Deep Disadvantage, Blameworthiness, and Sentencing

Doing Justice, Preventing Crime (Oxford University Press 2020, Forthcoming)

35 Pages Posted: 15 May 2020

See all articles by Michael Tonry

Michael Tonry

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities - School of Law

Date Written: April 20, 2020

Abstract

Arguments in favor of a “social adversity” or “rotten social background” defense are substantially stronger than those against. People disagree in principle whether an affirmative defense of deep disadvantage, paralleling the insanity defense, should be recognized and whether judges should routinely mitigate the severity of sentences imposed on deeply disadvantaged offenders. The defense should be recognized. It would be unlikely often to result in acquittals but it would strengthen many defendants’ positions in plea negotiations. Mitigation of punishment should be routine. Few credible arguments can be made that a deeply disadvantaged background is not a material characteristic that should be taken into account in sentencing. Unfortunately, informal mitigation of punishments is not enough. The severity and rigidity of American sentencing laws often deny judges the necessary authority. The moral challenges presented by deeply disadvantaged offenders cannot adequately be addressed without creation of a new affirmative defense.

Suggested Citation

Tonry, Michael, Deep Disadvantage, Blameworthiness, and Sentencing (April 20, 2020). Doing Justice, Preventing Crime (Oxford University Press 2020, Forthcoming). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3581005

Michael Tonry (Contact Author)

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities - School of Law ( email )

229-19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
60
Abstract Views
153
rank
381,199
PlumX Metrics