All welcome to attend either in person (A2 LASS) or via MS Teams (hybrid event).
Resister now
A Roundtable Discussion with:
- Professor Nicola Carr (Chair) - Professor in Criminology at the School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham
- Dr Qi Chen (Presenter) - Assistant Professor in Criminology at the School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham
- Dr Jose Pina-Sánchez (Critic) - Associate Professor in Quantitative Criminology at the University of Leeds
- Dr James Tangen (Critic) - Assistant Professor at the University of Nottingham
About the report
This report is commissioned by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales as part of its equality and diversity commitment. The report adopts a new approach to explore potential disparities in criminal sentencing. It combines individual perspectives of research participants (lawyers, sentencers and representatives of civil society organisations) with official data analysis and text analysis. It highlights four key findings:
1) The current guidelines spend more space describing aggravating factors than mitigating factors. Aggravating factors seem to have a more significant impact on sentencing outcomes than mitigating factors. These findings challenge the belief shared by some public members that sentencing in England and Wales is too lenient. Instead, there is a risk that the guidelines and the stepped sentencing approach might have made it harder for mitigating factors to be taken into account in sentencing. And this might affect people from deprived backgrounds more than others;
2) Whether ethical minorities receive harsher sentences than whites is a complicated question. The answer depends on which crimes are being discussed. The current research finds limited evidence of racial disparities in robbery, theft and harassment offences, although previous research has found racial disparities in drug offences and sexual offences;
3) Whether males are getting harsher sentences than females is also a complicated question. The research does not support the widely shared belief that females are treated more favourably by the criminal court. There is some evidence of gender disparity, but the gender difference disappeared or narrowed when the seriousness of crime and other factors are taken into consideration.
4) Cultural, ethnic, gender and class dynamics are not always taken into consideration in the phrasing/inclusion/exclusion of certain aggravating and mitigating factors, for example, the explanations of 'good character’, ‘remorse’ and ‘sole or primary carer’ and ‘wearing a disguise (in robbery guidelines).
The report gives 27 recommendations to the Sentencing Council. Among them, 23 have been accepted, but there are still some remaining issues to consider. (see below).
This event aims to tackle the following as a response to the report:
- What new data or methods are needed to improve research on sentencing disparities? How can they be obtained or implemented?
- How can we better understand the impact of intersectionality in criminal sentencing? What can be done to address the problems caused by intersectionality?
- What broader measures can be taken to tackle disparities caused by race, gender, age, and other factors?
- Are mitigating factors marginalised in sentencing guidelines and the stepped sentencing approach? What can be done to rebalance mitigating factors and aggravating factors? What is the role of the Probation Service and defence lawyers in this rebalancing?
- Does the stepped approach need to be reformed?
- What does the public think of criminal sentencing? To what extent are they aware of sentencing guidelines and the Sentencing Council’s work? What is fair sentencing in their opinion?