Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Punishment & Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LOVEGROVE, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Proportionality, Sentencing and the Multiple Offender

Towards a Numerical Framework

AUSTIN LOVEGROVE

University of Melbourne, Australia

This article develops a numerical framework governing the application of the principle of proportionality to the sentencing of cases comprising multiple separate offences each warranting imprisonment. The solution offered is based on an understanding, formulated by two English lawyers, that in the cumulation of sentence proportionality should be maintained between the seriousness of classes of offence: for example, no number of trivial offences warrant a sentence appropriate to a single moderately serious offence; to achieve this, cumulation of sentence across offences is in effect by decreasing gains. To operationalize this notion, pairs of offences were selected, and seriousness levels were quantified, using official statistics. The result was statements of proportionality: for example, for a case comprising secondary offences each warranting 1.2 years and together totalling 100 years, not more than 2.7 years should be added on to the sentence for the principal offence. From this a curve was calibrated as a representation of the cumulation of sentence. This framework offers a better understanding of the principle of proportionality in regard to the multiple offender, and has implications for guidance. Moreover, it provides a numerical standard against which to investigate whether judicial practice satisfies the principle of proportionality in this type of case.

Key Words: multiple offender • proportionality • sentencing guidelines • sentencing policy

Punishment & Society, Vol. 2, No. 4, 453-469 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/14624740022228105
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?