229sentencing: theory, principle, and practiceAndrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts

The passing of a sentence on an offender is the most public stage of the criminal justice process. Sentencing attracts widespread media coverage, intense public interest—and much public criticism. Selective news coverage, populist journalism, and the complex- ities of sentencing help to explain why polls conducted in all western nations routinely demonstrate that most people believe their courts to be too lenient1 (see Hough and Roberts, this volume). When researchers provide sufficient information about sen- tencing decisions, the ‘punitiveness gap’ between the public and the courts diminishes greatly—but it is the polls that attract headlines.

Comunicarea sentintei unui infractor este cea mai publica parte a procesului de justitie si atrage atentia media si a publicului, dar si critica publica. Prezentarea media selectiva, jurnalismul populist, dar si complexitatile procesului de condamnare ne ajuta sa intelegem de ce anume sondajele din tarile occidentale cred despre curtile lor de justitie ca sunt prea blande. Cand cercetatorii ofera informatii suficiente despre deciziile luate, decalajul dintre realitatea sentintei si dorintele publicului se reduc simtitor, dar in continuare sondajele sunt cele care atrag atentia.

This chapter begins by examining the various rationales for sentencing and then explores sentencing procedures and practices, including both custodial and non- custodial sentencing. We also discuss the sentencing guidelines that have been issued over the past decade in England and Wales. Throughout the chapter our focus is upon sentencing in England and Wales. However, since many of the problems confronting sentencing and indeed the solutions to those problems are shared by many countries, we also periodically provide illustrations from other common law jurisdictions.

1 Thus in 2011, three-quarters of the polled public in England and Wales expressed the view that

rationales for sentencing

sentencing was too lenient (see Ashcroft 2011 and Hough and Roberts, this volume).

sentencing: theory, principle, and practice 867

When a court passes sentence, it authorizes the use of state coercion against a person for committing an offence. The sanction may take the form of some deprivation, restriction, or positive obligation. Deprivations and obligations are fairly widespread in social contexts—e.g. duties to pay taxes, to complete various official forms, etc. But when imposed as a sentence, there is the added element of condemnation, labelling, and censure of the offender for the offence. In view of the direct personal and indirect social effects this can have, punishment requires justification. In order to understand punishment as a social institution and to understand the tensions inherent in any given ‘system’, there is benefit in identifying the principal approaches to sentencing. Among the issues to be considered are the behavioural and the political premises of each approach, its empirical claims, and its practical influence.

Cand o curte da o sentinta, autorizeaza utilizarea de catre stat a fortei coercitive impotriva unei persoane care a savarsit o infractiune. Sanctiunea poate lua forma unor privari, restrictii, sau obligatii positive. Privarile si obligatiile sunt larg raspandite in contextul social – datoria de a plati taxele, de a complete formulare etc. dar cand este impus ca sentinta este adaugat elementul condamnarii, etichetarii si blamarii infractorului pentru infractiune. In perspectiva efectelor persoanle directe si indirect sociale pe care le poate avea,pedeapsa are nevoie de justificare. Pentru a intelege pedeapsa ca pe o institutie sociala si pentru a intelege tensiunile inerente din orice system dat, este necesar a se identifica principalele abordari ale procesului de condamnare. Printre temele considerate sunt premisele comportamentale si politice ale fiecare abordari, revendicarile empirice si influentele practice.

desert theoriesRetributive theories of punishment have a long history, going back to the writings of Kant and Hegel. In their modern guise as the ‘just deserts’ perspective, they came to prominence in the 1970s, propelled by the alleged excesses and failures of rehabilita- tive ideals (von Hirsch 1976). Desert theorists argue that punishment is justified as the morally appropriate response to crime: those who culpably commit offences deserve censure; this censure should be conveyed through some ‘hard treatment’ that prompts the offender to take the censure seriously, but the amount of hard treatment should remain proportionate to the degree of wrongdoing, respecting the offender as a moral agent (see von Hirsch and Ashworth 2005).

