Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Western nations including US, UK, Canada and Australia have passed mandatory sentencing laws that removes and greatly curtails judicial discretion in sentencing. Although the concept of mandatory sentencing is not familiar to Korean scholars, Korea also has passed several laws which diminish judicial discretion in sentencing. Mandatory sentencing schemes have been established in response to a demand for strict and certain measures to control crimes. By providing for certain incarceration with no potential for early release, mandatory is an effective means to control crimes. However, a mandatory minimum sentence may not actually result in firm and consistent sentencing as intended, and may have incidental implications. Mandatory sentencing is generally inconsistent with the fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the degree of blameworthiness of the offender. Lengthier incarceration due to mandatory sentencing results in increased prison costs not necessarily offset by any reduction in crime rates. There is also an opportunity cost, because fewer public funds are available for law enforcement and crime prevention initiatives. Furthermore, mandatory sentencing appears to have arisen as a means by which politicians can attract electoral support by showing that they are tough on crimes. A sentence must be proportionate to the crimes. Curtailing judicial discretion cannot be an effective measure to control crimes. Early intervention and crime prevention initiatives should be emphasized as an effective means to control crimes. Western countries` mandatory sentencing schemes are outmoded, and it cannot be a model for legislation in Korea.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".