Proportionality of Punishment in Common Law Jurisdictions and in Germany

doi:10.1017/9781108649742.007

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

Richard S. Frase ,

Carsten Momsen ,

Tom O’Malley and

Sarah Lisa Washington

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Thomas Weigend and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Cologne (Emeritus)
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany

Book contents

Get access

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.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , pp. 213 - 260

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649742.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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

Dreher, E., Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze, 33rd edn, Munich, C. H. Beck (1972).Google Scholar

Duff, A., ‘Legal and Moral Responsibility’, Philosophy Compass, 4 (2009), 978–86.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., ‘Punishment Purposes’, Stanford Law Review, 58 (2005), 67–81.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., Strafen im Rechtsstaat, Berlin, Berliner-Wissenschafts-Verlag (2000).Google Scholar

Hassemer, W., Freiheitliches Strafrecht, Berlin, Berlner-Wissenschaft-Verlag (2001).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., Censure and Sanctions, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1993).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., Deserved Criminal Sentences: An Overview, Oxford, Hart (2017).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., Tatproportionale Strafzumessung, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot (1999).Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Gegenwärtige Strafbegründungstheorien’, in Hirsch, A. von, Neumann, U. and Seelmann, K. (eds.), Strafe – Warum?, Baden-Baden, Nomos (2011).Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., Straftheorien, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck (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

Manson, A., The Law of Sentencing, Toronto: Irwin Law (2001).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, N., The Future of Imprisonment, University of Chicago Press (1974).Google Scholar

Morris, N., Madness and the Criminal Law, University of Chicago Press (1982).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

O’Malley, T., Sexual Offences, 2nd edn, Dublin, Round Hall (2013).Google Scholar

O’Malley, T., Sentencing Law and Practice, 3rd edn, Dublin, Round Hall (2016).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

Schwind, H.-D., Kriminologie, Heidelberg, Kriminalistik Verlag (2013).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

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.