Teoriile retributive ale pedepsei au o lunga istorie, mergand pana la scrierile lui Kant si Hegel. In forma lor moderna de perspective ale meritului just au ajuns in atentie in anii 70 propulsate de un asa zis exces si esec al idealurilor de reabilitare. Teoriile meritului sustin ca pedeapsa este justificata a fi raspunsul moral potrivit pentru crima:cei care sunt vinovati de comiterea unei crime merita blamare, aceasta blamare ar trebui transmisa printr-un tratament care cheama infractorul sa ia blamarea in serios, dar cantitatea tratamentului dur ar trebui sa raman proportionala cu gradul de gravitate, respectand infactorul ca un agent moral. von Hirsch and Ashworth 2005)

The justification for the institution of state punishment also incorporates the con- sequentialist element of underlying general deterrence: without the

restraining effect of a system of state punishment, anarchy might well ensue. Some, notably Duff (2000), tie further consequentialist aims into a fundamentally retributivist justification, arguing that punishment ought not only to communicate justified censure but also to persuade offenders to repentance, self-reform, and reconciliation. The behavioural premise of desert is that individuals are and should be treated as responsible (though occasionally fallible) moral agents. The political premise is that all individuals should be respected as moral agents: an offender deserves punishment, but does not forfeit all rights on conviction, and has a right not to be punished disproportionately to the crime committed.

Justificarea pentru institutia statala a pedepsei de asemena contine si elementul descurajarii generale:fara efetul restrictive al unui system statal de sanctionare, anarhia ar urma sa apara. Unii, cel mai notabil Duff 2000, declara ca pedeapsa nu ar trebui doar sa comunice blamarea justificata, dar de aemena sa convinga infractorii la cainta, auto reformare si reconciliere. Premise comportamentala a meritului este ca indivizii sunt si ar trebui sa fie tratati ca agenti morali responsabili- desi cateodata dispusi la esecuri. Premise politica este ca toti indivizii ar trebui sa fie respectati ca agenti morali:un infractor merita pedepasa, dar nu renunta la toate drepturile o data cu condamnaea si are dreptul sa nu fie pedepsit in mod neproportional cu crima comisa.

Proportionality is the key concept in desert theory. There are two forms of propor- tionality. Cardinal proportionality concerns the magnitude of the penalty, requiring that it not be out of proportion to the gravity of the conduct: five years’ impris- onment for theft from a shop would clearly breach that, as would the imposition of a trivial penalty for a very serious offence. Ordinal proportionality concerns the ranking of the relative seriousness of different offences: to what degree is rape more serious than robbery, for example? In practice, much depends on the evaluation of conduct, especially by sentencers, and on social assumptions about traditional (e.g. street crime) compared with new types of offence (e.g. commercial fraud, pollution). In theory, ordinal proportionality requires the creation of a scale of values which can be used to assess the gravity of each type of offence: culpability, together with aggra- vating and mitigating factors, must then be assimilated into the scale. This task, which is vital to any approach in which proportionality plays a part, makes consider- able demands on theory (see von Hirsch and Ashworth 2005: Appendix 3; Ashworth 2010: ch. 4); some would say that decisions on relative offence-seriousness can never be more than contingent judgements which bear the marks of the prevailing power structure.

Proportionalitatea este conceptul cheie in teoria meritului. Exista doua forma de proportionalitate:-proportionalitatea cardinala priveste magnitudinea pedepsei, cerand sa nu depaseasca ca proportie gravitatea comportamentului pedepsit: cinci ni pedepasa pentru furtul din magazine ar incalca acest principiu la fel cum ar facea o pedeapsa minora pentru un delict foarte grav.-proportionalitatea ordinal priveste realizarea unui clasament a seriozitatii relative a diferitelor infractiuni. In ce masura este mai grav un viol ca un furt? In practica, depinde mult de evaluarea comportamentului ,in special de catre cei care concept sentinta si pe presupunerea sociala despre infractionalitatea traditionala, a strazii comparata cu noile feluri de infractionalitate – frauda comerciala, poluare.

