外文文獻(xiàn)及翻譯中文+英文16094字?jǐn)?shù)SentencerandOffenderFactorsasSourcesofDiscriminationinMagistratesPenaltiesforDrinkingDriversDiscriminationsinpenaltieswererelatedtooffenderslegallyrelevantprioroffensesandbloodalcoholconcentrations,andextralegalvariablesofoffenderage,genderandemploymentstatus.Menweretreatedmoreharshlythanwomen,andyoungoffendersmoreharshlythanallotheroffendersexceptthoseover56years.Unemployedoffenderswerefinedless,butdisqualifiedforlongerthanoffendersintheworkforce.Magistratesorientationsandcourtinteractedwithoffensecategoriestoproducefurtherdifferencesrelatedtobloodalcoholconcentrationandrecidivism.KEYWORDS:sentencing；justice；discrimination；discretion.Howdomagistratesdeterminejustpenaltiesforacommonoffensethatcausesdeath,injury,andpropertydamage,buthasquestionablestatusasacrime(Gusfield,1981)?Aresentencersdeterminationsinfluencedmostlybyoffenseandoffendercharacteristics,bymagistratessentencingorientations,orbycombinationsofsentencerandcasefactors?Theaimofthisresearchwastoexaminethefactorsinfluencingmagistratespenaltiesforthesociallypertinentoffenseofdrink-driving.(WeusetheAustraliantermdrink-drivingratherthantheAmericantermdrunkdrivingthrough-out.)Ourfirsttaskwastocarryoutacomprehensiveempiricalanalysisofpenaltiesthatincorporatedmagisterial,case,andinstitutionalfactorsinthesamestatisticalmodel.Thenwesoughttoapplytheextensiveanalysestothejusticeissueofhowmuchsentencersattendtolegallydefined,justifiableorlegitimizedfactors,andhowmuchtheyattendtooffendercharacteristicssuchasgenderandsocialclass.Attentiontooffendercharacteristicsisnotprescribedinformallaw,andwhilenormallyreferredtoasextralegalvariables,theyalsohavebeencalledlegally-irrelevantAlthoughthereiscontradictoryevidenceabouttheexactinfluenceofextralegaloffendercharacteristics(HaganandBumiller,1983),therearesufficientindicationsoftheirintrusionsintosentencingdeliberationstowarrantcontinuedpublicconcernandthoroughempiricalinvestigation.EvenaftertheintroductionoftheinfluentialMinnesotaSentencingGuidelines,MietheandMoore(1985)andMooreandMiethe(1986)foundthatgender,employment,andeducationallevelshadamajorimpactonprisonsentences.Sentencersadjustedguidelinepenaltiestofittheirsentencingphilosophies.Thepressingresearchissueistodeterminehowmuchdifferencesinpenaltiesareinfluencedbysentencersunwarranted,legallyirrelevantdiscriminationsbetweenoffenders,asopposedtotheirappropriateattentiontolegallyrelevantcasede-tails.Campaignstoreducedrinkingprovideauniqueopportunityforanalyzinghowjusticeisdispensed,sincesentencingoutcomesandthesentencerscontributioncanbespecifiedinwaysnotnormallyachievableincriminologicalresearch,andsinceoffendersincludemanypersonsofgoodcharacterwhonormallywouldnotappearincourt(Homel,1988；Wood,1990).Australianstateparliamentshaverespondedtothesocialcostofdrinkinganddrivingbytyingpenaltiestogradedlevelsofoffensesdefinedbycombinationsofbloodalcohollevelsandrecidivism,andthisactionautomaticallylimitsmagistratesdiscretionarypowers.Consequently,thescopeofindividualsentencersdeliberationsisconstrainedbycircumscribedrangesofpenalties,atthesametimethattheyareinformedbypublicandmediaattentiontotheroadtoll(Homel,1990).Insuchasituation,itispossibletoinvestigatehowmagistratesapplytheirperspectivestothefundamentalcaseinformationspecifiedbythelegislation,inrelationtootherinformationaboutoffendersappearingbeforethem.Aneffectivestrategyforunderstandingsentencingbehaviorsinvolvesanalyzinghowsentencerandcasefactorsinteract(Hagan,1975；Hogarth,1971.McFatter,1986),althoughanalyticproceduresforencapsulatingtheseinteractionsarenosimplerthantheexplanationstheyseektosupply.Forexample,Grossman(1966),Green(1961),andHoodandSparks(1970)agreeaboutthefutilityofseekingone-to-oneassociationsbetweenajudgesbackgroundandthejudicialdecisionsheorsheproduces.Differentsentencerfactorswillbeconsideredrelevantinanyempiricalanalysis,dependingontheresearchersinterestsandcommitments,withconsequentpossibilitiesofvariationsinexplanatorypower.Forinstance,theoreticalassumptionsofstablepersonaltraitsandattitudesarelikelytoleadtoanalysesthatdonotlookforintrasentencervariabilityinresponsetodifferentcontexts(Douglas,1989；McFatter,1986).Althoughsomenotablestudieshaverelatedsentencersattitudes,goals,androledefinitionstosentencingoutcomes(e.g.,Gibson,1978；Hogarth,1971；Softley,1980),thereislimitedvalueinattemptingtopredictpenaltiesfromsentencerfactors,ifsentencer-relatedinfluencesarenotexaminedintermsoftheirresponsivenesstothedifferentconfigurationsofcasefeaturessuchastheactualoffensecategoryunderwhichanoffenseisclassified(Douglas,1989).Sentencerfactorsmaybeonceremovedfromthecourtroomtask,andsimplyfunctionasthebackdroptothesentencersactualsentencingactivities(Grossman,1966；LawrenceandHomel,1987).Theworkofthesentenceristoselect,weigh,andapplyevidencetopar-ticularcases.Essentially,itisaninformationmanagementactivityandthesentencersrelevantactivitiesinvolvetheirinterpretivecognitivework(Maynard,1982).Everythingelsetodowiththesentencerprovidesthesettingforthatwork.Expertiseinmanaginginformationresideschieflyinprofessionalsabilitiestocompileandorganizetheirknowledgeandbeliefstructurestoallowthemtoconstructworkingimagesormentalmodelsofeachnewtask(Chietal.,1988；Johnson-Laird,1983).Asexperiencedprofessionalsapproachagiventaskfromthebasisofaccruedknowledge,theymentallyconstructtheirownworkingmodelsorimages,envisagingtheelementsandlinkagesinvolvedinthetaskenvironment.Accumulatedexperienceofsimi-lartaskssuggestsreoccurringpatternsofassociations,sothatfreshin-stancescanbeinterpretedagainstthesewell-knownpatternsandtheinternallyconstructedinterpretationstheysuggest.Becausedrink-drivingcasesarefrequentinmagistratescourts,itisreasonabletoexpectthatanexperiencedmagistrateisabletocalluponstoredpatternsoftypicalcasesasthenextcaseispresentedincourt,andofcourse,thesestoredpatternsareinfluencedbythatmagistratesownattitudesandgoals(Hogarth,1971；Lawrence,1984).models,addingnormativevaluesandrulesaswellasaffectivemarkerstotheknowledgeusedforinterpretinginformation.Personalorientationsandcaseinformationarebroughttogetherinthesentencersmind,sothatheorshefindsawayofselectingandcategorizingthefactsaboutanoffenderscase,workingbackandforthbetweentheincominginformationandstoredpatternsofhowdifferenttypesofcaseshangtogether(Lawrence,1988a,1991).Littlesensecanbemadeofthemassofcaseinformationthatmayaffectsentencingoutcomes,unlessweunderstandhowthatinformationisfiltered,interpreted,andclothedwithmeaningbytheindividualsentencer.Ifexperiencedjudgingsharesthecharacteristicsofexpertiseovermanydomains(Chietal.,1988)theorientationssentencersapplytocasesarelikelytobetask-(offense)specific,andsensitivetodifferentdetailsandtheirsources.Forexample,asentencerseekingtorehabilitatealcohol-dependentoffendersmaypaycarefulattentiontohowadrink-drivercametopolicenotice,andhowmuchalcoholhehadconsumedonthisandotheroccasions.Thesentencermatchesthesedetailswithhisorhermentalimageofthetypicalalcoholicdrink-driver,Anothermagistratewithatariffapproachmaysimplyslotbloodalcoholconcentration(BAC)intoanoffenThereislittledoubtthatpersonalandsocialcharacteristicscolorsentencersworkingseequation,andseekfewotherdetails.Eachsentencermayadoptoneormoreperspectivesonthesamepieceofinformation,becauseoneperspectivemaynotexhaustallthepossibleviewpointsthatanexperiencedpersoncanapplytothesamecase.Thetariff-orientedsentencermaybeconcurrentlyorientedtowardsnotdis-criminatingagainstthepoor,sothatheorsheconsultsanimageofaknownclassofoffenderwhocannotpayanormaltariffpenaltybecausetheyareunemployed.Thatsentencerneedstoweightheimmediaterelevanceofeachorientationtothegivencaseparticulars,andcomeupwithapenaltythatsatisfiespersonalsentencingcriteria.Inthedomainofdrink-driving,wewereabletodrawonasetofaprioriorientationsbasedonHomels(1983a,1988)extensiveresearch,andwecouldspecifydifferentpositionsonthoseorientations.Analysesofover15,000drink-drivingcasesallowedHomeltoinferthatpenaltieswerein-fluencedbythemagistratestoughorlenientstyles,goalsfordeterringspecificoffenders,orcontributingtothegeneraldeterrenceofthecommunity；propensitiestousetarifforindividualizedapproachestosentencing；andperspectivesonadrink-driversage,standingasapersonofgoodcharacter,andsusceptibilitytoalcoholdependency.Fromthisandmanyotherstudiesusingarchivaldata(seeHomel,1982),wegeneratedasetoforientationstoclassifyempiricallymagistratesexpressionsofmultipleperspectivesoninterpretingdrink-drivingoffenses.Wewerespecificallyinterestedinorientationsrelatedtomagistratesvaryingpositionson:theseriousnessofdrink-drivingasanoffense；deterrence；tariffversusindividualizedsentencinggoals；theimportanceofanoffendersage,alcoholicdependence,andactualorpotentialcauseofacollision；andamagistratesoverallseverityinpenalizingdrink-drivers(seeHomel&Lawrence,1992).Theavailabilityofapowerfulmultivariatelinearmodelthatcouldincorporatenominalcategoriesofseveralorientationsandtheirinteractionswithotherfactorsmeantwecouldusequalitativecodingsoforientationsthatwererealisticforthespecificoffense,withoutforcingpositionsintofalselyordinalclassifications.Withtaskspecificity,andawell-definedoffensethatapproximatesafieldexperimentinwhichtheexpertsworkspaceisconstrainedandoutcomesarequantifiable,itispossibletobeexplicitaboutindividualdifferencesratherthantorelyuponglobaldescriptionsofmagistratesasidiosyncratic(McFatter,1986,p.150)orstylisticallytoughorlenient(Homel,1983a).Inaddition,bysamplingmagistratesandcasesfromtwolargecitycourtsthatwerecontrastedonoverallseverity,courtcouldbeuse