A cognitive analysis of judicial sentencing in multiple-offence cases, with important policy implications.This work examines the thinking of judges as they sentence multiple offenders, and identifies the strategies judges have developed to help them apply sentencing law in individual cases from their responses when asked to 'think aloud' when undertaking sentencing problems.This work examines the thinking of judges as they sentence multiple offenders, and identifies the strategies judges have developed to help them apply sentencing law in individual cases from their responses when asked to 'think aloud' when undertaking sentencing problems.Austin Lovegrove examines the thinking of judges as they sentence multiple offenders, and identifies the strategies judges have developed to help them apply sentencing law in individual cases, based on their responses when asked to think aloud while undertaking sentencing problems. Giving increased specificity to legal analyses of the sentencing process, Dr. Lovegrove enables the appropriateness of the judicial approach to be evaluated, and offers a basis for rule-based and numerical guidelines by making what is currently a largely intuitive process more deliberative.List of figures; List of tables; Acknowledgments; 1. Judicial decision making and sentencing policy: continuation of a study; 2. A sentencing decision model: single and multiple similar counts; 3. A sentencing decision model: multiple disparate counts; 4. Testing the decision model for multiple disparate counts; 5. The techniques of data collection; 6. Judges' thoughts on sentencing the multiple offender; 7. An alternative sentencing decision model for the multiple offender; 8. Validity and development of the alternative decision model: the data collection; 9. Towards a requisite decision model for sentencing the multiple offender; 10. The armature of judicial sentencing; Appendix: Case 37 from Sentencing Research Exercise - Part 3B; References; Index. ...the book lñ