Censure and Sanctions

The idea of proportionate criminal sentence - that the severity of the sanction should be determined by the gravity of the crime - has been gaining influence worldwide. Most recently, England has joined this trend with the adoption of the Criminal Justice Act of 1991, which made proportionality the primary criterion for determining the sentence, and also created a number of "intermediate" non-custodial sanctions.;Written by the principal architect of "just deserts" sentencing theory, this book deals with a number of recently-emerging conceptual questions concerning proportionality of the sentence, its rationale and the criteria for its application. The role of penal censure in justifying proportionate sentences is examined, the basis of the penal scale discussed, and the question of the need for a substantial overall reduction in penalty levels assessed.;A jurisprudence for scaling non-custodial penalties is proposed, dealing with how such penalties should be graded, and how offenders who breach the terms of their penalty should be punished. Questions addressed include: what kind of non-custodial penalties should be ruled out as degrading or intrusive - the modern equivalents of the pillory or the stocks. Finally, the politics of proportionality are addressed: what are the political presuppositions of a "just deserts" sentencing philosophy, and how do political pressures affect sentencing policies?;Other topics dealt with include how the idea of a penal censure justifies proportionate sentences; how a penalty scale should be "anchored" to reduce overall punishment levels; how non-custodial penalties should be graded and used; and how political pressures impinge on sentencing policies. The book suggests a coherent and humane way of allocating punishments, an appropriate course for a society which treats convicted offenders as citizens whose rights and choices are to be respected.