Sentencing and Corrections

26 January

• Often times, prosecutors asssist in writing victim impact statements.
• What is their purpose, and what do victims want? Apparently, punishment is not always a priority. Also, the prosecutor represents the all people of the state, so why are the victims particularly privileged in this process?
• Who is the audience for the judge's remarks at sentencing? Maybe the defendant. Is the judge qualified to play therapist? Maybe the judge's audience is the judge him/herself: they need to prove to themselves that they're making a positive difference. Sometimes the judge is talking to the victims, of course.
• Are victim impact statements theraputic, or do they re-traumatize people?
• "Therapy courts:" drug court, domestic violence court, etc. These are set up to try and make the court experience count for offenders. Compare to theraputic jurispudence: the notion that regular criminal procedure should tranform those sentenced into better people (significant and obvious differences there). Judges like the therapy courts, because it helps judges feel better, but judges are not qualified to be therapists. This doesn't mean it's totally worthless, but would it be better to work with an actual therapist or a probation officer than with a judge? "Re-entry court" as well: you have to go to 5 job interviews before you come back here next week or else.
• There's a performance aspect here: victims and judges are engaging in theatrics, to some extent-- good intentions and efforts notwithstanding.
• How do we get people to think differently about themselves (i.e., tell believable positive stories about themselves)? There's reason to think that if people change their perspective on themselves, that might be associated with a transformation for the better.
• Maybe it would be wiser to focus on taking away the barriers to change than by trying to induce change.
• The sentencing process is undisciplined: stuff just gets asserted. That's what the Bromberger memo is about-- trying to hold people to their proof, at least a little bit (i.e., about what the public wants, about whether there's a crime wave, etc.).
• There's survey data to suggest that if desserts could be exchanged with consequential benefits (e.g., rehabilitation), people would make the trade.
• Advocacy at sentencing: give the judge an option that would make it so the judge can feel good enacting it. Position the judge to be a hero (in the judge's own eyes, to his peers, etc.).
• One thing you don't see is defense advocates challenging the assertions of the prosecution: for example, a statement that a sentence will produce some specific effect.