Systematizing the Sentencing in Discretionary Punishments in Iranian Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Abstract

Sentencing is an important phase of criminal process in a scrutinized and purposeful criminal justice and one of the controversial objects in this respect is the optimal level of judicial discretion. By and large, there are two approaches at issue in this matter. First approach, broadly taken in Iranian criminal justice system, is giving the judges a wide discretion to weigh the circumstances of each case and choosing the best punishment for the perpetrator. This approach is based on the idea that the criminal judge has a great ability in knowing the characteristics of the crime and the offender and in identifying the best reaction toward her. So, he must have a wide discretionary power to personalize the criminal reaction and rehabilitate the offender. But there have been many criticisms to this approach, theoretically and practically. So, another approach has been put forward which is based on a predefined model, called sentencing guidelines. This approach, first taken in United Sates in 1980s, is currently being implemented in many countries. Enhancing the transparency of the sentencing, promoting public confidence in criminal justice system, fastening the sentencing phase of criminal process and increasing the deterrent function of punishment by increasing its certainty, are some of the benefits of this approach.

Keywords

References

  1.  Farrar-Owens, Meredith (2013). The Evolution of Sentencing Guidelines in Virginia: An Example of the Importance of Standardized and Automated Felony Sentencing Data, Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 25, No. 3, 168-170.
  2.  Frase, Richard (2005). Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota: 1978-2003, Crime and Justice, Vol. 32, 131-219.
  3.  Hauhart, Robert (2009). Sentencing Guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania, Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 38, No. 6, 533-535.
  4.  Morley, Andrew (2014). Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission: An analysis of sentence fairness and prison population, Celebrating Scholarship & Creativity Day, Paper 5.
  5.  Rakoff, Jed (2013). Why the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Should Be Scrapped, Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 26, No. 1, 6-9.
  6.  Roberts, Julian (2011). Sentencing guidelines and judicial discretion: Evolution of the duty of courts to comply in England and Wales, The British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 51, No. 6, 997-1013.
  7.  Rodrigues McBride. Maria (1993). Restoring Judicial Discretion, Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 5, No. 4, Forum on the Sentencing Guidelines Suggestions for the New Administration and the 103rd Congress, 219-220.
  8.  Ulmer, Jeffery; and Brian Johnson (2017). Organizational Conformity and Punishment: Federal Court Communities and Judge-Initiated Guidelines Departures, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 107, Issue 2, 253-292.
  9.  United States Sentencing Commission (2005). Fifteen Years of Guidelines Sentencing An Assessment of How Well the Federal Criminal Justice System Is Achieving the Goals of Sentencing Reform, Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 17, No. 4, 269-276.
  10.  Yellen, David (2005). Reforming the Federal Sentencing Guidelines' Misguided Approach to Real-Offense Sentencing, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 1, 267-275.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics