Abstract
Punishment in criminal law is not imposed randomly or sporadically on the offender. It must reflect the legal social control embodied in criminal law by implementing the general purposes of punishment. Imposition of punishments in this way requires an organized structure, uniform for all offenders, as the concept of equality of all individuals before the law dictates. The basic structural elements of sentencing in criminal law, the requirement of uniformity, and the determination of the type and quantity of punishment are discussed below.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Compare with Sir Frederick Jordan CJ in Geddes, (1936) 36 S.R. (NSW) 554, 555: “…the only golden rule is that there is no golden rule”. See more in Marvin Frankel, Lawlessness in Sentencing, Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy 237 (Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts eds., 3rd ed., 2009).
- 2.
Above at Chap. 2.
- 3.
Above at Chap. 3.
- 4.
For adequacy and proportionality see above at paragraph 3.1.3.
- 5.
That is also determined regarding the maximum, minimum and mandatory limitations of the offense. For these limitations see below at paragraph 4.3.2.
- 6.
Below at paragraph 4.2.
- 7.
Richard S. Frase, Sentencing Policy Development under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy 270 (Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts eds., 3rd ed., 2009); Dale G. Parent, Structuring Criminal Sentences (1989); Richard S. Frase, Sentencing Reform in Minnesota, Ten Years after: Reflections on Dale G. Parent’s Structuring Criminal Sentences: The Evolution of Minnesota’s Sentencing Guidelines, 75 Minn. L. Rev. 727 (1990).
- 8.
Cassia Spohn, Criticism of Mandatory Minimums, Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy 279 (Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts eds., 3rd ed., 2009).
- 9.
Andrew Ashworth, Techniques for Reducing Sentence Disparity, Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy 243 (Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts eds., 3rd ed., 2009).
- 10.
Robert Wintemute, Filling the Article 14 “Gap”: Government Ratification and Judicial Control of Protocol No. 12 E.C.H.R., [2004] European Human Rights Law Review 484 (2004); Norval Morris and Michael Tonry, Between Prison and Probation 33 (1990).
- 11.
See above at paragraph 2.2.2.
- 12.
Cyrus Tata, Institutional Consistency: Appeal Court Judgments, Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy 276 (Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts eds., 3rd ed., 2009); Gabriel Hallevy, Rethinking the Legitimacy of Anglo-American High Courts’ Judicial Review of Determining Factual Findings in Courts of the First Instance in Criminal Cases, 5 High Court Q. Rev. 20 (2009).
- 13.
Andrew Ashworth and Julian V. Roberts, Doing Justice to Difference: Diversity and Sentencing, Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy 342 (Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts eds., 3rd ed., 2009); Michael Tonry, Abandoning Sentence Discounts for Guilty Pleas, Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy 351 (Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts eds., 3rd ed., 2009); Michael Tonry, Individualizing Punishments, Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy 354 (Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts eds., 3rd ed., 2009); Ian Brownlee, Hanging Judges and Wayward Mechanics: Reply to Michael Tonry, Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy 359 (Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts eds., 3rd ed., 2009);Barbara A. Hudson, Justice and Difference, Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy 366 (Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts eds., 3rd ed., 2009).
- 14.
See below at paragraph 6.2.2.
- 15.
Gabriel Hallevy, A Modern Treatise on the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law 8–14 (2010).
- 16.
Ibid at pp. 138–141.
- 17.
See,e.g., article 38 of the German Penal Code, which provides: provides: “(1) Die Freiheitsstrafe ist zeitig, wenn das Gesetz nicht lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe androht; (2) Das Höchstmaß der zeitigen Freiheitsstrafe ist fünfzehn Jahre, ihr Mindestmaß ein Monat”; Article 39 of the German Penal Code provides: “Freiheitsstrafe unter einem Jahr wird nach vollen Wochen und Monaten, Freiheitsstrafe von längerer Dauer nach vollen Monaten und Jahren bemessen.”; articles 131-1 and 131-4 of the French Penal Code and subarticle 35(a) of the Israeli Penal Code, which provides: “If a Court convicted a person of an offense, then it may impose on him any penalty that does not exceed the penalty prescribed by enactment for that offense.”
- 18.
Compare People v. Wells, 33 Cal.2d 330, 202 P.2d 53 (1949).
- 19.
See above at Fig. 4.1.
- 20.
See above at paragraph 3.2.3.2. As aforesaid, there is a famous scene in the film The Shawshank Redemption (Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros., 1994), which brings home this point, in which the aged criminal Brookes finding himself unable to cope with his new found freedom does everything within his power to return to prison in order to enjoy his former status, the hot meals and personal security and when all else fails he commits suicide.
- 21.
See above at Fig. 4.1.
- 22.
Newsome, [1970] 2 Q.B. 711, [1970] 3 All E.R. 455, [1970] 3 W.L.R. 586, 54 Cr. App. Rep. 485,134 J.P. 684; Menocal, [1980] A.C. 598, [1979] 2 All E.R. 510, [1979] 2 W.L.R. 876, 69 Cr. App. Rep. 157.
- 23.
See below at paragraph 5.7.
- 24.
See below at paragraph 5.6.2.
- 25.
See below at paragraph 5.2.2.
- 26.
See e.g. article 77 of the Israeli Penal Code.
- 27.
See e.g. article 63(a) of the Israeli Penal Code which provides: “In respect of an offense through which the accused intended to cause another person monetary damage or to obtain a benefit for himself or for another person, the Court may impose on the defendant a fine four times the value of the damage caused or of the benefit obtained through the offense, or the fine prescribed by an enactment, whichever is the greater amount”.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hallevy, G. (2013). General Structure of Doctrinal Sentencing. In: The Right to Be Punished. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32388-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32388-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32387-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32388-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)