IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/crimin/v62y2022i1p55-72..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sentencing Multiple- Versus Single-Offence Cases: Does More Crime Mean Less Punishment?

Author

Listed:
  • Mandeep K Dhami

Abstract

The ‘totality principle’ in law aims to show mercy to offenders in multiple-offence (MO) cases and retain ordinal proportionality in punishing those who commit different categories of offence. The effect of this principle in practice, however, is largely unknown. The present study involved an analysis of data released by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales to estimate the prevalence of MO cases and compare the penalties they received against comparable single-offence (SO) cases. MO cases represented approximately half of the cases in the sample which included violent, property, drugs and driving offences. Offence-specific regression analyses revealed that MO/SO case status was not a significant predictor of receiving a custodial sentence or of custody length. Thus, by applying the totality principle, sentencers may be letting MO offenders ‘off lightly’. Potential explanations for this unintentional effect on decision-making lies in how the totality principle is defined and interpreted, and recommendations are made for revising the guideline on application of the totality principle.

Suggested Citation

  • Mandeep K Dhami, 2022. "Sentencing Multiple- Versus Single-Offence Cases: Does More Crime Mean Less Punishment?," The British Journal of Criminology, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, vol. 62(1), pages 55-72.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:62:y:2022:i:1:p:55-72.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/bjc/azab030
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:62:y:2022:i:1:p:55-72.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/bjc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.