東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Rational discretionary risk: The jud...

Hsieh, Ming-Li.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Rational discretionary risk: The judicial risk x sentence model for sex offenders.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Rational discretionary risk: The judicial risk x sentence model for sex offenders./
作者:	Hsieh, Ming-Li.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2016,
面頁冊數:	246 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-11(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International77-11A(E).
標題:	Criminology. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10139593
ISBN:	9781339950785

Rational discretionary risk: The judicial risk x sentence model for sex offenders.
Hsieh, Ming-Li.

Rational discretionary risk: The judicial risk x sentence model for sex offenders. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2016 - 246 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-11(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Washington State University, 2016.

Given that sex crimes are considered to be dangerous offenses and are perceived to have a high risk of reoffending, sex offenders are subject to disproportionality harsh treatment in criminal institutions. Sentence disparity among sex offenders has been argued to increase as a result of judicial clinical judgment on risk assessment. Even though judicial discretion theory indicates that judicial focal concerns about individual risk would affect sentencing outcomes, there is little known about how judges "weight" risk factors within judicial discretion.

ISBN: 9781339950785Subjects--Topical Terms:

533274
Criminology.

Rational discretionary risk: The judicial risk x sentence model for sex offenders.
LDR:03199nmm a2200301 4500 001 2119407
005 20170619071230.5
008 180830s2016 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781339950785
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10139593
035 $a AAI10139593
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Hsieh, Ming-Li. $3 3281283
245 1 0 $a Rational discretionary risk: The judicial risk x sentence model for sex offenders.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2016
300 $a 246 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-11(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Zachary K. Hamilton.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Washington State University, 2016.
520 $a Given that sex crimes are considered to be dangerous offenses and are perceived to have a high risk of reoffending, sex offenders are subject to disproportionality harsh treatment in criminal institutions. Sentence disparity among sex offenders has been argued to increase as a result of judicial clinical judgment on risk assessment. Even though judicial discretion theory indicates that judicial focal concerns about individual risk would affect sentencing outcomes, there is little known about how judges "weight" risk factors within judicial discretion.
520 $a The current study integrates a sentencing guideline framework and the utility of actuarial risk assessment instruments (e.g., RRASOR, Static-99R, MnSOST-R, SONAR) and constructs a judicial risk x sentence model (JRS) for sex offenders to address a research gap. This study attempts to answer (a) whether judicially imposed sentence lengths vary by risk level, (b) whether risk classification explains the differences between imposed sentence lengths and advisory sentence lengths, and (c) whether the third generation of risk assessment tools would better predict judicial discretion than the second generation of risk assessment instruments.
520 $a The JRS model, a statistically-based approach for modeling "risk" into judicial discretion, demonstrated that judicially imposed sentence lengths for sex offenders vary by level of risk when the model controlled for legal- and extra-legal factors. Judges were more likely to depart from sentencing guidelines when sex offenders were assessed as high risk. Moreover, findings indicate that judicial discretion as a first generation risk assessment tool is the least reliable method of assessing individual risk and the least likely way to reduce sentence disparity compared to second and third generation risk assessment instrument criteria. It is worthy to note that the current study, in fact, revealed that judges would be thinking in ways similar to third generation risk assessment instruments when they "weight" risk in sentencing decisions. Even though the JRS model is a novel and exploratory approach, it could serve as an evidence-based proxy for judicial discretion in risk decision-making and better fulfill the doctrine of sentencing proportionality.
590 $a School code: 0251.
650 4 $a Criminology. $3 533274
690 $a 0627
710 2 $a Washington State University. $b Criminal Justice. $3 3188027
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 77-11A(E).
790 $a 0251
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2016
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10139593