Book contents
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Criminal Law
- Part III Criminal Justice and Procedure
- 7 Proportionality of Punishment in Common Law Jurisdictions and in Germany
- 8 Criminal History Enhancements at Sentencing
- 9 Due Process
- 10 The Role of the Prosecutor
- 11 Negotiated Case Dispositions in Germany, England and the United States
- 12 Exclusion or Non-Use of Illegally Gathered Evidence in the Criminal Process: Focus on Common Law and German Approaches
- Index
- References
7 - Proportionality of Punishment in Common Law Jurisdictions and in Germany
from Part III - Criminal Justice and Procedure
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2019
Book contents
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Criminal Law
- Part III Criminal Justice and Procedure
- 7 Proportionality of Punishment in Common Law Jurisdictions and in Germany
- 8 Criminal History Enhancements at Sentencing
- 9 Due Process
- 10 The Role of the Prosecutor
- 11 Negotiated Case Dispositions in Germany, England and the United States
- 12 Exclusion or Non-Use of Illegally Gathered Evidence in the Criminal Process: Focus on Common Law and German Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
One of the most broadly accepted principles of punishment is that the severity of criminal sanctions should be proportional to the seriousness of the offence being punished. But proportionality requires a normative frame of reference – proportional relative to what underlying legal or normative values? Retributivists believe that punishment should be proportional to the offender’s degree of blameworthiness for the act(s) being punished. There are also several consequentialist (utilitarian) principles, which assess the proportionality of a penal measure relative to the expected benefits to be achieved by applying that measure. This chapter examines each of these meanings of proportionality in punishment, identifying the key elements of each concept, their similarities and differences, the ways in which common law legal systems and the German system have applied them and the possibilities for accommodating all of these principles in a single punishment model.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 213 - 260Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Albrecht, H.-J., Frisch, W. and Hirsch, A. von, Tatproportionalität. Normative und empirische Aspekte einer tatproportionalen Strafzumessung, Heidelberg, C. F. Müller (2003).Google Scholar
American Law Institute, Model Penal Code: Sentencing, Proposed Final Draft, Philadelphia, American Law Institute (2017).Google Scholar
Beccaria, C., An Essay on Crimes and Punishments, Brookline Village, MA, Branden Books (1992 [1764]).Google Scholar
Bentham, J., Theory of legislation, 4th edn, trans. Hildreth, Richard, London, Trübner (1882 [1789]).Google Scholar
Du Bois-Pedain, A. ‘Punishment as an Inclusionary Practice: Sentencing in a Liberal Constitutional State’, in Ulväng, M., du Bois-Pedain, A. and Asp, P. (eds.), Criminal Law and the Authority of the State, London, Bloomsbury Publishing (2017).Google Scholar
Eisele, J., ‘Vor § 13’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 29, Munich, C. H. Beck (2014).Google Scholar
Emmerson, B., Ashworth, A. M., Choo, A. L.-T. and Summers, M. (eds.), Human Rights and Criminal Justice, London, Sweet & Maxwell (2012).Google Scholar
Feuerbach, P. J. A., Lehrbuch des Gemeinen in Deutschland Gültigen Peinlichen Rechts, 4th edn, Darmstadt, Georg Friederich Heyer (1808).Google Scholar
Fichte, J. G., Grundlage des Naturrechts nach Prinzipien der Wissenschaftslehre, 2nd edn, Leipzig, Germany: von Felix Meiner (1922 [1796])Google Scholar
Flanders, C., ‘Can Retributivism Be Saved’, Brigham Young University Law Review (2014), 309–60.Google Scholar
Frase, R. S., ‘Sentencing Principles in Theory and Practice’, Crime and Justice, 22 (1997), 363–433.Google Scholar
Frase, R. S., ‘Limiting Retributivism’, in Tonry, M. (ed.), The Future of Imprisonment, Oxford University Press (2004).Google Scholar
Frase, R. S., Just Sentencing: Principles and Procedures for a Workable System, Oxford University Press (2013).Google Scholar
Freiberg, A., Fox & Freiberg’s Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria, 3rd edn, Pyrmont, NSW, Australia, Thomson Reuters (2014).Google Scholar
Fricker, M., ‘What’s the Point of Blame? A Paradigm Based Explanation’, Noûs, 50(1) (2016), 165–83.Google Scholar
Frisch, W., ‘Chuldgrundsatz und Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz’, Neue zeitschrift für strafrecht, 33(5) (2013), 249–56.Google Scholar
