A sense of justice: The role of pre-sentence reports in the production (and disruption) of guilt and guilty pleas

Punishment and Society

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 239-261

  Tata, Cyrus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

guilty pleas; individualized justice; mitigation; pre sentence reports; punishment; sentencing

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954889725     PISSN: 14624745     EISSN: 17413095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1462474510371734     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Abbot A. The system of professions. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1988.
2. Baldwin J., McConville M. Negotiated justice. London: Martin Robertson, 1977.
3. Bottoms A., McClean J. Defendants in the criminal process. London: Routledge, 1976.
4. Cavadino M. Pre-sentence reports: The effects of legislation and national standards. British Journal of Criminology 1997; 37(4): 529-48.
5. Eisenstein J., Jacob H. Felony justice. Boston, MA: Little & Brown, 1991.
6. Feeley M. The process is the punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court. New York: Russell Sage, 1979.
7. Flemming R. The client game. American Bar Foundation Research Journal 1986; 11(2): 253-77.
8. Gelsthorpe L., Raynor P. Quality and effectiveness in probation officers' reports to sentencers. British Journal of Criminology 1995; 35(2): 188-200.
9. Goriely T. The development of criminal legal aid in England and Wales. In: Young R, Wall D (eds)The development of criminal legal aid in England and Wales. Access to criminal justice 1996; 26-54.
10. Goriely T., McCrone P., Duff P., Tata C., Henry A. The public defence solicitors' office: An independent evaluation. Edinburgh: TSO, 2001.
11. Hagan J. The social and legal construction of criminal justice. Social Problems 1975; 22(5): 620-37.
12. Hagan J., Hewitt J., Alwin D. Ceremonial justice. Social Forces 1979; 58(2): 506-27.
13. Haines K., Morgan R. Services before trial and sentence: Achievement, decline and potential. In: Gelsthorpe L, Morgan R (eds)Services before trial and sentence: Achievement, decline and potential. Handbook of probation 2007; 182-209.
14. Halliday S., Burns N., Hutton N., McNeill F., Tata C. Shadow-writing and participant observation. Journal of Law & Society 2008; 35(2): 189-213.
15. Halliday S., Burns N., Hutton N., McNeill F., Tata C. Street-level bureaucracy, inter-professional relations and coping mechanisms: A study of criminal justice social workers in the sentencing process. Law & Policy 2009; 31(4): 405-28.
16. Hawkins K. Law as a last resort. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
17. Jacob H. Courts as organizations. In: Boyum K, Mather L (eds) Empirical theories about courts. New York: Longman, 1983, p.189-215.
18. Jacobson J., Hough M. Mitigation: The role of personal factors in sentencing. London: Prison Reform Trust, 2007.
19. Kemp V., Balmer N. Criminal defence services: Users' perspectives. London: Legal Services Research Centre, 2008.
20. Kemshall H., Maguire M. Public protection, partnership and risk penality. Punishment and Society 2001; 3(2): 237-64.
21. Kingsnorth R., Cummings D., Lopex J., Wentworth J. Criminal sentencing and the court probation office. Justice System Journal 1999; 20(3): 255-73.
22. McBarnet D. Conviction. London: Macmillan, 1981.
23. McConville M., Hodgson J., Bridges L., Pavlovic A. Standing accused. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
24. Mack K., Sharyn RA Performing impartiality: Judicial demeanour and legitimacy. Law & Social Inquiry 2010; 35(1): 137-73.
25. McNeill F., Burns N., Halliday S., Hutton N., Tata C. Risk, responsibility, and reconfiguration. Punishment & Society 2009; 11(4): 419-42.
26. Mather L. Plea bargaining or trial? Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1979.
27. Mulcahy A. The justifications of "justice". British Journal of Criminology 1994; 34(4): 411-30.
28. Nelken D. The gap problem in the sociology of law: A theoretical review. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 1981; 1: 35-61.
29. Phoenix J. Doing justice. Swindon: ESRC, 2006.
30. Sharyn RA, Mack K. Magistrates' everyday work and emotional labour. Journal of Law & Society 2005; 32(4): 590-614.
31. Sharyn RA, Mack K. Intersections between in-court procedures and the production of guilty pleas. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 2009; 42(1): 1-23.
32. Rose A. A systematic summary of symbolic interaction theory. In: Rose A (ed.) Human behavior and social processes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962, p.3-19.
33. Rosencrance J. Maintaining the myth of individualized justice. Justice Quarterly 1988; 5(2): 235-56.
34. Sanders A., Young R. Criminal justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
35. Shapland J. Between conviction and sentence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.
36. Social Work Services Inspectorate (SWSI). Helping the court decide: Report of an inspection of social enquiry reports for the criminal courts. London: HMSO, 1996.
37. Stoddart C., Neilson H. The law and practice of legal aid in Scotland. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
38. Tata C. In the interests of clients or commerce - which comes first? Supply, demand, and "ethical indeterminacy" in criminal defence work. Journal of Law & Society 2007a; 38(4): 489-519.
39. Tata C. Sentencing as craftwork. Social & Legal Studies 2007b; 16(3): 425-47.
40. Tata C., Goriely T., Duff P., Henry A. Does mode of delivery make a difference to criminal case outcomes and client satisfaction?. Criminal Law Review February. 2004, p.722-41.
41. Tata C., Halliday S., Hutton N., McNeill F. Assisting and advising the sentencing decision process: The pursuit of "quality" in pre-sentence reports. British Journal of Criminology 2008; 48(6): 835-55.
42. Tombs J. Telling sentencing stories. In: Carlen P (ed.) Imaginary penalities. Cullompton: Willan, 2008, p.84-112.
43. Tyler T. Procedural justice, legitimacy and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice 2003; 30: 283-357.
44. Tyler T., Huo Y. Trust in the law. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002.
45. Wandall R. Decisions to imprison. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.