Criminology notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB Criminology law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Criminology notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highes...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminology Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Ashworth: The State needs a primary rationale/purpose of sentencing
Shouldn’t have a single rationale, but giving absolute discretion to sentencers is also inappropriate and inconsistent
In Sweden, Desert (Proportionality) is the primary rationale except in identified cases
CJA 2003 s142: Court must have regard to the purposes of sentencing
Punishment
Reduction of crime (including deterrence)
Reform and rehabilitation
Public protection
Reparation
Hart: Mixed theory
Utilitarian aim of crime reduction is the General Justifying Aim of punishment, while justice determines who to punish and to what extent
Criticised by Bageric and Braithwaite: unclear when the GJA can be ignored in favour of other considerations
VIEW: Neither pure utilitarianism nor pure retributivism can act both as a justification for punishment and for determining the detailed sentence required
Punishment is the right of a ruler
Punishment must be based on the principle of equality
Sentences should be based on the law of retribution (ius talionis)
Anything less would be collaborating in the public violation of justice
No autonomous creature can be treated as a means for the happiness of others
Offenders are rational individuals who choose to commit crimes
“by being punished he is honoured as a rational being”
Offenders cannot be treated as animals who must be rendered harmless or deterred and reformed by the system
No need to have literal equality of punishment, but rather corresponding deserts
Deterrence and rehabilitation can be results of retributive punishment, but not the prime purposes of it
Tonry (1993): This conflicts with parsimony and the reduction of suffering
Wouldn’t impose the most economical or least severe punishment available
Feinberg (1994): Punishment doesn’t only affect the offender
Not only is the effect hard to measure, but it also has effects on the innocent family
Walker (1991): Exact commensurability is unattainable, proportionality is a “ladder with rungs that are both sliding and elastic” in order to consider culpability
Von Hirsch: Doing Justice (1976)
Sentencing should be primarily concerned with seriousness
REJECTS the talionic view of desert theory
Von Hirsch: Past or Future Crimes (1986)
2 grounds for punishment (bifurcated rationale)
Crime prevention
This avoids the absolutist view that punishment is required for censure even if it served no preventive purpose (as pointed about by Kant)
The hard treatment “registers disapprobation”
Censure
Normative censure is an appeal to moral reasoning
Von Hirsch: Censure and Sanctions (1993)
Further developed the bifurcated view
Moral (normative) censure was now seen as the primary purpose of punishment
Victim: Acknowledges that the perpetrator caused harm to the victim
Perpetrator: Conveys “disapprobation of the person punished”
3rd parties: Gives them a reason to avoid such conduct because it is presented as being morally wrong
Hard treatment provides a “prudential reason that is tied to, and supplements, the normative reason conveyed by penal censure”
Ashworth and Von Hirsch (2005): Punishment has a secondary preventive role via hard treatment, but is justified by normative retributivism
People are neither angels (normative censure would suffice) nor beasts (only hard treatment would be effective), so both are needed
Censure is part of recognizing the offender’s moral autonomy
Rejects the theory that punishment rectifies the “unfair advantage” gained by the offender through offending
Why proportionality?
It is part of “everyday notions of justice” that “penalties should fairly reflect the degree of blame-worthiness of the conduct involved”
Provides some degree of guidance: “penalties should be graded in severity to reflect the gravity of the offences involved”
Desert must be applied parsimoniously
Proportionality can be used to scale penalties down
Ashworth and Von Hirsch (2005): Allow for “limited deviations” to achieve other pressing objectives of punishment
Success of desert theory depends on whether the punishment is accurately scaled to the crime, not by the amount of crime reduction
Bottoms: This is a type of “forward-looking communicative theory of punishment”
CJA 1991: placed an emphasis on proportionality in sentencing
Dingwall (2008): Although the focus has been modified, there is still a need for proportionate or “commensurate” punishments (CJA 2003 s153)
Ordinal proportionality
Ranking offences in relative seriousness to each other
Wolfgang’s studies suggest that people have largely similar intuitive ranking of offence seriousness, with some contentious issues
Ranking punishments in relative severity
Cardinal proportionality
Relating the ranked offences with the scale of punishment
Von Hirsch: Excessively harsh punishments can be avoided by choosing the right anchoring point
Limited by basic human rights
Should use the lowest sentence which satisfies desert (but not just in order to save costs, which is the utilitarian view)
Jareborg and Von Hirsch: Seriousness and severity can be determined according to the “living standard” framework in terms of the impact on important interests
Severity is not a matter of “subjective unpleasantness”
ISSUE (Walker): Sentencing SHOULD take into account individual sensitivity
Von Hirsch (1993): A desert model “permits reliance on other factors (including those of crime prevention) for some purposes—e.g. for deciding among sanctions of comparable onerousness”
Ashworth: Even opponents to this theory agree that wholly disproportionate sentences are unacceptable, so this is relevant at least in determining broad ranges
Proportionality sets the outer boundaries by determining what is disproportionate
So that even if...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminology Notes.
Criminology notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB Criminology law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Criminology notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highes...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started