Emotive riot sentencing remarks: Qualitative analysis of the English judicial perspective.

Abstract

The judicial response to the riot context via their sentencing remarks has an important, yet hitherto unexplained emotive meaning. It would appear that such remarks have repeatedly focused upon negative emotive sentiments, which seek to public condemn and blame the riot offender. Part one qualitatively considers the judicial selection of riot sentencing remarks made within riot case law precedent. Positive and negative sentiments have been counted and the legal tests and principles behind their selection analyzed. Part two considers further what the common sentiments expressed within sentencing remarks may mean based upon an academic literature review. The conclusions reveal that the English judiciary have commonly remarked upon rioters negatively, regardless of their level of participation. They have rejected offender mitigation when presented and have sought to promote the preservation of civilized society from the harm and threat caused by rioters. The statutory sentencing principles of punishment, deterrence are highly detectable, public protection and victim reparation moderately detectable, whilst offender reform and rehabilitation is rarely detectable. For the future, it would seem prudent that the predominantly negative emotive remarks expressed by the English judiciary are better understood. Sentencing case law may provide common reasons for the rejection of sentencing appeals, but are limited in the extent that they can reveal the related subjective emotions. Qualitative inquiries such as judicial interviews are well placed to further investigate the shared meaning of these emotions, which in turn, can lead to a better engagement with the public whom the judiciary serve.