Dangerous Offenders: An Analysis of Judicial Sentencing Decisions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: The present study explored Dangerous Offender (DO) judicial sentencing decisions in Canada by examining judicial decision maker’s written comments regarding a) experts’ ratings of risk, treatment amenability, and risk management in the community, b) partisanship, c) experts’ discussion of static, dynamic, and protective factors, d) the effect of the 2008 legislation change, e) ethnicity, and f) jurisdictional differences. Method: The study was archival and retrospective. There were 140 written sentencing decisions identified in four Canadian provinces (BC, AB, SK, and MB) via CanLII (publicly accessible) between July 2, 2008 and July 2, 2018. Results: Results indicate that the judicial decision makers’ interpretation of experts’ ratings of risk, treatment amenability, and risk management in the community were strongly associated with and significantly contributed to penalty outcomes. Generally, the trend that appeared was that the judicial decision makers’ interpretation of lower risk ratings, higher ratings of treatment amenability, and higher risk manageability in the community resulted in a much lower likelihood a Defendant would receive an indeterminate sentence. Moreover, the results suggest that the judicial makers’ note a substantial amount of agreement on all three assessment areas when multiple experts are present. The judicial decision makers’ interpretation of the experts’ discussion of static, dynamic, or protective factors was not influential on outcomes. The 2008 legislation change appears to contribute little in terms of the designation stage but has influenced the penalty stage. Further, Defendants with an Indigenous heritage now have a 50% chance of receiving an indeterminate sentence compared to 84% prior to the legislation change. Saskatchewan continues to have not only a disproportionate number of DOs but also DOs of Indigenous heritage. The results indicate that BC, AB, and MB have not changed their penalty patterns significantly since the 2008 legislation change, but Saskatchewan has. Discussion: Results generally supported previous research indicating that the judicial decision makers’ interpretation of expert risk assessments influence preventative detention hearings and that partisanship continues to exist even though legislation changes have attempted to reduce it. Results also indicated that the 2008 legislation change has had an impact on penalty outcomes but not designation outcomes. Moreover, although Indigenous peoples are disproportionately represented, under the 2008 legislation change, they are as likely to receive a determinate sentence with an LTSO as an indeterminate sentence. Implications of the results are discussed in terms of the validity and application of special sentencing designations in Canada.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».