Sentencing Principles

............................................................................................
Description
Uniformity and consistency in judgments and punishments is the hallmark of justice delivery system. Lack thereof brews public dissatisfaction and distrust in justice delivery system which reduces the credibility of the judicial system as a whole. The disparity and inconsistency arise mainly out of wide discretion conferred on the sentencing courts owing to prescriptions of only maximum sentences. This permits the courts to impose any sentence less than the maximum and it is here that the courts differ in their assessment of just punishment giving rise to disparities and inconsistencies. This inconsistency gets more pronounced where discretion is large because there are no guidelines, legislative or judicial, to narrow down the discretion. Judges are also human beings having different thinking and approaches to sentencing. Some are very strict, some quite lenient. Thus, while one judge may award maximum sentence, another judge, on the same facts and charges, may award the minimum. This has encouraged the practice of avoiding hearing in stricter courts by taking adjournments and waiting for the case to be listed before a softer court.
.........................................................................................
Contents
1. Crime and Punishment
2. Sentencing Policy and Practices
3. Procedural Safeguards
4. Sentencing Guidelines
5. Model Sentencing Guidelines
APPENDICES
I. Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c. 25)
II. Sentencing Guidelines for Money Laundering (UK)
III. Suggested Sentencing Working Sheet
Subject Index
............................................................................................
Author Details
J.K. Verma, Advocate, Patna High Court