Version 2 2024-06-17, 03:55Version 2 2024-06-17, 03:55
Version 1 2014-10-27, 16:27Version 1 2014-10-27, 16:27
journal contribution
posted on 2024-06-17, 03:55authored byM Bagaric
The argument in favour of a widespread fixed penalty regime - adopting a primary rationale for punishment would facilitate a more coherent and exacting approach to sentencing - the central objections against fixed penalties are that they are too severe and lead to unfairness because they are unable to incorporate all the relevant sentencing variables - by adopting a utilitarian ethic as the primary rationale for punishment, these problems can be circumvented - no utilitarian justification for disproportionate punishment, and penalties should not exceed the seriousness of the offence - no foundation for most sentencing considerations - by disregarding irrelevant considerations, the remaining can be incorporated into a fixed penalty system - the way would then be open for a coherent sentencing law system in which criminal justice is governed by pre-determined rules and principles as opposed to the intuition of sentencers.
History
Journal
Adelaide law review
Volume
23
Pagination
113-140
Location
Adelaide, SA
ISSN
0065-1915
Language
eng
Publication classification
C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Issue
1
Publisher
Adelaide Law Review Association, Law School, University of Adelaide