Abstract

The focal concerns framework is widely used in research on sentencing, although the empirical validity of the framework itself is seldom directly evaluated. To fill this gap, we use survey data from 134 trial court judges to examine two basic questions about the focal concerns framework: (1) How and to what extent do judges consider the original focal concerns of blameworthiness, community protection, and practical constraints in their sentencing decisions? (2) To what extent is perceived rehabilitation potential, or “redeemability,” considered by judges and should it become a fourth focal concern? Results based on open-ended survey questions reveal that judges continue to rely on the original focal concerns, but they operationalize these concerns in a variety of ways. Results further show that most judges are concerned about the rehabilitation potential, or “redeemability,” of defendants. Based on these results, we conclude that the focal concerns framework continues to be of value but that future research using the framework should consider adding redeemability/rehabilitation potential as a fourth focal concern. We caution, however, that some of the factors judges consider in connection with rehabilitation potential/redeemability could increase sentencing disparities.

摘要

焦点关注框架广泛应用于量刑研究中，尽管该框架本身的实证有效性很少被直接评估。为了填补这一空白，我们利用来自 134 名初审法院法官的调查数据来检验有关焦点问题框架的两个基本问题：（1）法官如何以及在多大程度上考虑最初的焦点问题，即应受责备、社区保护和实际约束等问题。他们的量刑决定？(2) 法官在多大程度上考虑了康复潜力或“可赎回性”？它是否应该成为第四个焦点问题？基于开放式调查问题的结果表明，法官继续依赖最初的焦点问题，但他们以多种方式将这些问题付诸实践。结果进一步表明，大多数法官担心被告的康复潜力或“可赎回性”。基于这些结果，我们得出的结论是，焦点问题框架仍然有价值，但使用该框架的未来研究应考虑将可赎回/康复潜力作为第四个焦点问题。然而，我们警告说，法官考虑的与康复潜力/可赎回性相关的一些因素可能会增加量刑差异。