Jonathan Hasson | University of Oxford (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by Jonathan Hasson

Research paper thumbnail of Harmonizing Divergent Purposes of Punishment in Jewish Criminal Law: Integrating Religious, Criminological, and Legal Perspectives

Notre Dame journal of law, ethics & public policy , 2024

This article investigates the purposes of punishment in Jewish law, a subject that has been conte... more This article investigates the purposes of punishment in Jewish law, a subject that has been contentious in recent scholarly discussions. It scrutinizes whether these punishments align with religious, educational, or conventional punitive principles like deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and prevention. A historical examination shows that contemporary punitive goals such as retribution, deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation, compensation, and atonement have roots in Hebrew law throughout various epochs. Notably, each advocated objective faced counterargument in a certain era, with none achieving supremacy. The article posits that the theoretical underpinnings of punishment in Hebrew law are fundamentally akin to those in general punitive theory. This similarity extends to the nature of the queries posed, the challenges encountered, the argumentative styles, and the fragmented and inconsistent answers offered. Consequently, the pursuit of a unique punitive theory within Hebrew law is deemed unproductive, as no such distinctive framework exists or has existed. Modern theories of punishment, akin to their historical Jewish law counterparts, are plagued by inherent paradoxes that appear unresolvable. Jewish legal texts add to the complexity and disarray in categorizing punitive objectives, as different goals frequently conflict. This mirrors the larger domain of penal theory policies, which constantly grapple with reconciling opposing objectives to find an appropriate equilibrium in each case.

Research paper thumbnail of Circumventing Mandatory Minimum Sentences Through Legal Representation – A Mixed Methods Study of Drunk Driving Offences

Research paper thumbnail of Trial in the Shadow of the Bargaining Range: The Sentencing Disparities Effect of Plea Bargaining — A Theoretical and Empirical Study

SSRN Electronic Journal

The "bargaining in the shadow of the trial" model, which has dominated the legal literature for t... more The "bargaining in the shadow of the trial" model, which has dominated the legal literature for the last fifty years, argues that the decision to extend, accept, or reject a plea bargain reflects the probable trial outcome. Model critics note that structural-legal and psychological factors often result in plea-bargaining outcomes that diverge significantly from trial outcomes, thus suggesting that the model requires modification. Our proposed model "trial in the shadow of the bargaining range" aims to better account for the relationship between plea-bargaining and trial outcomes. Specifically, our model explains why plea bargains catalyze a dynamic feedback cycle that leads to a continuous widening of the bargaining range and increased sentencing disparities in similar cases. To test this prediction, we defined measures that have never been used in the literature to estimate punishment disparities. These measures are based on the sanction ratio-the ratio of sentencing severity in a plea bargain to expected trial sentence. Finally, we confirmed our model's predictions through an empirical analysis of 2761 cases in which defendants were found guilty of violating Israel's law against aiding illegal aliens between 1996 and 2007, a period during which the rate of plea bargains increased. Results also suggest, contrary to the dominant model, that exogenous changes in the level of sentencing affect the sanction ratio.

Research paper thumbnail of Trial in the Shadow of Bargaining Range A Theoretical and empirical study

28(2) Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 2023

The "bargaining in the shadow of the trial" model, which has dominated the legal literature for t... more The "bargaining in the shadow of the trial" model, which has dominated the legal literature for the last fifty years, argues that the decision to extend, accept, or reject a plea bargain reflects the probable trial outcome. Model critics note that structural-legal and psychological factors often result in plea-bargaining outcomes that diverge significantly from trial outcomes, thus suggesting that the model requires modification. Our proposed model "trial in the shadow of the bargaining range" aims to better account for the relationship between plea-bargaining and trial outcomes. Specifically, our model explains why plea bargains catalyze a dynamic feedback cycle that leads to a continuous widening of the bargaining range and increased sentencing disparities in similar cases. To test this prediction, we defined measures that have never been used in the literature to estimate punishment disparities. These measures are based on the sanction ratio-the ratio of sentencing severity in a plea bargain to expected trial sentence. Finally, we confirmed our model's predictions through an empirical analysis of 2761 cases in which defendants were found guilty of violating Israel's law against aiding illegal aliens between 1996 and 2007, a period during which the rate of plea bargains increased. Results also suggest, contrary to the dominant model, that exogenous changes in the level of sentencing affect the sanction ratio.

Research paper thumbnail of IHL's Reasonable Military Commander Standard and Culture: Applying the Lessons of ICL and IHRL

Tulsa Law Journal, 2023

Empirical studies have demonstrated that cultural considerations are a factor in assessing propor... more Empirical studies have demonstrated that cultural considerations are a factor in assessing proportionality and evaluating whether an attack causes unreasonable injury. Yet, culture's influence has received minimal attention in the literature on International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This article seeks to redress this gap by opening a discussion on how the "reasonable military commander" standard-determining the relative values assigned in the proportionality equation-might be made "reasonable" from a cultural perspective. Undeniably, incorporating culture into IHL risks a dangerous slide into cultural relativism, however, ignoring its hidden applications under IHL also has risks. It has exposed the IHL to charges of Eurocentrism and neocolonialism, which has compromised its institutional reputation and effectiveness; nations are less likely to adhere to a standard which they view as biased. Requiring prevention of harm to civilians is a starting point; however, current hegemonic applications necessitate careful consideration of how a balanced interpretation of cultural reasonableness might be achieved. Through an analysis of cultural relativism and defenses in International Criminal Law, this article offers a preliminary discussion of the potential risks and gains of introducing a narrow application of cultural defense into IHL as a means of counterbalancing culture's hidden influence.