In teorie , proportionalitatea ordinal are nevoie de crearea unei scale a valorilor canse sa fie folosite in judecarea gravitatii fiecarei clase de fapte:culpabilitatea, impreuna cu factorii agravanti si atenuanti trebuiesc asimilati in aceasta scala. Aceasta sarcina ,vitala pentru orice abordarein care proportionalitatea joaca un rol,face uz considerabil de teorie; unii ar putea zice ca deciziile la seriozitatea relative a infractiunii nu poate fi mai mult de o judecata contingent care poarta urmele structurii de putere predominante.

868 andrew ashworth and julian roberts

deterrence theoriesDeterrence theories regard the prevention of further offences through the threat of legal sanctions as the rationale for punishing. There is little modern literature on individual deterrence, which sees the deterrence of further offences by the particular offender as the measure of punishment. A first offender may require little or no pun- ishment, while a recidivist might be thought to require an escalation of penalties. The seriousness of the offence becomes less important than the prevention of repetition. Traces of this approach can certainly be detected in the treatment of persistent offend- ers and so-called ‘dangerous offenders’ in contemporary sentencing, as noted below.

Teoriile descurajarii privesc preventia viitoarelor infractiuni prin amenintarea sanctiunilor legale ca motivare pentru pedepsire. Exista putina literature moderna despre descurajarea individuala, care vede descurajarea viitoare lor infractiuni ale infractorului particular ca pe o masura de pedeapasa. Un infractor primar are nevoie de o pedeapsa mica sau chiar deloc, in timp ce un recidivist se crede ca ar avea nevoie de o crestere a pedepselor. Seriozitatea infractiunii devine mai putin importanta decat prevenirea repetarii acesteia. Urme ale acestei abordari pot fi cu siguranta gasite in tratamentul infractorilor recidivisti si a celor periculosi in procesul modern de luare a sentintei.

More attention has been devoted to general deterrence, which involves calculating the penalty on the basis of what will deter others from committing a similar offence. Leading utilitarian writers such as Bentham (1789; cf. Walker 1991) and economic theorists such as Posner (1985) develop the notion of setting penalties at levels suf- ficiently severe to outweigh the likely benefits of offending. The behavioural premise is that offenders are predominantly rational, calculating individuals—a premise that criminologists may call into question. The political premise is that the greatest good for the greatest number represents the supreme value, and that the individual counts only for one: it may therefore be justifiable to punish one person severely in order to deter others effectively, thereby overriding the claims of proportionality.This reason- ing depends on convincing empirical evidence of the effect of deterrent sentencing on individual behaviour. This requires, among other things, demonstration that people are aware of the level of likely sentences; and that they desist from offending largely because of that sentence level and not for other reasons. A careful analysis of the gen- eral deterrence research by von Hirsch et al. (1999) found that there is evidence of a link between the certainty of punishment and crime rates, but considerably weaker evidence of a link between the severity of sentences and crime rates (see also Doob and Webster 2003; Bottoms and von Hirsch 2011).

ai multa atentie a fost acordata descurajarii general

e, care presupune calcularea pedepsei pe baza a ceea ce ii va determina pe ceilalti sa comita o infractiune similara. Scriitori utilitaristi de seama ca Bentham si teoreticieni economici ca Posner au dezvoltat notiunea de fixare a pedepselor la nivele sufficient de severe pentru a contrabalansa beneficiile posibile ale comiterii infractiunii. Premisa comportamentala este aceea ca infractorii sunt in mod predominant rationali, indivizi calculati – premise contrazisa de multi criminologi. Premisa politica este aceea ca valoarea suprema este binele cel mai mare pentru un umar cat mai mare de indivizi si ca individual da socoteala numai pentru el insusi, deci este justificabil sa pedepsesti o persoana sever pentru a-I descuraja pe altii efficient, depasind astfel pretentiile si limtarile proportionalitatii. Aceasta gandire se bazeaza pe dovezi empirice convingatoare ale efectului sentintelor descurajante asupra comportamentului individual. Este nevoie, printer altele, de demonstrarea ca oamenii cunosc nivelul sentintelor posibile si ca ei se abtin de la comiterea de infractiuni grave din pricina duratelor pedepselor si nu din alte motive. O analiza atenta a descurajarii generale a lui Hirsch 1999 a gasit ca exista o legatura intre certitudinea unei pedepse si ratele criminalitatii, dar o considerabil mai slaba legatura exista intre severitatea pedepselor si ratelor criminalitatii. Doob and Webster 2003; Bottoms and von Hirsch 2011).

