Picture of smart phone in human hand

World leading smartphone and mobile technology research at Strathclyde...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde's Open Access research outputs. Strathprints provides access to thousands of Open Access research papers by University of Strathclyde researchers, including by Strathclyde researchers from the Department of Computer & Information Sciences involved in researching exciting new applications for mobile and smartphone technology. But the transformative application of mobile technologies is also the focus of research within disciplines as diverse as Electronic & Electrical Engineering, Marketing, Human Resource Management and Biomedical Enginering, among others.

Explore Strathclyde's Open Access research on smartphone technology now...

Assisting and advising the sentencing decision process : the pursuit of 'quality' in pre-sentence reports

Tata, C. and Burns, N. and Halliday, S. and Hutton, N. and McNeill, F. (2008) Assisting and advising the sentencing decision process : the pursuit of 'quality' in pre-sentence reports. British Journal of Criminology, 48 (6). pp. 835-855. ISSN 0007-0955

Full text not available in this repository. (Request a copy from the Strathclyde author)

Abstract

Pre-sentence reports are an increasingly prevalent feature of the sentencing process. Yet, although judges have been surveyed about their general views, we know relatively little about how such reports are read and interpreted by judges considering sentence in specific cases, and, in particular, how these judicial interpretations compare with the intentions of the writers of those same reports. This article summarizes some of the main findings of a four-year qualitative study in Scotland examining: how reports are constructed by report writers; what the writers aim to convey to the sentencing judge; and how those same reports are then interpreted and used in deciding sentence. Policy development has been predicated on the view that higher-quality reports will help to 'sell' community penalties to the principal consumers of such reports (judges). This research suggests that, in the daily use and interpretation of reports, this quality-led policy agenda is defeated by a discourse of judicial 'ownership' of sentencing.