This volume explores ethical aspects relating to claims for mitigation arising from culpable state action (or inaction).
It answers the important and controversial question: to what extent should the state mitigate sentencing for defendants who have been victims of state misconduct?
The volume explores the normative justifications for mitigation and answers many intriguing questions. For example, in terms of the procedural challenges, should the offender have to prove a causal link between state wrongdoing or neglect and the offending? Can a court take judicial notice of state-induced social adversity and apply this consideration to all affected offenders? Other questions relate to the implications for courts and sentencing commissions which issue guidance to courts regarding mitigation at sentencing. To what extent is the offender less culpable as a result of state misconduct, and what are the limits of any resulting sentence reductions? Do sentence reductions for state misconduct undermine proportionality, or deprecate the seriousness of the impact on the victim of crime? Should this factor be included in any sentencing guidelines or possibly even as a statutory mitigating factor?
Each contribution explores a distinct, cross-jurisdictional claim for mitigation on the basis of State negligence or misconduct towards the offender. The chapters all address the appropriate response of courts at sentencing.
1. State Misconduct as Sentence Mitigation: Setting the Scene, Leo Zaibert (University of Cambridge, UK), Julian V Roberts (University of Oxford, UK) and Jesper Ryberg (Roskilde University, Denmark)
2. State Illegitimacy and Punishment: Examining the Case for Discounts, Goran Duus-Otterstrom (University of Gothenburg, Sweden)
3. State Misconduct and Mitigation in Punishment, Matt Matravers (University of York, UK)
4. The State Fault and the Right to Mitigation of Punishment, Vera Bergelson (Rutgers University School of Law, USA)
5. Standing to Punish, Sentence Mitigation and the Applicability Challenge, Jesper Ryberg (Roskilde University, Denmark)
6. ‘One Wrong Treads upon the Heels of Another’: Mitigating Sentence in Response to State Misconduct, Julian V Roberts (University of Oxford, UK) and Netanel Dagan (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel)
7. Sentence Mitigation as a Response to Intrinsic State Injustice, Leo Zaibert (University of Cambridge, UK)
8. Sentence Mitigation for Unjustly Disadvantaged Offenders: Some Hard Questions, Richard L Lippke (Indiana University Bloomington, USA)
9. The Relevance of State Misconduct for Mitigating Punishment, Thom Brooks (Durham University, UK)
10. Sentence Mitigation as a Remedy for the State’s Legitimacy Deficit, Hend Hanafy (University of Cambridge, UK)
11. The Relevance of State Misconduct in Sentencing: Distinguishing Justifications, Marie Manikis (McGill University, Canada)
12. Police Misconduct and Sentence Mitigation, Gabrielle Watson (University of Edinburgh, UK)
13. Epistemic Injustice, State Misconduct and Sentence Mitigation, Andrei Poama (Leiden University, the Netherlands) and Mojca M Plesnicar (University of Ljubljana, Slovenia)
14. Unpacking the Recidivist Sentencing Discount from a State Misconduct Perspective, Antje du Bois-Pedain (University of Cambridge, UK)
15. Whataboutism at Sentencing? Benjamin Ewing (Queen’s University, Canada)
16. State Misconduct and Sentence Mitigation: Final Reflections, Nicola Padfield (University of Cambridge, UK)
Height:
Width:
Spine:
Weight:0.00