rehabilitationThe rationale here is to prevent further offending by the individual through rehabilitation, which may involve therapy, counselling, cognitive-behavioural programmes, skills training, etc. Still a leading rationale in many European countries, it reached its zenith in the United States in the 1960s, declined in the 1970s, and then began to regain ground in the 1990s (see von Hirsch, Ashworth, and Roberts 2009: ch. 1). A humanitar- ian desire to help those with obvious behavioural problems has ensured that various treatment programmes continue to be developed. The key issue is the effectiveness of various interventions, and there is a long-running debate about the concept and the measurement of effectiveness (e.g. Lloyd et al. 1994). The reality is that certain rehabili- tative programmes are likely to work for some types of offender in some circumstances. The ‘What Works?’ movement rekindled interest in various programmes for behav- iour modification, with the development of ‘accredited’ programmes in prisons and as part of community sentences (see McGuire 2002; Harper and Chitty 2005), but a sober assessment of the available results demonstrated that the claims made by the Home Office and other protagonists have not been translated into practice (Bottoms 2004).

869

Reabilitarea – ratiunea fundamentala aici este de a preveni individual sa repete infractiunuile prin procesul de reabilitare, care poate implica terapie, consigliere, terapie cognitiva comportamentala, ateliere de aptitudini. Inca prezenta in multe tari europene, a ajuns la apogeun in anii 60 in America si a inceput declinul in anii 70 , castigand din nou teren in anii 90. Dorinta umanitara de a ajuta pe cei cu probleme comportamentale evidente a asigurat ca variate programe continua sa fie dezvoltate. Principala problema este eficienta variatelor forme de interventie si exista de o buna perioada o dezbatere despre conceptul eficientei si a masurare acesteia. Realitatea este ca anumite programe de reabilitare sunt eficiente in anumite circumstante pentru anumite categorii de infractori. Miscarea Ce functioneaza? A reaprins interesul pentru variate programe de modificari comportamentale, cu dezvoltarea de programe acreditare in inchisori si ca parte a sentintelor comunitare, dar o evaluare obiectiva a rezultatelor disponibile demonstreaza ca afirmatiile ministerului deinterne si ale altor protagonist nu au fost puse in practica.

The behavioural premise of rehabilitative theory is that criminal offences are to a large extent determined by social pressures, psychological difficulties, or situational problems of various kinds. The political premise is that offenders are seen as unable to cope in certain situations and in need of help from experts, and therefore (perhaps) as less than fully responsible individuals. The rehabilitative approach advocates that sentences should be tailored to the needs of the particular offenders: in so far as this needs-based approach places no limits on the extent of the intervention, it conflicts with the idea of a right not to be punished disproportionately. Its focus instead is upon the diagnosis, treatment, and completion of accredited programmes. ‘Diagnostic’ tools such as the pre-sentence report are seen as essential to this approach to sentenc- ing (see Raynor, this volume).

Premise comportamentala a teoriei reabilitarii este aceea ca infractinile sunt in mare parte determinate de presiunea sociala, dificultatile psihologice si diferite probleme situationale. Premise politica este accea ca infractorii sunt vazuti ca incapabili sa faca fata in anumite momente si au nevoie de ajutor de la experti si din aceasta cauza,poate, sunt indivizi fara e responsabilitate totala. Abordarea reabilitativa sustine ca sentintele trebuiesc lute in functie de necesitatile fiecarui individ: atat de mult incat abordarea aceasta bazata pe necessitate nu pune limite in dimensiunea gradului de interventie si intra in conflict cu ideea dreptului de a nu fi pedepsit neproportional. Se concentreaza in loc pe diagnosticul, tratamentul si incheierea programelor acreditate. Uneltele de diagnoza cum ar fi rapoartele pre sentinta sunt vazute ca necesare acestei abordari a luarii sentintelor.

