Predicting Proportionality: The Case for Algorithmic Sentencing

Criminal Justice Ethics 37 (3):238-261 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A basic principle in sentencing offenders is proportionality. However, proportionality judgments are often left to the discretion of the judge, raising familiar concerns of arbitrariness and bias. This paper considers the case for systematizing judgments of proportionality in sentencing by means of an algorithm. The aim of such an algorithm would be to predict what a judge in that jurisdiction would regard as a proportionate sentence in a particular case. A predictive algorithm of this kind would not necessarily undermine justice in individual cases, is consistent with a particularistic account of moral judgment, and is attractive even in the face of uncertainty as to the legitimate purposes of punishment.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,168

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Proportionality in Personal Life.Douglas Husak - 2021 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 15 (3):339-360.
Sentencing Disparity and Artificial Intelligence.Jesper Ryberg - 2023 - Journal of Value Inquiry 57 (3):447-462.
Lowering the Boom: A Brief for Penal Leniency.Benjamin S. Yost - 2023 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 17 (2):251-270.
Against Proportional Punishment.Adam Kolber - 2013 - Vanderbilt Law Review 66:1141.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-12-19

Downloads
64 (#362,448)

6 months
8 (#521,746)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?