Organised Crime & Crime Prevention - what works? - Scandinavian ...

Malcolm Davies, Professor
Criminal Justice Centre, Thames Valley University
Bond Street, London W5 5AA, England
e-mail: malcolm.davies@tvu.ac.uk
NSfK’s 40. forskerseminar, Espoo, Finland 1998
Comparative sentencing project - Using focus group methodology
A comparative sentencing project (CSP) funded by the Scandinavian Research Council for
Criminology is to look at sentencing policy and practice in four European jurisdictions
(England, Finland, Lithuania and Norway) to examine the factors affecting the sentencing
choice between custody or community sanctions.
This study of comparative judicial cultures asks judges in the four countries to respond
to scenarios of five different examples of burglary in terms of the type of sentence they would
consider giving, how much choice they have, what sentencing objectives they have in mind
and what other information they would need to give a precise sentence in an individual case.
The aim of the research is firstly, to identify sentencing decisions that lie on the
custodial/non-custodial borderline - referred to as the cusp. Secondly, to clarify the penal
objectives and to identify the aggravating and mitigating factors that judges have in mind
when sentencing this category of crime. Thirdly, to discuss the degree of confidence that
judges have in the existing sentences for this category of offence. Fourthly, to identify the
factors that would increase the judges’ confidence in the use of community sentences,
including innovations or additional requirements that might be proposed to enhance the
credibility of community sentences.
For the purpose of the research we first had to identify a type of crime that would be
suitable for cross-cultural comparisons and that would also generate borderline (cusp)
sentencing issue in terms of whether judges should use prison or a community or other
penalty.
We chose the offence of burglary (housebreaking or cambriolage) for two reasons. It
is a type of crime that is reasonably demarcated and relatively more narrowly defined than
some crimes such as assault and theft, and is thus more readily understood and therefore
helpful when making cross cultural comparisons. Furthermore it is an offence that in each of
the jurisdictions has a possibility of being considered sufficiently serious to warrant custody
in some circumstances and community penalties in others.
We will use focus groups to ask judges to consider the five scenarios. The scenarios
would vary e.g. value of th stolen goods, how organised was the crime, and a variety of
offender types, from first time offenders to persistent offenders. Thus we will focus on the
variables of culpability and recidivism and give examples to seek judges’ responses on the
appropriateness of penalties for each scenario and to clarify the purpose of sentencing as
identified by reference to sentencing objectives of retribution, denunciation, rehabilitation,
deterrence, restitution or incapacitation. We will seek clarification as to the list of factors that
the judges look at to determine the seriousness of a particular case. The policy relevance of
the research will be pursued by asking the judges if changes to the existing method of
implementing community sentences, or whether legislative reforms providing new elements
to community sentences would increase their willingness to use community sentences with
offenders convicted of burglary.
153