incapacitationThe incapacitative approach is to identify offenders or groups of offenders who are likely to do such harm in the future that special protective measures (usually in the form of lengthy incarceration) are warranted. The primary example of this in England and Wales, originally introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, is the IPP sentence (Imprisonment for Public Protection), prescribed for certain offenders classified as dangerous. The nature of this sentence is discussed later in this chapter. Incapacitation has no behavioural premise. It is neither linked with any particular causes of offend- ing nor dependent on changing the behaviour of offenders: it looks chiefly to pre- dicted risk and to the protection of

potential victims. The political premise is often presented as utilitarian, justifying incapacitation by reference to the greater aggregate social benefit and therefore sacrificing the individual’s right not to be punished dis- proportionately to the wrongdoing. The repeatedly confirmed fallibility of predictive judgements (e.g. Monahan 2004) calls into question the justification for any lengthen- ing of sentences on grounds of public protection, and yet the political pressure to have some form(s) of incapacitative sentence available to the courts has been felt in most countries. If this is the reality of penal politics then there is surely a strong case for procedural safeguards to ensure that the predictive judgements are soundly based and open to thorough challenge.

Abordarea incapacitativa consta in a identifica infractorii sau grupuri de infractori care sunt susceptibili de a comite un rau pe viitor asa incat masuri de protectie special – incarcerari de lunga durata de regula sa fie necesare. Incapacitarea nu are o premisa comportamentala. Nu este nici legata cu o cauza anumita de producer a infractiunilor, nici dependent de schimbarea comportamentului infracctorilor: se ocupa in principal de riscurile predictive si de protectia viitoarelor victime. Premise politica este adesea utilitarista, justificand incapacitarea prin referire la beneficiul social obtinut si deci sacrificand dreptul individului de a nu fi pedepsit disproportionat cu crima savarsita. Repetatele esecuri confirmate ale judecatilor predictive aduc in discutie justificarea pentru orice prelungire a sentintelor pe baza protectiei publice si totusi presiunea politica de a avea o oarecare forma de sentinta incapacitativa disponibila curtilor s-a simtit in majoritatea tarilor. Daca aceasta este realitatea politicilor penale atunci exista cu siguranta un argument solid pentru sisteme de protective procedural care sa asigure ca judecatile predictive au o baza solida si deschise la provocari temeinice.

restorative and reparative theoriesThese are not regarded as theories of punishment. Rather, their argument is that sentences should move away from punishment towards restitution and reparation, aimed at restoring the harm done to the victim and to the community (see Hoyle, this volume). Restorative theories emphasize the significance of stakeholders in the offence (not just the state and the offender, but also the victim and the community), the importance of process (bringing the stakeholders together in order to decide on the response to the offence), and restorative goals (usually some form of repara- tion to the victim and ‘restoration’ of the community). There are many variations of restorative justice in different countries, some established in law and others at an experimental stage, and an assessment cannot be given here (see Dignan 2005). They are often based on a behavioural premise similar to rehabilitation for the offender, andalso on the premise that the processes help to restore the victim; their political premise is that the response to an offence should not be dictated by the state but determined by all the interested parties, placing compensation and restoration ahead of mere punish- ment of the offender, and encouraging maximum participation in the processes so as to bring about social reintegration.

Teorii restaurative si reparatorii – acestea nu sunt private ca teorii ale pedepsei. Mai degraba, sentintele ar trebuie sa se deplaseze de la pedepsire spre restauratie si reparative, pentru a repara rau produs victimei si comunitatii. Teoriile

restaurative evidentiaza semnificatia partilor interesate in infractiune - nu doar statul si infractorul, ci si victim si comunitatea, importanta procesului – aducand partile implicate impreuna pentru a se decide raspunsul la infractiune si scopurile restaurative – de obicei o forma de reparative pentru victima si pentru comunitate. Sunt multe variatii ale justitiei restaurative in diferite tari, unele stipulate ein legi si altele in stadiu experimental si o evaluare nu poate dfi data aici. Adesea sunt bazate pe o premisa comportamentala similara celei a reabilitarii infractorului si de asemenea pe premisa ca procesele ajuta la refacerea victimei. Premisa politica este aceea ca raspunsul la o crima nu ar trebui sa fie dictat de catre stat, ci determinat de catre toate partile interesate, plasand compensatia si restauratia mai presus de simpla pedepsire a infractorului si incurajand maxima participare in procese pentru a adduce reintegrarea sociala.

