Jowell, R., ‘Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain’, British Journal of Political Science, 32 (2002), 455–87.Google Scholar
Malik, A. K., ‘Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Shackling Judicial Discretion for Justice or Political Expediency?’, Criminal Law Quarterly, 53 (2007), 236–59.Google Scholar
Meier, B. D., ‘What Works? Die Ergebnisse der neueren Sanktionsforschung aus kriminologischer Sicht’, Juristenzeitung, 3 (2010), 112–20.Google Scholar
Mews, A., Hillier, J., McHugh, M. and Coxon, C., The Impact of Short Custodial Sentences, Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders on Re-Offending, London, Ministry of Justice (2015).Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice, Compendium of Re-Offending Statistics and Analysis, London, Ministry of Justice (2011).Google Scholar
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2017 Sentencing Practices, Annual Summary Statistics for Felony Offenders Sentenced in 2017, Saint Paul, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (2018).Google Scholar
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, Saint Paul, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (2018).Google Scholar
Mitchell, K., ‘Decay and Gap Policies’, in Frase, R., Roberts, J. V., Mitchell, K. and Hester, R. (eds.), Sourcebook of Criminal History Enhancements, Minneapolis, Robina Institute (2015), 29–38.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K., ‘A Measure of Tolerance: Public Attitudes toward Sentencing Enhancements for Old and Juvenile Prior Records’, Corrections. Policy, Practice, and Research, 3 (2017), 137–51.Google Scholar
Nozick, R., Philosophical Explanations, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1981).Google Scholar
O’Malley, T., Sentencing Law and Practice, Dublin, Thomson Reuters (2016).Google Scholar
Parent, D., Structuring Criminal Sentences: The Evolution of Minnesota’s Sentencing Guidelines, Massachusetts, Butterworths (1988).Google Scholar
Pawlik, M., Person, Subjekt, Bürger, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (2004).Google Scholar
Pratt, J., Penal Populism, London, Routledge (2007).Google Scholar
Pratt, J., ‘Scandinavian Exceptionalism in an Era of Penal Excess, Part I: The Nature and Roots of Scandinavian Exceptionalism’, British Journal of Criminology, 48 (2008), 119–37.Google Scholar
Pruin, I., ‘Interdisziplinäre Erkenntnisse zur Entlassung aus dem Strafvollzug und ihre Bedeutung für die deutsche Reformdiskussion’, in Bock, S., Harrendorf, S. and Ladiges, M. (eds.), Strafrecht als interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2015), 139–67.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., Mandatory Sentences of Imprisonment in Common Law Jurisdictions: Some Representative Models, Department of Justice Canada, Research Division (2006).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., Punishing Persistent Offenders: Community and Offender Perspectives on the Recidivist Sentencing Premium, Oxford University Press (2008).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., ‘Justifying Criminal History Enhancements at Sentencing’, in Frase, R., Roberts, J. V., Mitchell, K. and Hester, R. (eds.), Sourcebook of Criminal History Enhancements, Minneapolis, Robina Institute (2015), 11–18.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., ‘Severity Premium for Similar Prior Offending: Patterning Rules’, in Frase, R., Roberts, J. V., Mitchell, K. and Hester, R. (eds.), Sourcebook of Criminal History Enhancements, Minneapolis, Robina Institute (2015), 63–70.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Hirsch, A. von (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Oxford, Hart (2014).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Hough, M., Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal Justice, Maidenhead, Open University Press (2005).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Pei, W., ‘Structuring Judicial Discretion in China: Exploring the 2014 Sentencing Guidelines’, Criminal Law Forum, 27 (2016), 3–33.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Pina-Sánchez, J., ‘Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Exploring Empirical Trends in the Crown Court’, Criminal Law Review, 8 (2014), 575–88.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Pina-Sánchez, J., ‘Paying for the Past: The Role of Previous Convictions at Sentencing in the Crown Court’, in Roberts, J. V. (ed.), Exploring Sentencing Practice in England and Wales, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan (2015), 154–72.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Stalans, L. J., Public Opinion, Crime, and Criminal Justice, Boulder, Westview Press (1997).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. J., Indermaur, D. and Hough, M., Penal Populism and Public Opinion: Lessons from Five Countries, Oxford University Press (2003).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 4th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2006).Google Scholar