Research paper thumbnail of Harmonizing Divergent Purposes of Punishment in Jewish Criminal Law: Integrating Religious, Criminological, and Legal Perspectives

Notre Dame journal of law, ethics & public policy , 2024

This article investigates the purposes of punishment in Jewish law, a subject that has been conte... more This article investigates the purposes of punishment in Jewish law, a subject that has been contentious in recent scholarly discussions. It scrutinizes whether these punishments align with religious, educational, or conventional punitive principles like deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and prevention. A historical examination shows that contemporary punitive goals such as retribution, deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation, compensation, and atonement have roots in Hebrew law throughout various epochs. Notably, each advocated objective faced counterargument in a certain era, with none achieving supremacy. The article posits that the theoretical underpinnings of punishment in Hebrew law are fundamentally akin to those in general punitive theory. This similarity extends to the nature of the queries posed, the challenges encountered, the argumentative styles, and the fragmented and inconsistent answers offered. Consequently, the pursuit of a unique punitive theory within Hebrew law is deemed unproductive, as no such distinctive framework exists or has existed. Modern theories of punishment, akin to their historical Jewish law counterparts, are plagued by inherent paradoxes that appear unresolvable. Jewish legal texts add to the complexity and disarray in categorizing punitive objectives, as different goals frequently conflict. This mirrors the larger domain of penal theory policies, which constantly grapple with reconciling opposing objectives to find an appropriate equilibrium in each case.

Research paper thumbnail of Circumventing Mandatory Minimum Sentences Through Legal Representation – A Mixed Methods Study of Drunk Driving Offences

Research paper thumbnail of Trial in the Shadow of the Bargaining Range: The Sentencing Disparities Effect of Plea Bargaining — A Theoretical and Empirical Study

SSRN Electronic Journal

The "bargaining in the shadow of the trial" model, which has dominated the legal literature for t... more The "bargaining in the shadow of the trial" model, which has dominated the legal literature for the last fifty years, argues that the decision to extend, accept, or reject a plea bargain reflects the probable trial outcome. Model critics note that structural-legal and psychological factors often result in plea-bargaining outcomes that diverge significantly from trial outcomes, thus suggesting that the model requires modification. Our proposed model "trial in the shadow of the bargaining range" aims to better account for the relationship between plea-bargaining and trial outcomes. Specifically, our model explains why plea bargains catalyze a dynamic feedback cycle that leads to a continuous widening of the bargaining range and increased sentencing disparities in similar cases. To test this prediction, we defined measures that have never been used in the literature to estimate punishment disparities. These measures are based on the sanction ratio-the ratio of sentencing severity in a plea bargain to expected trial sentence. Finally, we confirmed our model's predictions through an empirical analysis of 2761 cases in which defendants were found guilty of violating Israel's law against aiding illegal aliens between 1996 and 2007, a period during which the rate of plea bargains increased. Results also suggest, contrary to the dominant model, that exogenous changes in the level of sentencing affect the sanction ratio.

Research paper thumbnail of Trial in the Shadow of Bargaining Range A Theoretical and empirical study

28(2) Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 2023

The "bargaining in the shadow of the trial" model, which has dominated the legal literature for t... more The "bargaining in the shadow of the trial" model, which has dominated the legal literature for the last fifty years, argues that the decision to extend, accept, or reject a plea bargain reflects the probable trial outcome. Model critics note that structural-legal and psychological factors often result in plea-bargaining outcomes that diverge significantly from trial outcomes, thus suggesting that the model requires modification. Our proposed model "trial in the shadow of the bargaining range" aims to better account for the relationship between plea-bargaining and trial outcomes. Specifically, our model explains why plea bargains catalyze a dynamic feedback cycle that leads to a continuous widening of the bargaining range and increased sentencing disparities in similar cases. To test this prediction, we defined measures that have never been used in the literature to estimate punishment disparities. These measures are based on the sanction ratio-the ratio of sentencing severity in a plea bargain to expected trial sentence. Finally, we confirmed our model's predictions through an empirical analysis of 2761 cases in which defendants were found guilty of violating Israel's law against aiding illegal aliens between 1996 and 2007, a period during which the rate of plea bargains increased. Results also suggest, contrary to the dominant model, that exogenous changes in the level of sentencing affect the sanction ratio.

Research paper thumbnail of IHL's Reasonable Military Commander Standard and Culture: Applying the Lessons of ICL and IHRL

Tulsa Law Journal, 2023

Empirical studies have demonstrated that cultural considerations are a factor in assessing propor... more Empirical studies have demonstrated that cultural considerations are a factor in assessing proportionality and evaluating whether an attack causes unreasonable injury. Yet, culture's influence has received minimal attention in the literature on International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This article seeks to redress this gap by opening a discussion on how the "reasonable military commander" standard-determining the relative values assigned in the proportionality equation-might be made "reasonable" from a cultural perspective. Undeniably, incorporating culture into IHL risks a dangerous slide into cultural relativism, however, ignoring its hidden applications under IHL also has risks. It has exposed the IHL to charges of Eurocentrism and neocolonialism, which has compromised its institutional reputation and effectiveness; nations are less likely to adhere to a standard which they view as biased. Requiring prevention of harm to civilians is a starting point; however, current hegemonic applications necessitate careful consideration of how a balanced interpretation of cultural reasonableness might be achieved. Through an analysis of cultural relativism and defenses in International Criminal Law, this article offers a preliminary discussion of the potential risks and gains of introducing a narrow application of cultural defense into IHL as a means of counterbalancing culture's hidden influence.