Gallas, W., ‘Der dogmatische Teil des Alternativ-Entwurfs’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 80(1) (1968), 1–33.Google Scholar
Grasberger, U., ‘Three Strikes and You Are Out’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 110 (1998), 796.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, K., ‘Punishment’, in Dressler, J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, New York, MacMillan (2001).Google Scholar
Grube, A., ‘Strafrechtspflege Die Strafaussetzung zur Bewährung’, JURA-Juristische Ausbildung, 32(10) (2010), 759–65.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press (1968).Google Scholar
Hassemer, W., ‘Symbolisches Strafrecht und Rechtsgüterschutz’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (1989).Google Scholar
Hassemer, W., ‘Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit als Grenze strafrechtlicher Eingriffe’, in Seelman, K., Wohlers, W. and Hirsch, A. (eds.), Mediating Principles, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2006).Google Scholar
Hassemer, W., ‘Sicherheit durch Strafrecht’, Eröffnungsvortrag des 30. Strafverteidigertags, Frankfurt am Main (2006).Google Scholar
Hassemer, W. and Burkhardt, B. (eds.), Die deutsche Strafrechtswissenschaft vor der Jahrtausendwende, Munich, C. H. Beck (2000).Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F., Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, Stuttgart, Reclam (1970 [1820]).Google Scholar
Henkel, H., Die “richtige” Strafe: Gedanken zur richterlichen Strafzumessung, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (1969).Google Scholar
Hirsch, A., Past or Future Crimes: Deservedness and Dangerousness in the Sentencing of Criminals, 1st edn, Rutgers, NJ, Rutgers University Press (1985).Google Scholar
Hirsch, A., ‘Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment’, Crime and Justice, 16 (1992), 55–98.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A., ‘Proportionate Sentences: A Desert Perspective’, in Hirsch, A. and Ashworth, A. (eds.), Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy Oxford, Hart (1998).Google Scholar
Hirsch, A., Bottoms, A. E., Burney, E. and Wikstrom, P.-O., Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity: An Analysis of Recent Research, Oxford, Hart (1999).Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Strafe – Warum?, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2011).Google Scholar
Honderich, T., ‘Idealism, German’, in Honderich, E. (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (1995).Google Scholar
Horn, E. and Wolters, G., ‘§ 46 StGB’, in Wolter, J. (ed.), Systematischer Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 9th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Hörnle, T., ‘Gegenwärtige Strafbegründungstheorien’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Strafe – Warum?, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2011).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., ‘Kriminalisierung im Vorfeld einer Rechtsgutverletzung’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 97 (1985).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., Strafrecht, allgemeiner Teil: die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre: Lehrbuch, 2nd edn, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter (1991).Google Scholar
Jakobs, G., ‘Das Selbstverständnis der Strafrechtswissenschaft vor den Herausforderungen der Gegenwart’, in Eser, A., Hassemer, W. and Burkhardt, B. (eds.), Die deutsche Strafrechtswissenschaft vor der Jahrtausendwende, Munich, C. H. Beck (2000).Google Scholar
Kant, I., Die Metaphysik der Sitten, trans. Ebeling, Horst, Leipzig, Reclam (1990 [1797]).Google Scholar
Kolber, A. J. ‘The Subjective Experience of Punishment Essay’, Columbia Law Review, 109 (2009), 182–236.Google Scholar
Lackner, K. and Kühl, K., ‘StGB’, in Lackner K. and Kühl K. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch mit Erläuterungen, 28th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2014).Google Scholar
Lee, Y., ‘The Constitutional Right Against Excessive Punishment’, Virginia Law Review, 91 (2005), 677–725.Google Scholar
Listz, F., ‘Der Zweckgedanke im Strafrecht’, in Strafrechtliche Aufsätze und Vorträge, 2 vols., Berlin, J. Guttentag (1905), I.Google Scholar
Maurach, R. and Zipf, H., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Teilband, 8th edn, Heidelberg, Auflage (1992), Part I.Google Scholar
Miebach, K. and Maier, S., ‘§ 46. Grundsätze der Strafzumessung’, in Jakobs, W. and Miebach, K. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, II: §§ 38-79b, Munich, C. H. Beck (2016).Google Scholar
