Search results

This study aims to provide measurable information that evaluates a company’s ESG performance based on the conceptual connection between ESG, non-financial elements of a company and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for resolving global issues.

A novel data processing method based on the BERT is presented and applied to analyze the changes and characteristics of SDG-related ESG texts from companies’ disclosures over the past decade. Specifically, ESG-related sentences are extracted from 93,277 Form 10-K filings disclosed between 2010 and 2022 and the similarity between these extracted sentences and SDGs statements is calculated through sentence transformers. A classifier is created by fine-tuning FinBERT, a financial domain-specific pre-trained language model, to classify the sentences into eight ESG classes.

The quantified results obtained from the classifier reveal several implications. First, it is observed that the trend of SDG-related ESG sentences shows a slow and steady increase over the past decade. Second, large-cap companies relatively have a greater amount of SDG-related ESG disclosures than small-cap companies. Third, significant events such as the COVID-19 pandemic greatly impact the changes in disclosure content.

This study presents a novel approach to textual analysis using neural network-based language models such as BERT. The results of this study provide meaningful information and insights for investors in socially responsible investment and sustainable investment and suggest that corporations need a long-term plan regarding ESG disclosures.

Exhibiting an unprecedented rate of advancement, technology’s progression over the past two decades has regrettably led to a disturbing increase in the distribution of child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) online. Compounded by the emergence of an underground cryptocurrency market, which serves as a primary distribution channel for these materials, the investigation and sanctioning of CSAM present a complex and unique set of challenges. The purpose of this study is to accurately diagnose the CSAM sentencing landscape and build a more comprehensive, evidence-based legal framework in penology.

The study collected and analyzed case details regarding CSAM sanctions in a database sourced from the US Department of Justice for 2020. Various factors were analyzed such as the victim’s age, offender typology and previous conviction, accompanied by an analysis of how these factors affect the sentence length.

The study found that the hierarchical agency-level interactions give insight into resource allocation prioritization, as well as confirming a close relationship between prior conviction history and sentence length, with the victim’s age inversely related to sentence length. Leveraging data-driven insights, the study paves the way for more targeted and effective sanctions, ultimately contributing to the broader goal of safeguarding children from online sexual exploitation.

The paper provides a critical analysis of the complex landscape surrounding CSAM distribution and judicial sentencing. By examining case details and leveraging data-driven insights, it offers valuable contributions to understanding the interplay between various factors such as victim age, offender typology and prior convictions on sentencing outcomes. This comprehensive approach not only sheds light on the dynamics of CSAM sanctions but also lays the groundwork for evidence-based legal frameworks in penology. Its originality lies in its nuanced examination of hierarchical agency interactions and its potential to inform more targeted interventions for safeguarding children from online exploitation.

The chapter is based on studies that explored the consideration of motherhood as a mitigating factor when sentencing women to imprisonment in criminal courts in England and Wales. Drawing upon two studies I conducted, it examines the way in which motherhood has been constructed by the courts and the difficulties in centring women's experiences within sentencing. It demonstrates how only by moving to a focus on children's rights has it been possible to ensure sentencers consider the implications of a defendant's motherhood.

The chapter outlines the parameters within which a sentencer can consider motherhood and explores some of the findings from the qualitative research I undertook with Crown Court judges, as part of a larger study in which I also interviewed children whose mother was at the time of interview in prison and the adults providing care to the children in her absence. The studies found that there was inconsistent understanding of a sentencer's duty to consider the impact of any sentence upon dependent children, coupled with a lack of understanding of the consequences of maternal imprisonment for a child. The ways in which this contravenes the Human Rights Act, 1998 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 are identified.

The resources which have been developed for sentencing professionals as a consequence of that work are discussed before considering the lack of concern for women's motherhood when imprisoning women on remand or recall. The chapter concludes with a call for motherhood, and not just children's rights, to be centred in sentencing decisions.

The very contextual nature of most mitigating evidence runs counter to America’s individualistic culture. Prior research has found that capital jurors are unreceptive to most mitigating circumstances, but no research has examined the capital sentencing decisions of trial judges. This study fills that gap through a content analysis of eight judicial sentencing opinions from Delaware. The findings indicate that judges typically dismiss contextualizing evidence in their sentencing opinions and instead focus predominately on the defendant’s culpability. This finding calls into question the ability of guided discretion statutes to ensure the consideration of mitigation and limit arbitrariness in the death penalty.

This chapter presents four theories that hypothesize race/ethnicity disparities in sentence outcomes. Empirical studies assessing the relationship between defendant’s race/ethnicity and sentence severity are discussed.

I focus on federal sentencing in terms of support or non-support of the theoretical perspectives.

Sentence disparity linked to defendant’s race/ethnicity are observed as net main effects, as a component in joint-conditioning effects with other extralegal defendant characteristics, and as a variable that conditions the effect of process-related mechanism of discretion, and legally relevant case characteristics, and as indirect effects.

Theories share substantial conceptual overlap in specifying the relationship between defendant’s race/ethnicity and predictions of the effect of defendant’s race/ethnicity on sentence severity.

The ways in which battered women respond to domestic violence, and the ways the legal system constructs those responses, constitute the framework of this chapter. The analysis focuses on mitigation in sentences of battered women who killed their abusers and examines the manifestation of agency and victimization in the mitigation structure. My thesis is that these women are perceived by courts solely as victims who lack agency and autonomy. Three main themes emerge from the analysis: first, the courts focus on the mental state of the defendants, stressing their psychological deficiencies as the primary mitigating factors. Secondly, many cases are categorized by courts as unique cases. Thirdly, in several cases the courts portray the women as “victims of circumstances”. An alternative analysis to that offered by the courts, one that seeks to reframe the mitigation process, is introduced in this chapter. According to this analysis, the narrative used in cases of battered women who kill should be changed to reflect dimensions of agency and resistance. In the suggested discourse, the abuse these women suffer is acknowledged, but is used to explain the women's urge to self-preservation and thus, the rationality and reasonableness of their acts.

This chapter aims to demonstrate that the fundamental human rights principle that no one should be subjected to (grossly) disproportionate punishment should be interpreted to take into account terminal illness of the offender. It should be applied both during imposition of the sentences and also during execution of already imposed sentences.

In order to reveal whether this principle takes into account serious medical conditions, including terminal illness of the offender in the calculus of the proportionality of punishment and whether it is applicable at the execution stage of sentences, this chapter examined the roots of the fundamental human rights principle of proportionality of punishment by briefly surveying the penal theory, jurisprudence, court cases, laws, and legislative history from the U.S. federal and state jurisdictions and from Europe.

There is a consensus among surveyed theories that terminal illness of the offender is an element of the principle of proportionality of punishment. Thus the fundamental human rights principle must be interpreted to take it into account. The principle should be observed not only at the imposition stage, but also at the execution stage of already imposed sentences.

This chapter re-examines the roots of the fundamental human right to not being subjected to (grossly) disproportionate punishment. It does so in order to demonstrate that the right should be interpreted to take into account terminal illness of the offender and that it should be observed not only at the imposition stage, but also at the execution stage of already imposed sentences.

This chapter explores some of the risks and constraints associated with defendants’ apologies during allocution at sentencing. It argues that defendants’ stigmatized institutional role identities in conjunction with the constraints imposed by the discursive context of allocution function to limit both the effectiveness with which defendants can speak on their own behalf and the kinds of things that they can say. Allocution has long been understood as a protection for defendants. This chapter proposes that the ideologies associated with this turn at talk have functioned to obscure the ways in which allocution preserves existing power configurations instead of challenging them.