Victim personal (impact) statementsThere are other victim-oriented initiatives at sentencing. One that is widespread in both European and common law countries is to allow victims to submit a ‘victim impact statement’ (VIS) to the court, detailing the effects of the crime from their point of view. In England and Wales this is known as a ‘victim personal statement’ and may be submitted to any sentencing court. The VPS has been a feature of sentencing in this jurisdiction since 2001 but has been used in US jurisdictions, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for many years now (Roberts 2009). The VIS has generated considerable research, and has spawned much heated debate as to whether it is either appropriate in principle or desirable in practice, and whether there are benefits associated with victim impact statements (see Erez 1999; Sanders et al. 2001; Chalmers et al. 2007; Edwards 2004). It is worth distinguishing between jurisdictions which allow a victim to provide only a description of the harm and others where the statement may also include the victim’s opinion on the appropriate sentence. Criticism of the victim impact statement has focused on the latter form of victim participation. Allowing victims to make spe- cific recommendations for sentence raises deep questions about crimes as public and/ or private wrongs (see Ashworth 2010: 382–7).

social theoriesThere has been a resurgence of writings which emphasize the social and political context of sentencing (see Duff and Garland 1994: ch. 1). Important in this respect are Garland’s (1990) analysis of the theoretical underpinnings of historical trends in punishment, and Hudson’s arguments (1993) in favour of a shift towards a more sup- portive social policy as the principal response to the problem of crime. Those who have been influenced by Hart’s distinction (1968) between the general justifying aim of punishment (in his view, utilitarian or deterrent) and the principles for distribu- tion of punishment (in his view, retribution or desert) should consider the challenge to this dichotomy in Lacey (1988). She argues that both these issues raise questions of individual autonomy and of collective welfare and we should address this conflict and strive to ensure that neither value is sacrificed entirely at either stage. In developing this view she explores the political values involved in state punishment and argues for a clearer view of the social function of punishing.

Teoriile sociale – a avut loc o renastere a scrierilor care evidentiaza contextual social si politic al procesului de judecata. Importanta in acest scop este analiza lui Garland a bazelor teoretice ale curentelor istorice ale pedepselor si argumentele lui Hudson in favoarea deplasarii catre o politica sociala de sustinere ca principal raspuns la problemele crimei. Cei care au fost influentati de distinctia lui Hart dintre scopul justificativ general al pedepsei – in viziunea sa utilitarist sau descurajator si principiile distributiei pedepsei – retributive sau ale meritului ar trebuie sa ia in calcul si critica acestei dihotomii la Lacey. Ea declara ca ambele probleme ridica intrebari despre autonomia individuala si despre beneficiile collective si ar trebui sa discutam acest conflict si sa incercam sa ne asiguram ca nicio valoare nu este sacrificata in intregime in orice etapa. Pentru dezvoltarea acestei viziuni ea exploreaza valorile politice implicate in pedeapsa statala si cere o viziune mai clara a functiei sociale a pedepsei.

Sentencing rationales in practiceIt will be evident from the foregoing discussion that the various objectives for sentencing point in different directions. Despite this obvious conclusion, in 2003 the then government proclaimed that it was taking a significant step towards consistency in English sentencing by enacting section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides:

(1) Any court dealing with an offender in respect of his offence must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing—

(a) the punishment of offenders,(b) the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence),(c) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders,(d) the protection of the public, and(e) the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.

