A proper sentence is a composite of many factors, including the nature of the
offense, the extenuating or aggravating circumstances related to the offense,
the prior criminal record (if any) of the offender, the age of the offender, the
professional and social record of the offender, the background of the offender
with reference to education, home life, sobriety, and social adjustment, the
emotional and mental conditions of the offender, the prospect for the
rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of treatment or training for the
offender, the potential for the sentence to serve as a deterrent to crime by
this offender or others, and the current community need (if any) for such a
deterrent in relation to the specific type of offense involved.
It is the felonious propensity of an offender that requires consideration when
dealing with the question of imposing the death sentence. However, that alone
cannot be the sole basis; all other factors related to the commission of the
crime, including the motive, manner, magnitude, age, composition of the family,
and the circumstances under which the offense was prompted, must also be taken
into consideration. The socio-economic status, religion, race, caste, or creed
of the accused or the victims are irrelevant considerations in sentencing
policy.
Some judges count the number of fatal wounds, while others consider the nature
of the weapons used. Some focus on the age or sex of the offender, and there are
even those who examine the time lapses between the trial court’s award of the
death sentence and the final disposal of the appeal. Motives, provocations,
primary or constructive guilt, mental disturbance, old feuds, the savagery of
the murderous moment, or the premeditation leading up to the killing-all these
odd factors enter the sentencing calculus for some judges. Interestingly, a
well-considered death sentence by the trial court may sometimes be overturned by
the Supreme Court due to delays in the legal process.
Courts have directed the execution of murderers who are mentally impaired and do
not fall within the McNaughten Rules because of the intense fury of the
slaughter. Subjectivism, preferences for old English precedents, theories of
modern penology, behavioral emphasis, social antecedents, judicial hubris, and
human rights—all these forces play a part in the erratic pendulum of sentencing
justice.
Precedent, the applicability of statute law, the separation of powers, legal
presumptions, statutes of limitations, rules of pleading and evidence—all these
factors enable judges, in most cases, to stay within the bounds of established
norms. However, when these prove inadequate, especially in courts of last resort
or Supreme Constitutional Courts, judges must rely on their own value systems.
Thus, it can be said that a judge’s philosophy is the most important aspect.--
Richard
B. Brandt
Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email:
[email protected], Ph No: +9051244073
Please Drop Your Comments