Ryberg, J., The Ethics of Proportionate Punishment: A Critical Investigation, Dordecht, Kluwer (2004).Google Scholar
Sampson, R. J. and Laub, J. H., Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life, Harvard University Press (1995).Google Scholar
Schäfer, G., Sander, G. M. and Gemmeren, G. van, Praxis der Strafzumessung, 6th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Schmidhäuser, E., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil: Lehrbuch, 2nd edn, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (1975).Google Scholar
Schmidt, E., ‘Kriminalpolitische und strafrechtsdogmatische Probleme in der deutschen Strafrechtsreform’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 69 (1957), 359–96.Google Scholar
Schumann, K. F., Positive Generalprävention, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (1989).Google Scholar
Schünemann, B., ‘Die Akzeptanz von Normen und Sanktionen aus der Perspektive der Tatproportionalität’, in Frisch, W., Hirsch, A. and Albrecht, H.-J. (eds.), Tatproportionalität: Normative und empirische Aspekte einer tatproportionalen Strafzumessung, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2003), 185–97.Google Scholar
Shapland, J. and Bottoms, A., ‘Reflections on Social Values, Offending and Desistance among Young Adult Recidivists’, Punishment & Society, 13 (2011), 256–82.Google Scholar
Smith, P., Goggin, C. and Gendreau, P., The Effects of Prison Sentences and Intermediate Sanctions on Recidivism: General Effects and Individual Differences, Ottowa, Solicitor General Canada (2002).Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt, Rechtspflege: Strafverfolgung 2016, Wiesbaden, Statistisches Bundesamt (2017).Google Scholar
Stelly, W. and Thomas, J., Einmal Verbrecher – immer Verbrecher?, Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher Verlag (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratenwerth, G., Was leistet die Lehre von den Strafzwecken?, Berlin, De Gruyter (1995).Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘Schuld ohne Freiheit? Der funktionale Schuldbegriff auf dem Prüfstand’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 101 (1989), 273–334.Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘§ 46 StGB’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Nomos-Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2017).Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., ‘On the Expressive Function of Law’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 144 (1996), 2021–53.Google Scholar
Tamburrini, C. M. and Ryberg, J. (eds.), Recidivist Punishments: The Philosopher’s View, Lanham, Lexington Books (2012).Google Scholar
Thomas, D. A., Principles of Sentencing, 2nd edn, London, Heinemann (1970).Google Scholar
Tomášek, J., ‘The Public and Crime’, in Scheinost, S. (ed.), Crime from the Perspective of Criminologists, Prague, Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention (2011), 221–32.Google Scholar
Tonry, M., ‘Sentencing in America, 1975–2025’, Crime and Justice, 42 (2013), 141–98.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Why People Obey the Law, New Haven, Yale University Press (1990).Google Scholar
US Sentencing Commission, US Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2018, Washington, DC, US Sentencing Commission (2018).Google Scholar
Walker, N., Sentencing: Theory, Law and Practice, London, Butterworths (1985).Google Scholar
Walker, N., Aggravation, Mitigation and Mercy in English Criminal Justice, London, Blackstone Press (1999).Google Scholar
Wasik, M., ‘Guidance, Guidelines and Criminal Record’, in Wasik, M. and Pease, K. (eds.), Sentencing Reform: Guidance or Guidelines?, Manchester University Press (1987).Google Scholar
Wasik, M., ‘Dimensions of Criminal History: Reflections on Theory and Practice’, in Roberts, J. V. and von Hirsch, A. (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Oxford, Hart (2014), 161–83.Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘No News is Good News: Criminal Sentencing in Germany since 2000’, Crime and Justice, 45 (2016), 83–106.Google Scholar
Welcker, C. T., Die letzten Gründe von Recht, Staat und Strafe: Philosophisch und nach den Gesetzen der merkwürdigsten Völker rechtshistorisch entwickelt, Gießen, Heyer (1813).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×