Ratiuni ae condamnarii puse in practica:Articolul 152 al Legii justitiei penale 2003:

1. orice curte care se ocupa de infractori din perspectiva infractiunii comise trebuie sa aiba in vedere urmatoarele scopuri ale condamnarii: a. pedepsirea infractorilor;b. reducerea criminalitatii – inclusive reducerea prin descurajare;c. reforma si reabilitarea infractorilor; d. protectia publicului si e. realizarea de despagubiri din partea infractorilor catre persoanele afectate de actele criminale.

Three difficulties arise with lists of purposes such as that found in section 142. First, the objectives are potentially conflicting (except for reparation which can some- times be achieved alongside another purpose). Second, no direction is provided as to whether one objective is particularly appropriate for certain cases—whether, for example, deterrence should be uppermost in a court’s mind when sentencing corpo- rate offending. Third, as the Home Office Sentencing Review (2001) pointed out, the evidence for (b), (c), and (d) is weak. It is therefore unclear on what evidence an indi- vidual sentencer could make a rational choice among the various purposes. For these reasons, lists of this kind have been criticized in the academic literature. England and Wales is not alone in taking this approach to providing guidance regarding sentenc- ing objectives. Similar lists of objectives have been placed on a statutory footing in New Zealand and Canada, and the US guidelines manuals provide a similar range of options for sentencers in the US jurisdictions (e.g. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission 2010).

However, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contains other provisions that may be used

to clarify matters. Section 143(1) states that:

In considering the seriousness of any offence, the court must consider the offender’s culpability in committing the offence and any harm which the offence caused or was intended to cause or might foreseeably have caused.

Further, when the Act sets the threshold for community sentences and for custody, and the standard for the length of custodial sentences, it uses ‘the seriousness of the offence’ as the key indicator. On this basis the Sentencing Guidelines Council (now the Sentencing Council) issued a guideline entitled Overarching Principles—Seriousness2 to the effect that the proportionality principle enshrined in section 143(1) should be used by sentencers as the touchstone. That is fully consistent with the thresholds set by the 2003 Act, but leaves the ‘pick and mix’ approach of section 142 somewhat in limbo.

It is hard to know how the various rationales for sentencing affect sentencing practice. Judges often refer to general deterrence, most notoriously in the judgment in Blackshaw [2011] EWCA Crim 2312, where sentences significantly above the guidelines were approved for offenders involved in the riots of August 2011, on grounds of general deterrence. There was no recognition of the weakness of the evidence for general deter- rence, or other objections. Parliament too has legislated for mandatory sentences— for example the mandatory minimum of five years for possession of certain firearms, in section 287 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003—based on a deterrent rationale.Protection of the public (incapacitation) remains as an exception to the proportionality principle when dealing with so-called dangerous offenders, and those provisions of the 2003 Act are discussed below.

The reform and rehabilitation of offenders is a relevant purpose once the court has decided that a community sentence of a particular level is justified by the serious- ness of the offence: in those cases, therefore, the proportionality principle must be applied first, and once the threshold is passed, the possibility of achieving a rehabilita- tive purpose enters the equation. All these points will be taken further below. What they suggest, and as the seriousness guideline states, is that proportionality should be the sentencer’s guide, except in dangerousness cases, but that within the framework of a proportionate sentence it may be desirable to aim for rehabilitation. A reparative measure may also be possible.

Reforma si reabilitarea infractorilor este un scop relevant o data ce curta a decis ca o sentinta de un anumit nivel este justificata de seriozitatea infractiunii: in aceste cazuri principiul proportionalitatii trebuie aplicat cu prioritate si dup ace acest prag este deposit posibilitatea de obtinere a reabilitarii intra in discutie.

In so far as the proportionality principle holds sway, it places some limits on the use of state power over those who offend. Even approaches that are critical of desert theory, such as the republicanism of Braithwaite and Pettit (1990) and the communitarian- ism of Lacey (1988), recognize some limits to state power at the sentencing stage. The argument that desert theory leads to harsh penalties is not sustainable by reference to international comparisons (von Hirsch and Ashworth 2005: ch. 6), although it does need to be combined with the principle of penal parsimony to ensure that a movement towards punitiveness is avoided.