This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Griffin, T. Articles by Wooldredge, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Judges' Reactions to Ohio's "Jessica's Law"

¹ University of Nevada, Reno
² University of Cincinnati

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: tgriffin{at}unr.edu.

	Abstract

In 2007, Ohio lawmakers passed that state’s version of "Jessica’s law" (Senate Bill [SB] 260), which mandates severe prison terms for sex offenses against very young children. Using data from a survey of Ohio judges administered right after SB 260’s passage, the authors found that a majority opposed the new law, as predicted. However, no relationship between political party preference and overall assessment of SB 260 was found, challenging the assumption that judicial "leniency" would explain opposition to the harsh penalties. Instead, quantitative and qualitative data showed that judges who disliked SB 260 feared the loss of judicial discretion and excessively harsh sentences for relatively less serious sex offenders. Opposing judges also perceived SB 260 as derived from cynical politics and popular ignorance. The potential value of consulting practitioner perspectives on sentencing enhancements and considerations for addressing moral panic–driven crime legislation in the long run are explored.

First published on March 31, 2009
Crime & Delinquency 2009, doi:10.1177/0011128708327954


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?