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, The Impact of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines: Three Year Evaluation, Saint Paul, MN, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (1984).Google Scholar
Morris, Norval and Tonry, M., Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System, Oxford University Press (1990).Google Scholar
Murphy, J. G., ‘Marxism and Retribution’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2(3) (1973), 217–43.Google Scholar
Peters, S., ‘§ 153’, in Schneider, H. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, Munich, C. H. Beck (2016).Google Scholar
Pinkard, T., ‘How Kantian Was Hegel?’, The Review of Metaphysics, 43(4) (1990), 831–8.Google Scholar
Podgor, E. S., ‘The Challenge of White Collar Sentencing’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(3) (2006), 731–60.Google Scholar
Radin, M. J., ‘Jurisprudence of Death: Evolving Standards for the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 126 (1978), 989–1064.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. and Hirsch, A. (eds.), Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, Sydney, Bloomsbury Publishing (2010).Google Scholar
Roxin, C., Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil. Grundlagen, der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, Munich, C. H. Beck (1997).Google Scholar
Ryberg, J., Roberts, J. V. and Keijser, J. W. de (ed.), Sentencing Multiple Crimes. Oxford University Press (2018).Google Scholar
Schäfer, G., Sander, G. M. and Gemmeren, G. van, Praxis der Strafzumessung, 6th edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar
Shanmuganathan, J., ‘R v Nur: A Positive Step but not the Solution to the Problem of Mandatory Minimums in Canada’, The Supreme Court Law Review, (2d) 76 (2016), 329.Google Scholar
Singer, R. G., ‘Sending Men to Prison: Constitutional Aspects of the Burden of Proof and the Doctrine of the Least Drastic Alternative as Applied to Sentencing Determinations’, Cornell Law Review, 58(1) (1972), 51–89.Google Scholar
Straub, D. W. and Welke, R. J., ‘Coping with Systems Risk: Security Planning Models for Management Decision Making’, Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22 (1998), 441.Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘Schuld, Vergeltung, Generalprävention. Eine tiefenpsychologische Rekonstruktion strafrechtlicher Zentralbegriffe’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 92 (1980), 637–81.Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘Schuld ohne Freiheit? Der funktionale Schuldbegriff auf dem Prüfstand’, Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (1980).Google Scholar
Streng, F., ‘StGB § 46 Grundsätze der Strafzumessung’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Nomos Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch, 5th edn, Germany, Nomos (2017).Google Scholar
Stübinger, S., Das idealisierte Strafrecht: über Freiheit und Wahrheit in der Straftheorie und Strafprozessrechtslehre, L: Juristische Abhandlungen, Frankfurt, Vittorio Klostermann (2008).Google Scholar
Sullivan, T. E. and Frase, R. S., Proportionality Principles in American Law: Controlling Excessive Government Actions. Oxford University Press (2009).Google Scholar
Thorburn, M., ‘Proportionate Sentencing and the Rule of Law’, in Zedner, L. and Roberts, J. V. (eds.), Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ashworth, Oxford University Press (2012).Google Scholar
Tomforde, K., Die Zulässigkeit einer Unterschreitung der schuldangemessenen Strafe aus präventiven Gesichtspunkten, Baden-Baden, Nomos (1999).Google Scholar
Tonry, M., ‘Parsimony and Desert in Sentencing’, in Hirsch, A. von and Ashworth, A. (eds.), Principled sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy, Oxford, Hart (1998).Google Scholar
Tunick, M., Hegel’s Political Philosophy: Interpreting the Practice of Legal Punishment, Princeton University Press (2014).Google Scholar
Weigend, T., ‘Kommentar zu Tatjana Hörnle, Gegenwärtige strafbegründungstheorien’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Strafe – Warum?, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2011).Google Scholar
Welke, W. A., ‘Mandatory Sentencing: Ein kritischer Bericht über die Tendenzen zu absoluten Strafen im Rechtsbereich des Common Law’, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, 5 (2002), 207–14.Google Scholar
Zimring, F. E., Hawkins, G. and Kamin, S., Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and You’re Out in California, Oxford University Press (2003).Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by