About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2 Eur. J. on Crim. Pol'y & Rsch. 5 (1994)

handle is hein.journals/eurjcpr2 and id is 1 raw text is: Editorial From a judicial point of view sentencing can be seen as the heart of the criminal justice system. In the sentencing process several objectives (retribution, prevention, deterrence, rehabilitation) and several perspectives (the prosecutor's, the solicitor's, the defendant's - and the victim's) combine to produce the final judgement. Emile Durkheim saw the criminal procedure as 'a celebration of morality': in the sentencing process a community sets its own standards. At the same time political opportunities to influence the process of sentencing in most countries are nil. The judge, and in some countries the jury, has an independent status; Lady Justice is blindfolded. This independency of jurisdiction can be seen as a cornerstone of the constitutional state. This state of affairs however has the disadvantage of disparity. There can be disparity in sentencing between different courts of justice: a crime may be punished quite differently, not only according to the background of the defendant but also depending on the personal view of the judging party. A wider problem is the disparity between the European countries. It seems reasonable for a unifying Europe to aspire to a coherent and consistent sentencing policy. In 1992 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the Recommendation 'Consistency in sentencing' in which the governments of the member states were incited to take measures in order to avoid unwarranted disparity in sentencing. The text of this Recommendation is given in this issue of the European Journal and has inspired the compilation of this special issue on sentencing. The Recommendation is elucidated by A. Ashworth, Chairman of the Sentencing Committee which did the preparatory work: 'what the committee has tried to produce is a set of attainable standards that should succeed in bringing the sentencing systems of member states closer together on many important issues'. M. Killias (University of Lausanne) discusses, in his comment on the Recommendation, the American experience with sentencing guidelines and gives an outline of a sentencing model for European countries. When standard penalties are set for different types of offences, the judge is forced to explain the motives behind his

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most