International and comparative sentencing
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

International and comparative sentencing

on

  • 135 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
135
Views on SlideShare
135
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

International and comparative sentencing International and comparative sentencing Presentation Transcript

  • Definitions, purposes, and rationale of criminal sentencing  Brief notes about sentencing in our model countries  Opening to discussion on the global death penalty and workshop 
  • Mandatory sentencing: Sentence prescribed in law without discretion for sentencing authority  Discretionary sentencing: Sentencing authority can tailor sentence to circumstances of crime or offender  › This difference is a spectrum; discretion can be limited or guided by statute (mandatory minimums, etc.) › Weigh competing goals of sentencing uniformity and consistency and the risk of overpunishment
  •  Retribution › Punish offenders in proportion to their offense (“just deserts,” Old English: “that which is deserved”)  Deterrence › One less likely to commit crime if one saw harshness of punishment  Isolation › Premise that society must be protected from dangerous and violent offenders  Rehabilitation › Goal of eventually reintegrating offender into society; divert offender from traditional punishment
  •  Every society attempts to reconcile these aims differently, as they are culturally and historically contingent › For instance: Japan focuses heavily on rehabilitation, while Saudi Arabia focuses heavily on retribution
  •  England › Judicial sentencing discretion: About a century old. Consider circumstances of criminal and offense and tailor punishment › Increasingly committed to rehabilitation as an aim of criminal sentencing since 1970s on the theory that it is a cost savings for society  France › Délits (minor violations), contraventions (misdemeanors), felonies: three levels of offenses, each with different sentencing aims › Move away from imprisonment (too costly) toward alternative sentencing schemes
  •  China › Traditional tension between retribution and rehabilitation (Confucian v. Legalist views) › Emphasis on administrative punishments for lesser violations, to educate population as to what is legal and illegal › Use of forced labor as sanction › 90% of the world’s executions  Japan › Main concern: How will a criminal punishment benefit society? › Procurators have very wide discretion in choosing a sanction or not prosecuting at all › Emphasis on rehabilitation; close-knit society ensures that social isolation, and not corporal punishment, is most effective
  •  Saudi Arabia › One of the most retributivist legal systems in the world › Resisted demands for reform; belief that Islamic law is fundamentally different from Western law › In general: Perpetrator can be harmed in same manner and to same degree as victim, unless pardoned or forgiven by victim
  • What regional patterns appear from the preceding map?  Why do you think these countries still use the death penalty? Is it for the same reasons?  Is there a correlation between wealth/economic development and death penalty retention? 