NCJ Number
63114
Date Published
1977
Length
13 pages
Annotation
THIS BRITISH ARTICLE DISCUSSES THE CONTRIBUTION THE JUDICIARY HAS MADE TO PENAL POLICYMAKING.
Abstract
HISTORICALLY, THE JUDICIARY HAS MORE OFTEN BEEN A CONSERVATIVE FORCE RATHER THAN A PROGRESSIVE INFLUENCE IN PENAL POLICYMAKING. IN RECENT YEARS, JUDGES HAVE SHOWN MORE WILLINGNESS TO DESCEND INTO THE ARENA AND THERE IS NOW A PLETHORA OF JUDICIAL STATEMENTS ABOUT PENAL POLICY. ONE CHANGE WHICH HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS INCREASED WILLINGNESS OF JUDGES TO TAKE PART IN PUBLIC DEBATE HAS BEEN THEIR MUCH GREATER INVOLVEMENT IN NONJUDICIAL CONSULTATIVE ROLE AS MEMBERS OF ADVISORY COUNCILS, THE PAROLE BOARD, OR THE LAW COMMISSIONS. JUDGES HAVE ALSO MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF MODERN STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS BY DEVELOPING THE DOCTRINE OF STRICT LIABILITY. POLICY DECISIONS MADE BY JUDGES IN DECIDED CASES, MOSTLY ON APPEAL, HAVE ALSO HAD A PROFOUND INFLUENCE ON PENAL POLICY. ONE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION MADE RECENTLY BY THE JUDGES HAS BEEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY ON THE USE OF IMPRISONMENT. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO SENTENCING POLICY IN RESPECT TO PERSISTENT OFFENDERS, MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS, LIFE PRISONERS, BORSTAL TRAINING, AND LONG SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT. INDIVIDUAL JUDGES HAVE ALSO VOICED OPINIONS ON PENAL POLICY IN SPEECHES AND ADDRESSES. THE MODERN JUDGE HAS MANY MORE ACTIVE PUBLIC ROLES AND IS FAR MORE INVOLVED THAN HIS PREDECESSORS OF THE LAST CENTURY; JUDGES' INTEREST AND INFLUENCE ON PENAL POLICY HAVE INCREASED. NOTES AND A DISCUSSION ARE APPENDED. (MJW)