Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Herz, Clara

Titel

Striving for Consistency: Why German Sentencing Needs Reform

Ist Teil von

• German law journal, 2020-12, Vol.21 (8), p.1625-1648

Ort / Verlag

Toronto: Cambridge University Press

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

PAIS Index

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Abstract Given the debate at the seventy-second Conference of the Association of German Jurists ( Deutscher Juristentag ) in September 2018 on whether German sentencing needs reform, this Article will explore this very question in greater detail. In this regard, this Article will present various empirical studies in order to demonstrate that notable inconsistencies in German sentencing practice exist. This Article will then point out that broad statutory sentencing ranges, along with fairly vague sentencing guidance, are among the main causes of these disparities. Subsequently, this Article will examine several mechanisms that selected foreign jurisdictions—namely the U.S., the U.K., and Australia—have put in place in order to enhance consistency in their sentencing practices. Three mechanisms of sentencing guidance will be distinguished here: First, formal sentencing guidelines; second, guideline judgments; and third, sentencing advisory bodies as they operate in some Australian states. This Article will compare these mechanisms and assess their merits and drawbacks. Based on this comparative study, this Article will look at how to improve consistency in German sentencing practice. In this respect, this Article will present three steps that German criminal law reform should follow, including a better sentencing framework, the strategic gathering of sentencing data, and the implementation of a flexible sentencing guidelines regime.