Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorSparks, Richard
dc.contributor.advisorJones, Richard
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Graeme David
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-29T15:10:37Z
dc.date.available2016-09-29T15:10:37Z
dc.date.issued2014-11-25
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1842/16874
dc.description.abstractThis thesis considers how judges sentence. It explores and critically analyses judicial decision making in sentencing along with judicial perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the sentencing process. Building upon a thorough review of recent scholarship on judicial decision making and sentencing, and incorporating a comparative study of domestic and Commonwealth sentencing jurisprudence, the thesis comprises the first empirical study of judicial sentencing in Scotland in a decade. The thesis reports the results of an interview-based study with 25 serving Scottish judges. In particular it investigates judicial views on the importance of judicial discretion; the pursuit of individualised justice; the aims and purposes of sentencing; the role of personal mitigation, leniency and mercy; the use of guidelines, and whether consistency in sentencing is either achievable or desirable. The empirical findings reveal that, in order to comply with the demands of justice, the majority of Scottish judges consider the process of sentencing to be an adjudicative balancing of the relevant facts in every case – a delicate art based on competence, experience and expertise which is best achieved through a process of “instinctive synthesis”. This means that sentencing must remain an essentially discretionary process structured by appellate guidance. Through an integration of the concept of equity as particularised justice, the Aristotelian concept of phronesis (or “practical wisdom”) and appellate courts’ focus on the instinctive synthesis, the thesis argues that judicial sentencing methodology – to the extent that it relies on intuition and experience – is best viewed in terms of a phronetic synthesis of the relevant facts and circumstances of the individual case. The sentencing task is thus conceptualised as a form of case-orientated, concrete and intuitive decision making that seeks individualisation through judicial recognition of the profoundly contextualised nature of the process.en
dc.contributor.sponsorotheren
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherThe University of Edinburghen
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2014), ‘Curfew Credit, “Instinctive Synthesis” and the Role of the Appeal Court in Sentence Appeals – the Decision in McGill v H.M. Advocate’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 127, pp. 3 – 6.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2013), ‘The Discretionary Nature of the Sentence Discount Affirmed – Murray v H.M. Advocate’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 121, pp. 6 – 8.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2013), ‘Sentencing Cases – Intercourse with Girl Under 16’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 123, pp. 7 – 8.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2013), ‘Sentencing Cases – Supply of Heroin – Mitigating Factors Justifying a Non- Custodial Disposal’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 121, pp. 5 – 6.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2013), ‘Sentence Discounting in England and Scotland – Some Observations on the Use of Comparative Authority in Sentence Appeals’, Criminal Law Review. pp. 674 – 677.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2013), ‘Towards Sentencing Guidelines for Rape’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 125, pp. 5 – 8.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2013), ‘Sentencing Cases – Production and Supply of Cannabis – Extent of Libel and Consistency of Sentence with Verdict”, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 126, pp. 7 – 8.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2012), ‘Discounts and Discretion – Gemmell v H.M. Advocate’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 115, pp. 1 – 5.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2012), ‘Sentencing Historic Cases – Greig v H.M. Advocate, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 120, pp. 1 – 4.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2012), ‘Sentencing Cases – Theft by Opening Lockfast Places – Theft of Metal from Church’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 120, pp. 7 – 8.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2012), ‘Sentencing Cases – Crown Appeal Against Sentence – Assault to Severe Injury and Permanent Disfigurement’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 120, pp. 6 – 7.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2012), ‘Sentencing Cases – Assault to Severe Injury and Permanent Disfigurement – Level of Discount’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 119, pp. 7 – 8.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2011), ‘Sentencing Cases – Lewd and Libidinous Practices – Judicial Use of Sentencing Statements’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 109, pp. 5 – 6.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2011), ‘Sentencing Cases – Assault and Robbery – Assistance Provided to Authorities on Another Matter – Discount in Sentence of 50 Per Cent’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 112, pp. 4 – 6.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2010), ‘Sentencing Cases – Social supply of Class A drugs – previous sentencing policy affirmed’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 106, pp. 7 – 8.en
dc.relation.hasversionBrown, G. (2010), ‘Sentencing Cases – Robertson and Patterson v P.F., Aberdeen’, Criminal Law Bulletin, Issue 105 (June), pp. 6 – 8.en
dc.subjectsentencingen
dc.subjectjudicial decision-makingen
dc.subjectcriminal lawen
dc.titlePractical wisdom? A reconstruction of the sentencing tasken
dc.typeThesis or Dissertationen
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoralen
dc.type.qualificationnamePhD Doctor of Philosophyen
dc.rights.embargodate2100-12-31en
dcterms.accessRightsRestricted Accessen


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record