Citation

Pere P, Lahti T, Sutela M. Int. J. Comp. Appl. Crim. Justice 2018; 42(2-3): 157-175.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, American Society of Criminology's Division of International Criminology, Publisher Informa - Taylor and Francis)

DOI

10.1080/01924036.2017.1413988

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Sentences and prosecutors' demands for aggravated drunk driving are categorised into three classes: The sentence is more lenient than, is compatible with, or is harsher than the prosecutor's demand. The probability of a sentence falling into one of the three ordered categories is explained by a cumulative logit model. The following circumstances affect the probability of a more lenient or harsher sentence, in decreasing order of importance: driving a truck, facing at least four counts, having a legal assistant, and being present in the trial. The hypothesis that factors known by the prosecutor, at the time of writing the demand, should not systematically affect sentences is refuted. The judges assess circumstances differently than the prosecutors. The prosecutors' role is nevertheless prominent in the sense that the sentences follow, to a great extent, their demands. Notable gender effects of the actors in the courtroom are found.

Language: en

Keywords

anchoring effect; cumulative logit; drunk driving; Finland; legal praxis; Prosecutor’s demand; regression