Proof of Aggravating and Mitigating Facts at Sentencing

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Beyond questions of substantive law, aggravation and mitigation at sentencing raise important issues of equitable process. Fact-finding at sentencing is often more textured and intensive than at trial, can have an enormous effect on the penalty selected and yet is carried out in an environment of relaxed procedures. The literature has given too little attention to the imperatives of process that stand alongside substantive sentencing goals. The first aim of this chapter is to give an overview of different processes in common law legal systems for the establishment of aggravating and mitigating facts at sentencing. The inquiry encompasses all fifty-one US jurisdictions (with which the author is generally familiar), supplemented by research into the law and practice of England and Wales, Canada and Australia. Contrasting procedural values can be seen at work across these jurisdictions. In general, the Commonwealth systems are substantially more protective of defendants’ rights during the sentencing process than US systems, although there is some heterogeneity in approach in the United States.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationMitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing
EditorsJulian V. Roberts
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages228-246
Number of pages19
ISBN (Electronic)9780511979170
ISBN (Print)9780521197809
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

jurisdiction
Law
common law
legal system
penalty
Canada
Values
literature

Cite this

Reitz, K. R. (2011). Proof of Aggravating and Mitigating Facts at Sentencing. In J. V. Roberts (Ed.), Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing (pp. 228-246). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979170.013

Proof of Aggravating and Mitigating Facts at Sentencing. / Reitz, Kevin R.

Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing. ed. / Julian V. Roberts. Cambridge University Press, 2011. p. 228-246.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Reitz, KR 2011, Proof of Aggravating and Mitigating Facts at Sentencing. in JV Roberts (ed.), Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing. Cambridge University Press, pp. 228-246. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979170.013
Reitz KR. Proof of Aggravating and Mitigating Facts at Sentencing. In Roberts JV, editor, Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing. Cambridge University Press. 2011. p. 228-246 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979170.013
Reitz, Kevin R. / Proof of Aggravating and Mitigating Facts at Sentencing. Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing. editor / Julian V. Roberts. Cambridge University Press, 2011. pp. 228-246
@inbook{26b2cd501b5841fcb4120d2fc6d3ae35,
title = "Proof of Aggravating and Mitigating Facts at Sentencing",
abstract = "Beyond questions of substantive law, aggravation and mitigation at sentencing raise important issues of equitable process. Fact-finding at sentencing is often more textured and intensive than at trial, can have an enormous effect on the penalty selected and yet is carried out in an environment of relaxed procedures. The literature has given too little attention to the imperatives of process that stand alongside substantive sentencing goals. The first aim of this chapter is to give an overview of different processes in common law legal systems for the establishment of aggravating and mitigating facts at sentencing. The inquiry encompasses all fifty-one US jurisdictions (with which the author is generally familiar), supplemented by research into the law and practice of England and Wales, Canada and Australia. Contrasting procedural values can be seen at work across these jurisdictions. In general, the Commonwealth systems are substantially more protective of defendants’ rights during the sentencing process than US systems, although there is some heterogeneity in approach in the United States.",
author = "Reitz, {Kevin R.}",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9780511979170.013",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780521197809",
pages = "228--246",
editor = "Roberts, {Julian V.}",
booktitle = "Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Proof of Aggravating and Mitigating Facts at Sentencing

AU - Reitz, Kevin R.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Beyond questions of substantive law, aggravation and mitigation at sentencing raise important issues of equitable process. Fact-finding at sentencing is often more textured and intensive than at trial, can have an enormous effect on the penalty selected and yet is carried out in an environment of relaxed procedures. The literature has given too little attention to the imperatives of process that stand alongside substantive sentencing goals. The first aim of this chapter is to give an overview of different processes in common law legal systems for the establishment of aggravating and mitigating facts at sentencing. The inquiry encompasses all fifty-one US jurisdictions (with which the author is generally familiar), supplemented by research into the law and practice of England and Wales, Canada and Australia. Contrasting procedural values can be seen at work across these jurisdictions. In general, the Commonwealth systems are substantially more protective of defendants’ rights during the sentencing process than US systems, although there is some heterogeneity in approach in the United States.

AB - Beyond questions of substantive law, aggravation and mitigation at sentencing raise important issues of equitable process. Fact-finding at sentencing is often more textured and intensive than at trial, can have an enormous effect on the penalty selected and yet is carried out in an environment of relaxed procedures. The literature has given too little attention to the imperatives of process that stand alongside substantive sentencing goals. The first aim of this chapter is to give an overview of different processes in common law legal systems for the establishment of aggravating and mitigating facts at sentencing. The inquiry encompasses all fifty-one US jurisdictions (with which the author is generally familiar), supplemented by research into the law and practice of England and Wales, Canada and Australia. Contrasting procedural values can be seen at work across these jurisdictions. In general, the Commonwealth systems are substantially more protective of defendants’ rights during the sentencing process than US systems, although there is some heterogeneity in approach in the United States.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84926086149&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84926086149&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9780511979170.013

DO - 10.1017/CBO9780511979170.013

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84926086149

SN - 9780521197809

SP - 228

EP - 246

BT - Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing

A2 - Roberts, Julian V.

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -