29

2
sentencing: theory,
principle, and practice
Andrew 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
interestand 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 greatlybut 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 noncustodial 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.

rationales for sentencing

1
Thus in 2011, three-quarters of the polled public in England and Wales expressed the view that
sentencing was too lenient (see Ashcroft 2011 and Hough and Roberts, this volume).

sentencing: theory, principle, and practice

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 contextse.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 theories
Retributive 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 rehabilitative 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)

867

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 proportionality. 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 theories
Deterrence 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 individualsa premise that
criminologists may call into question. The political premise is that

t
h
e

g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
g
o
o
d

f
o
r
t
h
e

g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
n
u
m
b

er 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).
mai multa atentie a fost acordata descurajarii generale, 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).

rehabilitation
The 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

d
e
b
a
t
e

a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e

c
o
n
c
e
p
t
a
n
d

t
h
e

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
e
f
f
e
c
t

iveness (e.g. Lloyd et al. 1994). The reality is that certain rehabilitative 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 sentencing (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.

incapacitation
The 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 individuals 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 theories

These 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, and
also 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) statements

There 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
victims 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: 3827).

social theories
There 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 Garlands (1990) analysis of the theoretical underpinnings of
historical trends in punishment, and Hudsons 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 Harts 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 practice

It 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)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

the punishment of offenders,

the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence),
the reform and rehabilitation of offenders,
the protection of the public, and
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 sometimes be achieved alongside another purpose). Second, no direction is provided as
to whether one objective is particularly appropriate for certain caseswhether, for
example, deterrence should be uppermost in a courts mind when sentencing corporate 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 individual 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 sentencing 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 offenders
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 sentencers 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.