Punitiveness
Sentencing Trends in England and Wales (2002-2022)
This data bulletin explores sentencing trends in England and Wales from 2002 to 2022 and addresses this key question: How has the severity of sentencing changed over the past 20 years? It is the first of a series from the Sentencing Academy.
There are three categories of offence in England and Wales. More serious crimes are indictable only, which can be dealt with only by the Crown Court. Other offences are either ‘triable either way’, resolved either by the Crown Court or by magistrates’ courts, or summary, heard only in magistrates’ courts. Indictable only offences account for a small minority (about 1% in 2022) of all cases sentenced. Triable either way and summary only represent the remaining 16% and 83% respectively.1 Analyses are presented here for all offences and then separately for summary offences, as well as for indictable and triable either way offences combined. We first document changes in the use of all sanctions over the period 2002-2022. Then we focus on the principal disposals, and in particular on sentences of imprisonment.
Despite fairly stable police-recorded crime rates over this period,3 the prison population in England and Wales has increased by almost 20% since 2002. Several explanations may account for this increase, including: more serious crimes being sentenced; an increase in the volume of repeat offenders; and more offenders being recalled to prison for breaching their licence conditions.
This bulletin explores one potential explanation, namely that sentencing has become harsher over the period. An increase in sentence severity may arise from a higher imprisonment rate, a decline in the use of less severe punishments such as the community order, or a combination of both trends. In addition, there may have been an increase in the length of prison sentences imposed. Any such changes would increase the prison population.
Pina-Sánchez, J., Crellin, L., Bild, J., Roberts, J., and Hough, M. (2023). Sentencing trends in England and Wales (2002-2022). Sentencing Academy. https://www.sentencingacademy.org.uk/sentencing-trends-in-england-and-wales-2002-2022/
Enhancing the Measurement of Sentence Severity Through Expert Knowledge Elicitation
Quantitative research on judicial decision-making faces the methodological challenge of analysing disposal types that are measured in different units (e.g. money for fines, days for custodial sentences). To overcome this problem a wide range of scales of sentence severity have been suggested in the literature. One particular group of severity scales that has achieved high validity and reliability are those based on Thurstone’s pairwise comparisons. However, this method invokes a series of simplifying assumptions, one of them being that the range of severity covered by different disposal types is constant. We undertook an expert elicitation workshop to assess the validity of that assumption. Responses from the six criminal law practitioners and researchers that participated in our workshop unanimously pointed at severity ranges being highly variable across disposal types (e.g. much wider severity ranges were identified for suspended custodial sentences than for fines). We used this information to re-specify Thurstone’s model allowing for unequal variances. As a result, we obtained a new, more robust, scale of sentence severity.
Pina-Sánchez, J. and Gosling, J. P. (2022). Enhancing the measurement of sentence severity through expert knowledge elicitation. Journal of Legal Research Methodology, 2(1):26–45. https://doi.org/10.19164/jlrm.v2i1.1241
Tackling Selection Bias in Sentencing Data Analysis
A New Approach Based on a Scale of Severity
For reasons of methodological convenience statistical models analysing judicial decisions tend to focus on the duration of custodial sentences. These types of sentences are however quite rare (7% of the total in England and Wales), which generates a serious problem of selection bias. Typical adjustments employed in the literature, such as Tobit models, are based on questionable assumptions and are incapable to discriminate between different types of non-custodial sentences (such as discharges, fines, community orders, or suspended sentences). Here we implement an original approach to model custodial and non-custodial sentence outcomes simultaneously avoiding problems of selection bias while making the most of the information recorded for each of them. This is achieved by employing Pina-Sánchez et al. (Br J Criminol 59:979–1001, 2019) scale of sentence severity as the outcome variable of a Bayesian regression model. A sample of 7242 theft offences sentenced in the Crown Court is used to further illustrate: (a) the pervasiveness of selection bias in studies restricted to custodial sentences, which leads us to question the external validity of previous studies in the literature limited to custodial sentence length; and (b) the inadequacy of Tobit models and similar methods used in the literature to adjust for such bias.
Pina-Sánchez, J. and Gosling, J. P. (2020). Tackling selection bias in sentencing data analysis: A new approach based on a scale of severity. Quality & Quantity, 54:1047–1073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-00973-z
Have the England and Wales Guidelines Influenced Sentence Severity?
An Empirical Analysis Using a Scale of Sentence Severity and Time-series Analyses
Sentence severity has increased in England and Wales in recent years. The causes of the increase remain unclear. One possible explanation relates to the introduction of sentencing guidelines, which seem to coincide in time with the increase in sentence severity. To date, investigations of this hypothesis have been limited to simple exploratory analyses or to specific offences. We use a new scale of sentence severity—developed using Thurstone scaling and the participation of 21 magistrates—and time-series modelling to explore whether a causal effect can be attributed to seven different guidelines. We corroborate the existence of an increase in sentence severity; however, we do not find conclusive evidence pointing at the guidelines having caused it.
Pina-Sánchez, J., Gosling, J. P., Chung, H., Geneletti, S., Bourgeois, E., and Marder, I. (2019). Have the England and Wales guidelines influenced sentence severity? An empirical analysis using a scale of sentence severity and time-series analyses. The British Journal of Criminology, 59(4):979–1001. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azz035
Exploring the Punitive Surge
Crown Court Sentencing Practices Before and After the 2011 English Riots
The English summer riots of 2011 resulted in the criminal justice system having to process an unprecedented number of offenders in a short timeframe. This study explores sentencing practice in the wake of the riots using the 2011 Crown Court Sentencing Survey. A multilevel model was implemented to specify the probability of receiving a custodial sentence for offences of commercial burglary. This model allows exploring differences in sentencing before and after the riots. An increased probability of receiving a custodial sentence in the post-riot period was identified. An increase in variability was also detected, changing from a state of almost perfect consistency to one in which substantial variation was observed between courts. Custodial rates for burglary increased to a level associated with more serious offences, thereby undermining the principle of proportionality. This, as well as the increased dispersion between courts, challenges other principles such as legal certainty and transparency.
Pina-Sánchez, J., Lightowlers, C., and Roberts, J. V. (2016). Exploring the punitive surge: Crown Court sentencing practices before and after the 2011 English riots. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(3):319–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816671167